Bored Druid ThreadFollow

Double post, lolwut?

Edited, Oct 23rd 2011 12:56pm by idiggory

I can't say I understand why that's the way it is, but I know that it's true, because I myself have tested several jumps and other things at 91 fps, and they just don't work. Once you uncap your fps, it becomes possible.



That's why I consider Promod to be the greatest competitive first person shooter available at the moment. Espeically when your watching guys like this

I still don't understand peoples obsession with high quality beer. I drink to get drunk, and feel good. That's why I don't mind drinking cheap swill like Bud and Heineken. Having said that, I do like whisky.

My drinking experience usually went like this:

Half-pint of good beer. Tipsy enough to switch to whatever. Two pints of Strongbow. Fall asleep.

I remember one of my first times drinking. I had 1 can of Strongbow. I fell asleep.

Cider still messes me up really, really quickly.

I think cider or Crabbies will be why I start drinking again if I do.

I think I've just realised how to best explain the FPS thing in the best possible way. Battlefield 3 plays at 30 frames a second, and Call of Duty plays at 60. Now, by your logic, the games shouldn't feel any different, because the human eye can't see anything higher than 24 (25?) frames a second. However, when you play both games, there's a world of difference in the speed of the game.

Our point is that it makes no sense for something to be possible at one fps but not another.

Suppose you locked the monitor at 60 fps without locking the game. Your GPU would still be putting out 91 fps, but you'd only be seeing 60. Now say that player 2 is actually playing at 91. It shouldn't be the case that the 91 fps player is able to do anything the 60 fps player can.

You can only "see" 25fps or so, more than that it just gets smoother and smoother.

There is a difference between the type of frames they use when filming and the type they use in animation.

Because the still frames of television/films use motion blur, it does part of the job for your brain already. You "see" the movement, because the frames reconstruct it for you. This is only possible, though, because they are constant--you don't get frame rate dips when you aren't using a processor to produce a new image.

With graphical works, however, it's different. They can't produce motion blur (at least not well), so they can't use blurred images to help your brain along. So they go for high frame rates, so that your brain will "see" a new image every time it processes one, and that change in frames will reproduce the movement in your mind.

So going from 10 to 20 fps is going to be a big difference, because at 10 fps your eye will "see" the same image more than once, which creates an odd stutter in the brain's recreation of the movement.

But once you are at the point where you have 60 fps, this will NOT be a problem--there's no way your eye is going to end up seeing the same image twice. However, higher frame rates means more diverse pictures. So that more "stages" of a movement are available, your eye gets to see a more fluid picture.

However, the difference is slight. And it really shouldn't be too big a deal for people--you honestly shouldn't be able to tell the difference if you are playing a capped game or an uncapped one.

As for frame rates actually affecting your ability to do something... If that's TRUE, then I simply cannot believe that it actually has anything to do with the frame rate. It's not possible that human reactions are quick enough to do something in such a small fraction of a second that would only be made available with higher frame rates.

If having an uncapped frame rate is helping you play, then it's because their cap is doing something really wonky with the actual game that's otherwise completely unrelated to the pictures.

For clarification, it's like they designed the game to act differently according to the number of frames you can see. Which is a stupid thing to do (although possible).

For instance, perhaps they thought about automatic weapons. Maybe they decided to "scale" rate of fire so that you'd always have frames detailing specific stages of the firing. So that would require them to slow the rate of fire if your system couldn't keep up with the animations.

But it's a stupid thing to do in any kind of competitive game. And it has nothing to do with frame rates and everything to do with bad design.

Ohhh, Quake 3 was how I learned about C++.