• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

DOOM3 rendering

Brent_Justice said:
tell me how the max fps is important? especially over say 60fps
Click to expand...


if its not important then why do you put it in your reviews when whatever game your benchmarking is over 60fps?
 
does no one understand what he is saying?

"The game tic simulation, including player movement, runs at 60hz, so if it rendered any faster, it would just be rendering identical frames. "

Game tic is not FPS.

All this means is that if you get 61fps the last 1fps is an identical frame to one already rendered, if you get 120fps than 60 of those were repeated.

The graphics card could render it at 2 billion FPS, and show 2 billion frames, but there would only be 60 different ones shown 2 billion times.

So yes it can "get" more than 60fps, but doing so will not affect gameplay.

==>Lazn
 
Wow, two pages of panicing over something that has probably been throught through a thousand times at id. I don't see how anyone can get worried about anything Carmack says. He has never comprimised or settled to ship a game early. I'd go so far as to say every new idea he has put forth has been a step forward for gaming.
 
yeah hes one guy i can say who has definately contributed a lot to gaming. i got faith in him. :D

i just wish john and gabe would hurry up and get those games on the shelves ;)
 
just a thought on the original topic, the day that Carmack announces a directx based engine I will go to my window, look up, and get hit in the face by a chunk of falling sky.
 
Bad_Boy said:
yeah hes one guy i can say who has definately contributed a lot to gaming. i got faith in him. :D

i just wish john and gabe would hurry up and get those games on the shelves ;)
Click to expand...

I second the motion!
 
Brent_Justice said:
tell me how the max fps is important? especially over say 60fps
Click to expand...

Video, runs at 29.97fps, and the reason it can get away with such a low frame rate in the standards of video games, is because video has motion blur. Video games don't have motion blur there for if a game runs at 30fps its gonna seem a little choppy. In order to make up for that lack of motion blur, you have to at least double up the frames which would set a 60fps baseline to make the game look as smooth as it can be. 30fps to 60fps is a noticable differance where as anything over 60fps is sort of overkill, you can see it, but barely.
 
I think he means how max fps is important in terms of benchmarks, min fps and average fps tell you tons more about how well the system is performing.
 
I think the % of time at <30 frames and the % of time at <60 frames are the most compelling numbers. One really high/low data point doesn't mean shit. Also if you're going to do averages, then standard deviations should be required as well. Frame data is statistical, it needs to be treated as such.
 
Merlin45 said:
just a thought on the original topic, the day that Carmack announces a directx based engine I will go to my window, look up, and get hit in the face by a chunk of falling sky.
Click to expand...
Are you certain it isn't something dropped by one of 'em flying pigs? :eek:

What I find most interesting in regards to the 3D API used by the Doom 3 engine is that this basically means that nVidia cards finally get a chance to shine, as they've always been better at OpenGL than at DirectX (where ATI just keeps kicking nVidia's ass over and over again).

Might just cause a bit of panic up there in Canada :D
 
Interesting on the tic rat thing- I think it's a good idea, partially because I'm wondering why we haven't been doing this for years. Then again, game development being so complicated, I guess it's hard to step back and take a look at the logical things that shold be happening- like the game running at the same 'speed' on everyone's machine. Also, I see the 'cap' on FPS not a big deal; as long as it can hit above 85fps for CRT's (as that will cause headaching as well) it should be fine. LCD's pretty much eliminate the need for higher FPS, and I think 60hz is right on target, presonally. As far as benchmarking goes, well, it matters for horsepower comparison, but really guys, both the Corvette and the Viper will get you there, for as much fun as can be had arguaing the differences between them.

To me this kind of signals then demise of the frame rate era- and on to the 'smoothness/playbility' and 'image quality' areas. Can't wait until engines are compared by their ability to provide smooth gameplay on a variety of hardware, and we no longer worry about the hardware itself. This is the direction tht Carmack seems to be taking us in; I'm sure Newell will agree, even with his far less technically advanced engine in hand (you can argue that one as much as you want).
 
Yes...But I remember, when DOOM3 was first being developed, John Carmack said that they were using 2.8B + 512 mb DDR266 + ATi 9700 Pro.

So most people should do fine with ATi, even with the OpenGL deficit.

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm not getting an Nvidia, because Carmack now primarily uses the 6800Ultra.

Brent, Kyle showed us a graph with DOOM3 performance on the 9800, 5900, 9600XT, and 5700. I was just wondering if you might have any information on the 6800s and X800s as well.

Thank you,

thecarguy
 
Brent_Justice said:
tell me how the max fps is important? especially over say 60fps
Click to expand...


Anything over 60FPS is a waste. and I honestly wish the GPU power could be redirected to better shading and what not.
 
MrHappyGoLucky said:
Funny..... considering the human eye only renders 24 frames per second.
Click to expand...
Just no..please..stop..please
 
MrHappyGoLucky said:
Funny..... considering the human eye only renders 24 frames per second.
Click to expand...

Frist off, the eye doesn't render anything. It doesn't process images the same way a computer renders a image. And even if it did read in fps, why 24? Wouldn't that make anything over 24fps not visable to us. So like the extra 6 frames per second video has we wouldn't see? Just because 24fps is what film is shot on doesn't mean thats all we can see, and im only assuming thats where that number came from cause I have no idea else where it would come from. We see well over 24fps in the real world.
 
Your brain circuitry isn't fast enough to comprehend more than 24FPS, on average. If a motion is faster than that, the brain will "estimate" and you will see a blur, or a trail, whichever you want to call it. That's how some optical illusions work; by tricking your brain into the "estimate" mode. Younger peoples' brain can comprehend more than 24FPS, and older, less. That's what the "life gets faster and faster as you get older" effect can be attributed too, as your brain circuitry gets more and more worn out.
 
M4d-K10wN said:
Your brain circuitry isn't fast enough to comprehend more than 24FPS, on average. If a motion is faster than that, the brain will "estimate" and you will see a blur, or a trail, whichever you want to call it. That's how some optical illusions work; by tricking your brain into the "estimate" mode. Younger peoples' brain can comprehend more than 24FPS, and older, less. That's what the "life gets faster and faster as you get older" effect can be attributed too, as your brain circuitry gets more and more worn out.
Click to expand...


a fucking serious post by madclown!! HACKED ACCOUNT!!!
 
Younger peoples' brain can comprehend more than 24FPS, and older, less. That's what the "life gets faster and faster as you get older" effect can be attributed too
Click to expand...

So...since I'm 16, I think I'll need your 3.0C, seeing as I can comprehend more frames per second and whatnot. :D
 
M4d-K10wN said:
Your brain circuitry isn't fast enough to comprehend more than 24FPS
Click to expand...

Not to rehash this, but this argument went round and round back in the Voodoo2 days when QuakeWorld started being able to be run at more than 30fps.

The brain is an analog device, and at around 18fps it starts conncting a series of still images into motion.

Because film blures motion, it can appear smooth at 24fps but that low of a refresh causes a flicker that gets people sick. So theaters show each frame twice, giving us 24fps with a 48hz refresh. With blured film this is good enough for MOST motion. (but watch a fast panning shot where the distant bacground moves fast, and even at this speed it will be jerky)

A montior is not film, and a rendered screen dosn't provide the blur to trick the brain. thus to appear smooth you need more fps. (how much more depends on the person, I personally like more than 60fps and a 75hz refresh rate because lower refreshrates give a noticeable flicker and lower fps look jerky - to me)

If you don't belive me, set your refresh rate on your montior to 24fps and force v-synch. But don't call me when you find yourself with a terrible headache and jumpy playback in games.

some sources on this:
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/NT/05-24-01FPS.html
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9503/curse.html
http://www.kickassgear.com/Articles/EditorialBlur.htm
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18874

Can you provide even ONE source to back up what you say?

==>Lazn
 
M4d-K10wN said:
Younger peoples' brain can comprehend more than 24FPS, and older, less. That's what the "life gets faster and faster as you get older" effect can be attributed too, as your brain circuitry gets more and more worn out.
Click to expand...

trippy
 
I used to have a program that demonstrated the difference between 30fps and 60fps - the difference is quite evident. The 24fps analogy is wrong, because that assumes the source has motion blur, which videogames do not. With videogames, 60fps seems to be the minimum for things to seem truly "smooth."
 
Here is the FPS compare app I have: FPS Compare

you can change the fps up and down, so do that, and watch how the smoothness becomes noticeable as you change the fps dynamically
 
M4d-K10wN said:
Your brain circuitry isn't fast enough to comprehend more than 24FPS, on average. If a motion is faster than that, the brain will "estimate" and you will see a blur, or a trail, whichever you want to call it. That's how some optical illusions work; by tricking your brain into the "estimate" mode. Younger peoples' brain can comprehend more than 24FPS, and older, less. That's what the "life gets faster and faster as you get older" effect can be attributed too, as your brain circuitry gets more and more worn out.
Click to expand...
As I rapidly approacht the age of 50 I finaly have the mystery solved
 
Brent_Justice said:
Here is the FPS compare app I have: FPS Compare

you can change the fps up and down, so do that, and watch how the smoothness becomes noticeable as you change the fps dynamically
Click to expand...

Yeh thats cool, similar to the proggie I used to have... 30 -> 60 is quite noticable. Too bad it doesnt seem to go above 60fps, I'd like to see if it got even smoother, though I doubt it as it seems pretty smooth at 60.

There was also a text based one with a moving box across the screen, and 3dfx made one with a bouncing ball (requires glide3.x). All of them pretty much illustrate the same thing.

Thanks for posting the util, good to have, especially one that works with todays graphics cards :)
 
*sigh* there is quite a difference between 60fps and 85fps. if some of you think anything above 60fps is overkill, then you either need to have your eyes checked, or you simply don't care about a smoother playing game. any competitive quake player will be playing a better game of quake at 85fps as opposed to 60fps. if your eyes aren't trained to take advantage, oh well, not everyone is slow like you.
 
doh-nut said:
*sigh* there is quite a difference between 60fps and 85fps. if some of you think anything above 60fps is overkill, then you either need to have your eyes checked, or you simply don't care about a smoother playing game. any competitive quake player will be playing a better game of quake at 85fps as opposed to 60fps. if your eyes aren't trained to take advantage, oh well, not everyone is slow like you.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised, more fps = win ;)

Back when I used to play quake I tried to get my fps in the 60-100 range, 30 was too slow.
 
Brent_Justice said:
tell me how the max fps is important? especially over say 60fps
Click to expand...

The age old myth that everyone can use 60FPS fine is just that; a myth. When you have played for several years at 100fps+, your eyes become used to it. You are effectively training your brain to accept larger and larger amounts of data. This is how I see it anyway.

Similarly, the majority of ppl (techies included) cannot differentiate between 60, 75 and 85Hz.
Some can.

Playing at less than 85FPS is very noticeable to me and HIGHLY annoying.
 
MrHappyGoLucky said:
Funny..... considering the human eye only renders 24 frames per second.
Click to expand...

Please submit a URL for my perusal :)

EDIT: Never mind. Everyone else seems to have shot your silly comment down in flames.
 
Yeah that always happens to mr. Happy,

Anyways IGN is saying that the release date is going to be around October instead of this month.
http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=21342&category=gamers

That has anyways made since to me since summer time is usually a downer for game sales (my friend owns his own game biz) with sales picking up around August (go figure since all the kiddies are out of school for about three months you'd think they'd spent their time- like me- playing new games).
As for the topic I don't care as long as the min is alittle above 30fps but I would like to see it get closer to 60fps for the sake of smooth playback.
 
CrimandEvil said:
Yeah that always happens to mr. Happy,

Anyways IGN is saying that the release date is going to be around October instead of this month.
http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=21342&category=gamers

That has anyways made since to me since summer time is usually a downer for game sales (my friend owns his own game biz) with sales picking up around August (go figure since all the kiddies are out of school for about three months you'd think they'd spent their time- like me- playing new games).
As for the topic I don't care as long as the min is alittle above 30fps but I would like to see it get closer to 60fps for the sake of smooth playback.
Click to expand...


Were you referring to xbox release? The link says July with xbox in October
 
That's correct, much like any other part of the body, you can train your brain to be come faster. We do it every day, in Math class for example. You train your logic circuitry, and it become faster and faster.
 
wait there making hl2 directx.. lol.. hard to get used to after always using opengl for all the older ones.. lol.
 
hmm, I remember halflife is capped at 100 fps, it does very strange things when you get into the 700-900's. Like in tfc when I'm bhoping through an empty hall way itll stutter. I do think doom 3's limitation of 60 fps is reasonable, but it better be future proof enough to crank up the settings higher. Speaking of higher settings, does anyone know if it would be terribly useful/if video card manufacturer's are planning to have higher than 6x aa and 16x af. How much aa do we need before edges appear perfectly straight? I guess it's all resolution dependant as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top