DOOM3 "Locked at 60FPS": What does it mean?

[Cannibal Corpse]

Topic.
Thanks a lot in advance.

 

[fazzman]

that means you'll never get above 60 fps in game. they capped the framerates at 60

 

[OrionNT]

It means with the system in my sig you can run ULTRA detail and 4x AA and get 60 fps most of the time.

 

[MasterCD]

I believe the game updates itself internally 60 times per second. So if any frames are rendered faster than the game can update, they are just duplicates of whats already there (assuming the fps limit was lifted). Kinda pointless to have the same frame rendered twice, so its limited to 60fps.

Although I could be wrong, this is just an assumption I have based on other games that work that way.

 

[gumplunger]

I'm assuming another reason Carmack pushed for the 60 fps cap was that many hardcore gamers demand nothing less than 120 fps constantly in their games (cough cough quake 3) and since Doom 3 more than most games emphasizes image quality over having the most FPS, the game was capped. Not to mention the human eye can't tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps anyway.

 

[souja9]

60fps is as fast as you'll get on the current crop of LCD's as well (60 Hz refresh).

 

[Vermicious Knid]

You had a decent/intellegently thought out post going untill you said this:

Not to mention the human eye can't tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps anyway.

I wish people would stop spouting this garbage. there is no fps cap on the human eye!
Studies have shown people can notice up to 200fps and more in some cases.

 

[shaocaholica]

Wasn't this cap supposed to prevent certain visual anomolies associated with super high frame rates?

 

[PopCorn]

It means with the system in my sig you can run ULTRA detail and 4x AA and get 60 fps most of the time.

lol, sup OrionNT! =)

 

[Dijonase]

I wish people would stop spouting this garbage. there is no fps cap on the human eye! Studies have shown people can notice up to 200fps and more in some cases.

It depends on what exactly you mean. If I was shown a film clip at 150 FPS with a single frame that was just a solid blue color I'm sure I'd be able to notice. If, however, the blue frame was removed and I was shown the clip at both 100 FPS and 150 FPS I'm sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference at all. I understand that the human eye can pick up a small anomaly at more than 60 FPS, but with the fluid movement of a game I really don't think that it makes any difference.

Case in point: 3DMark03. We've probably all run it at least once. The very first demo shows a massive air battle. The FPS counter in the corner (for me anyway) ranges from several hundred FPS to seventy-something FPS and I can't tell a lick of a difference.

 

[rayg]

thats because your refresh rate isnt high enough for you to see a difference

 

[enyx]

It depends on what exactly you mean. If I was shown a film clip at 150 FPS with a single frame that was just a solid blue color I'm sure I'd be able to notice. If, however, the blue frame was removed and I was shown the clip at both 100 FPS and 150 FPS I'm sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference at all. I understand that the human eye can pick up a small anomaly at more than 60 FPS, but with the fluid movement of a game I really don't think that it makes any difference.

Case in point: 3DMark03. We've probably all run it at least once. The very first demo shows a massive air battle. The FPS counter in the corner (for me anyway) ranges from several hundred FPS to seventy-something FPS and I can't tell a lick of a difference.

Perhaps you can't, but why don't you load up Quake 3, lower the console and type in "com_maxfps 60"... play for a few minutes, and then do the same for 120 fps. You'll feel a difference.

It's the same reason why a movie @ 24fps looks fluid... .because it's not interactive. Once you're controlling the picture it's a totally different ball game. You feel how sluggish the controls are at lower frame speeds.

 

[mikeblas]

Studies have shown people can notice up to 200fps and more in some cases.

That's interesting! I hadn't heard so before. Do you have links any of those studies?

.B ekiM

 

[Vermicious Knid]

Dijonase, I was refering to his blanket statement ' the human eye can't tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps ' which is total BS.

when you begin to add the qualifiers that you mention, yes things get abit fuzzy. If your refering to a movie clip... most are only ~30fps because they add motion blur.
But a clip taken from a game engine will show noticable difference in smothness between say 30,60,120fps, when you get into the higher fps the difference becomes LESS noticable but is still there (ie. much more noticable going from 30 to 60 then from 60 to 120)

heh and yes that air battle demo does give some insane fps, my system hits 1530fps for a few seconds on that

EDIT:
Linkage: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

If this old United States Air Force study is any clue to you, we've only scratched the surface in not only knowing our FPS limits, and coming up with hardware that can match, or even approach them.

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

 

[OrionNT]

lol, sup OrionNT! =)

Yo, Popcorn! Whats up. Wow, our systems have came a along way since our asus p4s533. (Thats the mobo isnt it?)