[rampant]

It's impossible. Even with a tweaked config with it's roots in locki's .cfg, the FPS is almost always below 30. I wouldn't consider it running well unless the FPS was almost always 60 or above. How can apple say that this is the game that shows off the PBG4's 3d capabilities! Gnaah!

30 fps feels so dirty!

[seanyepez]

Definitely.

Thirty frames per second is almost unbearable, especially if you're playing it on a computer with an LCD panel.

Even if your eyes cannot see more than fifty or sixty fluid frames per second (thirty or so "whole" frames per second), you have more control over your character if you have a faster framerate. It's not all about graphics; more frames equals more mouse and keyboard input.

[SteveJobs]

Seanpayez, could you explain what you mean somewhat nearer? I always have discussions with people, that it does not matter if they have 60 fps or 160 fps, since their eyes cannot see a difference. Am I wrong?

[seanyepez]

If you spell my name correctly, I will answer you.

[seanyepez]

Fine. I'll be altruistic.

Having sixty frames per second is likely enough for most gamers. Casual gamers can stand thirty or so frames per second, but if you're looking to actually have a fighting chance online, you should be using a tweaked graphics configuration and a relatively fast computer. I won't play with anything under fifty frames per second. It's too choppy and unresponsive for any serious play.

It all depends on if you're looking to have fun or if you're looking to win. LAN parties with friends are fun even if you have crappy hardware, but more competitive LAN parties are no fun if you're being owned by someone with a gaming PC rig that pumps out 400 frames per second.

Having more frames per second allows for better control and reaction. Twenty frames per second means you have to wait 50 milliseconds for each frame to draw. I suppose the real, rational limit at where framerate starts to not matter is if you have a rig that can pull a constant 85 frames per second at the display (not the graphics card). Why? USB mice poll that fast.

More frames per second makes it easier to stay alive through an intense battle where your graphics are taxed the most. It doesn't matter if you're getting eighty frames per second with no action if your computer slows down to twenty frames per second when in battle; it's when you need those frames the most.

My machine can pull a constant 300 to 600 frames per second with my Quake configuration in Windows 2000. I'll post a screenshot or two when I get my server up again. It's dead right now; it can't see its drives. I really don't need that many, and I cap my framerate at 125. Movement is more fluid, even, and faster when you have a capped, high framerate.

[rampant]

Exactly. My laptop (which I had to shop very hard for to get a high-refresh LCD display for) gets around 100-125 fps constant in Quake 3. I have it capped at 125 for better movement. While my laptop has a 60hz refresh screen, which is just perfect for games, I still need more than 60fps average, because if the FPS drops below 60, past 50, it gets choppy and mouse input is worse. That's why I cut detail to get 90+fps in the timedemo, more leighway in FPS means a more constant, smoother game. I cannot stand 30 fps in any FPS, I can't stand anything less than 50.

UT is different, though. If you get 68 fps in the cityintro timedemo, you're in good shape. The timedemo is pretty taxing, more sothan a deck016 fight, and in UT the physics aren't FPS based, so you don't need to have 125 fps most of the time to trick jump (which there are none anyway). But the golden fps for a baseline for any fps is 55+ average, for it to look smooth.


Another odd thing is that FPS games require the highest framerate of any genere. Most people can play flight sims at 28fps and it will appear silk smooth.

[new newton]

You guys are full of it.

[fulmer]

Originally posted by new newton:
<STRONG>You guys are full of it.</STRONG>

care to elaborate, or just trolling by?

[Jansar]

If PCs are SO SLOW, then how can they pump out nice smoothness in games? I mean, I hate PCs, but somehow (even my friend's laptop) can pump out nice framerates. I don't get it. But then you use other stuff like OS performance, Final Cut Pro, and Photoshop filters, Mac is phenomenally faster. These speeds are quite confusing.

[rampant]

Originally posted by Jansar:
<STRONG>If PCs are SO SLOW, then how can they pump out nice smoothness in games? I mean, I hate PCs, but somehow (even my friend's laptop) can pump out nice framerates. I don't get it. But then you use other stuff like OS performance, Final Cut Pro, and Photoshop filters, Mac is phenomenally faster. These speeds are quite confusing.</STRONG>

PC's aren't slow. That's the bottom line. Macs are faster in Apps written for them and written with altivec threading, but that's it. Internet stuff, games, windows itself, all faster. My P3 950mhz laptop with a 16meg DDR Radeon and 128 megs of ram delivers 70+ fps in UT at 800 x 600 and 90+ averages in Q3 timedemo's. (I cap my fps in quake 3 now though, Trick jumping isn't important when you get so much tearing from the high framerate. PC's just have better hardware for games, from video to audio.

[rampant]

Originally posted by new newton:
<STRONG>You guys are full of it.</STRONG>

I hate you.

This may change if you bother explaining yourself.

Explaining framerates for the 5th time in one day makes me grumpy .

[beaver]

As an avid gamer, i can easily tell the difference between 60 fps and 130fps. In major tournaments, you have to cap your maxFPS at 60 to make it fair for everyone, and it really hurts my game.

In games like quake3, you can't make certain jumps/hops without frames of 125 or higher.

Also...30fps heh, my pc pulls over 140 in RTCW

[Jansar]

I have acceptable gameplay, and actually many games run well.

However, it seems that my computer is not going fast enough. I see all these slow PCs have faster-running games, and I was just wondering what the problem was. PC game cards come out earlier, and my friends here at school happen to be the first people to buy them.

[beaver]

That's not necessarily true. I slapped my Asus Geforce 3 into my apple when i did the test, and it was still a good 30fps slower than my unclocked 1.0gighz amd machine. Theorettically, with r_smp 1 enabled, the G4 should beat my x86 machine seing as how it is running at dual 600, and apple claims that their g4's are 100% faster clock per clock compared to x86 architecture.

[new newton]

Originally posted by fulmer:
<STRONG>

care to elaborate, or just trolling by?</STRONG>

It doesn't matter if I explain it or not. Some people have themselves sold already. Lengthy, detailed BS is still just BS.

There a physiological limits that these 'experts' ignore. It quickly becomes a game of machoism rather than reality. People who contend they can tell the difference between 50 and 60fps are fooling themselves. Not that they'll ever come to realize that, of course.

[beaver]

TV is motion blurred at 30fps.
On a computer you need tripple the Frames to create motion blur in the brain.

Also, maybe it has to do with being able to slice fine enough for your reflexes to notice. Your reflexes (trained ones) can be much better than 1/60th of a second.

Just my theory...but there IS a difference

[SteveJobs]

Isn't the problem that THthe graphic card drivers of Mac OS and OS X are still pretty bad?

Otherwise, the mac is pretty good in performance.

[mac freak]

Television runs at 24 FPS. Anything equal or higher is what most normal people refer to as "fluid motion."

The human eye cannot take in more than 60 FPS, so anything running at 60 FPS or higher LOOKS the same.

Yes, having higher framerates DOES help with control, but past a point the differences are so infinitesimally small that the perceived differences are most likely a placebo effect rather than actual advatages/improvements.

As we all know though, the primary reason we care about framerates is because we want ours to be higher than our friends' .

[greggers]

Just wondering, are you playing at greater than 640x480 and 16bit textures? I play on my ti400 and am pretty happy. The frame rate starts to bother me if I go into games with more than 25 people or so.

I would imagine with the radeon in the ti667 at 640x480x32 would be probably twice as fast than my machine, so about 50 frames/sec.

It could also be your ping. Do you normally have low-ping (broadband) cannection when you play with your laptop?

Also, I disagree with the "low-framerate blows on an lcd," Seanyepez---especially for online play. I mean, please, most people's pings are 100-200ms. Framerates are only part of the formula. You really just need to learn how to compensate and understand how people react to gunfire in their face.

[seanyepez]

It's not a placebo effect. Framerate matters up to 125 frames per second. Then, you go beyond the sampling rate of USB mice.

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by Jansar:
<STRONG>If PCs are SO SLOW, then how can they pump out nice smoothness in games? I mean, I hate PCs, but somehow (even my friend's laptop) can pump out nice framerates. I don't get it. But then you use other stuff like OS performance, Final Cut Pro, and Photoshop filters, Mac is phenomenally faster. These speeds are quite confusing.</STRONG>

Optimization. 90% of the work on a game is optimizing it. 5% is making it, the other 5% is the mac port. They have fairly old libraries that are especially fine tuned for fps. M$ knows that games sell and help keep the home market, it compliments Office in the work place. so they put a lot of resources in making it run best on their OS.

remember when the RTCW test came out? when a dual 900 P3 was getting 30fps vs a dual 800 getting 90fps? my dual 450 got around 50 Take a look at how much better the final optimized code is, and you will see where all that time and energy went.

[The Dude]

I really don't know what in the hell you FPS junkies are bitching about...

My Ti/550 gets a very decent 40FPS+...

And in corridors? Hell, 60-90+.

And besides that, who cares if your computer can churn out 300+ FPS...if you're crap gamer, it doesn't make a lick of difference either way. If you can play well with crappy hardware, then you're set.

[mac freak]

Originally posted by seanyepez:
<STRONG>It's not a placebo effect. Framerate matters up to 125 frames per second. Then, you go beyond the sampling rate of USB mice. </STRONG>

True, true. I wholeheartedly agree that everything up to 125 FPS helps with control (see my previous post). However, when one's FPS gets HIGHER THAN THAT, all "differences" are nothing but a placebo effect! (sort of like, back in the days of new-pirated-OSX-build-each-week, every new install seemed faster than its predecessor for the first 10 mins.).

[rampant]

Originally posted by new newton:
<STRONG>

It doesn't matter if I explain it or not. Some people have themselves sold already. Lengthy, detailed BS is still just BS.

There a physiological limits that these 'experts' ignore. It quickly becomes a game of machoism rather than reality. People who contend they can tell the difference between 50 and 60fps are fooling themselves. Not that they'll ever come to realize that, of course.</STRONG>

You're wrong. I can very easilly tell the difference between 50 and 60. 50 is noticably choppy when you turn, 60 isn't.

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by mac freak:
<STRONG>Television runs at 24 FPS. Anything equal or higher is what most normal people refer to as "fluid motion."
</STRONG>

Television is 29.97. You're thinking of film. In any case they are constant, your TV frame rate does not drop when there are more objects on screen.

[new newton]

Originally posted by rampant:
<STRONG>

You're wrong. I can very easilly tell the difference between 50 and 60. 50 is noticably choppy when you turn, 60 isn't.</STRONG>

Uh huh...

I don't know where people get these numbers from...

[gee308]

the 25 and 30 numbers u r hearinf for tv is based on ntsc and pal. The US one is exactly 25 though, but the otehr one is 30.

[rampant]

I was talking about that amount that people can see. I've heard everything from 15 fps to 100.

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by gee308:
<STRONG>the 25 and 30 numbers u r hearinf for tv is based on ntsc and pal. The US one is exactly 25 though, but the otehr one is 30.</STRONG>

US Television is not 25 fps, it's 29.97 (30) which is NTSC. PAL is 25.

[Deal]

OK, here's a question then.

When I play at home, on a cable modem on a Ti powerbook. At work I have a G4733 ( with nvidia Gforce 3) on a T1 (with a cinema display).

If I have a BFG ( I can't remember what it's called, the one you can't run worth a damn with but shoots like crazy), on the G4 it sounds at least 10 times faster and kills people dead, FAST. At home it sounds much slower and takes longer. So, What's with that?

[Chimpmaster]

I learnt to play quake 2 and then later cs and quake 3 on pretty low spec machines.

When you get good playing at 20fps (dial up & an ibook)- and i mean ranking well and topping those rooms, it does a lot for your lan ability -

Anyway anyone who considers themselves to be good (but is and always has used fast systems), you should try playing on a shite spec machine and see how you go. Its much harder but it does improve your skills a lot in my opinion. Just like playing with a small handicap i guess.

[Pinky]

Try it with 16bit textures instead of 32..makes a huge difference (on a 500Ti - old vid card), but it's a lot less pretty...Wasn't there an issue with OSX & 32bit stuff, where it would take a lot more time then needed to process ? (read that somewhere...).
Still very playable to me though...So should be great on yours...

[Jansar]

Playing with 16 bit will definitely do the trick, but Im sorry to say that people will be sorely dissapointed with the image quality. There are all of these small dots all over the screen. I actually have to run games like this (since my Radeon fried) because I now have a Rage 128 nestled in my Cube.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by mac freak:
<STRONG>Television runs at 24 FPS. Anything equal or higher is what most normal people refer to as "fluid motion."

The human eye cannot take in more than 60 FPS, so anything running at 60 FPS or higher LOOKS the same.
</STRONG>

That is incorrect. Human eyes don't see in FPS. We are not videos and TVs. It takes roughly 15FPS to produce the illusion of smooth motion between frames. The 30FPS and 25FPS of NTSC and PAL are technological restrictions that have nothing to do with human eyes. We can see EVERY FRAME.

When it comes to computer games however, it depends on your own taste. Some people might not be spritely enough to deal with 60FPS. Some people really enjoy super fast framerates. As long as the game is smooth and the frame rates constant.

My Athlon 1.4Ghz does 90FPS in RTCW Multiplayer at 1280x1024. God knows how that guy got 140FPS. I couldn't deal with 30FPS.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Jansar:
<STRONG>Playing with 16 bit will definitely do the trick, but Im sorry to say that people will be sorely dissapointed with the image quality. There are all of these small dots all over the screen. I actually have to run games like this (since my Radeon fried) because I now have a Rage 128 nestled in my Cube.</STRONG>

Have you seen how lame the game looks in 16bit running on a Mac Radeon?

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by mac freak:
<STRONG>The human eye cannot take in more than 60 FPS, so anything running at 60 FPS or higher LOOKS the same.</STRONG>

That depends on the person. The human eye can make out more than 60 fps, but not by much. Here's a URL with some info - see the section on "eliminating flicker":

Info on flicker

The easiest way to determine is to set your monitor to 60, 70, 72 and 75 and look at something else such that your monitor is in the corner of your eye. When you can no longer detect the flicker (try a black page with a white image in the center), you've hit your limit. I've read elsewhere that your ability to detect this flicker also depends on the contrast of the image, so that dim or low-contrast images don't exhibit flickering at lower refresh rates.

The ideal condition is to set your monitor to a refresh rate for which you cannot detect the flickering with your peripheral vision. Once you've done this, you ideally want the game to sync to that refresh rate so that you do not get visual tearing. For this to be successful, the game typically needs to crank out roughly 70-75 fps minimum. LCD monitors are flidker free but lack the ability to refresh as fast as cathode tubes so you see blurring instead.

As an interesting side note, flourescent lights flicker at roughly 60Hz here in the US, owing to the 60Hz AC power cycling. I believe it's 50Hz in most other countries.

Brad

[Chimpmaster]

Its all about averages.

Some people say 30fps is perfectly acceptable. THis is true - in a sense. 30fps is perfectly acceptable as the minimimum frame rate.

But for a machine to be pumping out 30fps minimums its mean fps would need to be 60 or so.

Think of it as a cyclic bell curve, 30fps minimum, 90 fps maximum, 60fps standard.

Its no good having 30fps in corridors if outside you drop below 10 - then it would be choppy like my ibook