• 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.

Dumb Choice?

bigbeard86 said:
You are all so very wrong.

You are all claiming the exact opposite of what things are supposed to be. There is no physical fluidity if frames are not, in completion, being outputted to the monitor.
Click to expand...

LOL Whooosh, the whole thing went over your head.

If you don' understand things you just have to say it. But think for a second what you are saying, everyone in this thread has said the same thing apart from you, don't you think that there is a tiny possibility that you actually the one in the wrong?
 
reaper12 said:
LOL Whooosh, the whole thing went over your head.

If you don' understand things you just have to say it. But think for a second what you are saying, everyone in this thread has said the same thing apart from you, don't you think that there is a tiny possibility that you actually the one in the wrong?
Click to expand...

It's the beard. It's blocking sense, logic, and reason. :p
 
reaper12 said:
LOL Whooosh, the whole thing went over your head.

If you don' understand things you just have to say it. But think for a second what you are saying, everyone in this thread has said the same thing apart from you, don't you think that there is a tiny possibility that you actually the one in the wrong?
Click to expand...

inb4 appeal to the masses :p
 
bigbeard86 said:
You are all so very wrong.

You are all claiming the exact opposite of what things are supposed to be. There is no physical fluidity if frames are not, in completion, being outputted to the monitor.
Click to expand...

fluidity of frames visually is good but has just minor impact on gameplay fluidity.

If you have been reading my attempts to explain it to you then again we will use 60fps monitor as our example. Ok the frame you see this instant was first began 16.67ms ago, that is how far behind the present the frame represents. So that target that is moving west at some speed is now moved a distance 16.67ms further by the time you see it. Granted this may not be very far, dependent on speed, so from 1 inch to a foot. So based on the current frame you aim and shoot, but now that input has to wait another 16.67ms to be considered because the next frame was already started. So by now that target will have twice the time of a frame or 33.34ms to move making that original distance 2 inches or 2 feet.

Ok bear with me a little longer. So now again lets use 240fps for the biggest difference. That same frame is in front of you. It began 4.16ms ago, so that target has only moved 1/4 the distance from the 60fps example, so 1/4 of an inch to 3 inches, much less of a distance. And now that aim and shot only needs to wait 4.16ms, so 1/2 an inch up to 6 inches rather than the 2 inches to 2feet from earlier.

Ok so by the next frame after aim and shoot, you either see dead man or your target still moving west, either missed or winged him. This is where the fluidity of input and gameplay come in. Granted you aren't seeing everything, and in the case of 240fps, only 1/4 of the frames being rendered. But for every frame being rendered at 240fps you are getting 4 times the updates and MUCH MORE accurate depictions in the displayed images of current events.

Some games see little benefit from higher input and see much more from visual acuity like we get with G-sync and Adaptive-sync and somewhat from V-sync. Whereas others require the best lag free input it can get, so we must therefore relinquish that visual quality in varying degrees to get that competitive edge.
 
durquavian said:
fluidity of frames visually is good but has just minor impact on gameplay fluidity.

If you have been reading my attempts to explain it to you then again we will use 60fps monitor as our example. Ok the frame you see this instant was first began 16.67ms ago, that is how far behind the present the frame represents. So that target that is moving west at some speed is now moved a distance 16.67ms further by the time you see it. Granted this may not be very far, dependent on speed, so from 1 inch to a foot. So based on the current frame you aim and shoot, but now that input has to wait another 16.67ms to be considered because the next frame was already started. So by now that target will have twice the time of a frame or 33.34ms to move making that original distance 2 inches or 2 feet.

Ok bear with me a little longer. So now again lets use 240fps for the biggest difference. That same frame is in front of you. It began 4.16ms ago, so that target has only moved 1/4 the distance from the 60fps example, so 1/4 of an inch to 3 inches, much less of a distance. And now that aim and shot only needs to wait 4.16ms, so 1/2 an inch up to 6 inches rather than the 2 inches to 2feet from earlier.

Ok so by the next frame after aim and shoot, you either see dead man or your target still moving west, either missed or winged him. This is where the fluidity of input and gameplay come in. Granted you aren't seeing everything, and in the case of 240fps, only 1/4 of the frames being rendered. But for every frame being rendered at 240fps you are getting 4 times the updates and MUCH MORE accurate depictions in the displayed images of current events.

Some games see little benefit from higher input and see much more from visual acuity like we get with G-sync and Adaptive-sync and somewhat from V-sync. Whereas others require the best lag free input it can get, so we must therefore relinquish that visual quality in varying degrees to get that competitive edge.
Click to expand...

You still miss the critical point of output vs. time. plotted for each geometric point expressed in pixels. There would be many deviations in the graph, denoting a lack of fluidity. What you are attempting to argue is not relevant, and the most recent set of points on the plot serves no compromise with fluidity.

This is as simple as i can show you:

Imagine that the spacing of each dot i write below is a frame outputted to a monitor. now, as you should know, the accumulation of points/images (think of fluidity of animation) will be processed as a moving image by our brains. If these occur in equally spaced intervals (ie., Vsyc, Gsync, Freesync - anything in line with the monitors refresh rate), motion will be presented as being fluid. You not only must take int consideration of each frame rendered, but each from outputted as well, because these may or not be matched.

eg:
. . . . . . . . (frames rendered at equal times)
. . . . . . . . (output, which is what we perceive, remains at evenly spaced intervals, and is thus fluid motion)

. . . . . . . . . . (frames rendered at greater variations) - for some reason the forum auto corrects this, but just imagine the dots being erratically spaced apart.
. . . . . . . . (now try to interpolate the frames rendered into the allotted timeframe and display output rate...it will lead to very erratic instancing and could never be perceived as fluid)
 
bigbeard86 said:
You still miss the critical point of output vs. time. plotted for each geometric point expressed in pixels. There would be many deviations in the graph, denoting a lack of fluidity. What you are attempting to argue is not relevant, and the most recent set of points on the plot serves no compromise with fluidity.

This is as simple as i can show you:

Imagine that the spacing of each dot i write below is a frame outputted to a monitor. now, as you should know, the accumulation of points/images (think of fluidity of animation) will be processed as a moving image by our brains. If these occur in equally spaced intervals (ie., Vsyc, Gsync, Freesync - anything in line with the monitors refresh rate), motion will be presented as being fluid. You not only must take int consideration of each frame rendered, but each from outputted as well, because these may or not be matched.

eg:
. . . . . . . . (frames rendered at equal times)
. . . . . . . . (output, which is what we perceive, remains at evenly spaced intervals, and is thus fluid motion)

. . . . . . . . . . (frames rendered at greater variations) - for some reason the forum auto corrects this, but just imagine the dots being erratically spaced apart.
. . . . . . . . (now try to interpolate the frames rendered into the allotted timeframe and display output rate...it will lead to very erratic instancing and could never be perceived as fluid)
Click to expand...

Well I see know you lack more than just a little foreknowledge. The fact that even after 3 very drawn out posts explaining in great detail my points which are FACT and yet you still cling to ignorant notions is abysmal.

First off even with G-sync/Adaptive-sync the motion still is not perfectly smooth as you try to convey. The time between each frame is not perfectly consistent. If you had any REAL knowledge of the subject you would not have stated what you did in your recent post. These syncing methods allow the monitor to post a frame when it is READY and this is not subject to being perfectly even.

Nor does anything you state make the assessment of fluidity in gameplay a false assertion. Fact is you just don't understand it. Which is ok.
 
durquavian said:
Well I see know you lack more than just a little foreknowledge. The fact that even after 3 very drawn out posts explaining in great detail my points which are FACT and yet you still cling to ignorant notions is abysmal.

First off even with G-sync/Adaptive-sync the motion still is not perfectly smooth as you try to convey. The time between each frame is not perfectly consistent. If you had any REAL knowledge of the subject you would not have stated what you did in your recent post. These syncing methods allow the monitor to post a frame when it is READY and this is not subject to being perfectly even.

Nor does anything you state make the assessment of fluidity in gameplay a false assertion. Fact is you just don't understand it. Which is ok.
Click to expand...

Your discussion completely fails at one element, which invalidates your point. You leave your discussion at the hardware level, but fail to contemplate the role of human perception, which is a gross miscalculation.
Read this research article; hopefully, you will finally understand.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/fulltext.cfm?uri=josaa-2-2-284&id=1945
 
bigbeard86 said:
Your discussion completely fails at one element, which invalidates your point. You leave your discussion at the hardware level, but fail to contemplate the role of human perception, which is a gross miscalculation.
Read this research article; hopefully, you will finally understand.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/fulltext.cfm?uri=josaa-2-2-284&id=1945
Click to expand...

lol again, whoosh, his argument completely goes over your head, or else you are just deliberately ignoring him and everyone else in this thread. You continue to argue about the visual side of things and people in this thread are telling you that it's nothing to do with how it looks but how it feels, how it plays.

It's you who has no understanding.
 
reaper12 said:
lol again, whoosh, his argument completely goes over your head, or else you are just deliberately ignoring him and everyone else in this thread. You continue to argue about the visual side of things and people in this thread are telling you that it's nothing to do with how it looks but how it feels, how it plays.

It's you who has no understanding.
Click to expand...

Ignoring? I am the one refuting with evidence.
 
bigbeard86 said:
Ignoring? I am the one refuting with evidence.
Click to expand...

You haven't refuted anything. Or is that link supposed to be your evidence? Save us all some time and quote that refutes anything we have said?

It wont because you are continuously going on about visual smoothness, how it looks, why would we need more than 60fps when the monitor is only 60hz.

We have tried, in vain, to explain that its not just about what we see but the way it feels. You notice it most when playing twitchy shooters like counter strike, how much nicer it is to play at high frame rates, even on a 60hz monitor.

But its obviously a concept that you just don't get.
 
bigbeard86 said:
Ignoring? I am the one refuting with evidence.
Click to expand...

Ok I went out of my way to be nice and educate on the original issue. So again the point originally was I know someone that bought two 980s and put them in sli to play on a 15ms 60hz monitor. why would anyone do this? This person believes games "feel" smoother. Should it not be the exact opposite, where one is pushing frames the monitor cannot render (vsync off)?

So most of us have tried to educate as to why that person felt the game was smoother. Even you never mentioned he said it looked smoother so the point was FEELING smoother. Blind men can feel but cannot see, so visuals in the context of your question are more than moot they are not relevant.

I even went so far as to say you were somewhat correct that the visuals in that case MAY not be smooth. But the moment you said that G-sync/Adaptive-sync made the frames even or what we would call METERED, any point you make is not even remotely credible or will be taken with any sense of respect.
 
durquavian said:
Ok I went out of my way to be nice and educate on the original issue. So again the point originally was I know someone that bought two 980s and put them in sli to play on a 15ms 60hz monitor. why would anyone do this? This person believes games "feel" smoother. Should it not be the exact opposite, where one is pushing frames the monitor cannot render (vsync off)?

So most of us have tried to educate as to why that person felt the game was smoother. Even you never mentioned he said it looked smoother so the point was FEELING smoother. Blind men can feel but cannot see, so visuals in the context of your question are more than moot they are not relevant.

I even went so far as to say you were somewhat correct that the visuals in that case MAY not be smooth. But the moment you said that G-sync/Adaptive-sync made the frames even or what we would call METERED, any point you make is not even remotely credible or will be taken with any sense of respect.
Click to expand...
It is strange how so many of you are holding onto your illogical beliefs, when I have presented evidence to the contrary.
 
bigbeard86 said:
It is strange how so many of you are holding onto your illogical beliefs, when I have presented evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

See this is why your argument is so bad, it didn't in any way disprove anything anyone said about FEELING smoother. See here we are talking about nuclear fission and you are talking about Sponge Bob. And sorry your proof only goes so far to individual perception in a subject that has absolutely zero to do with what your friend mentioned.

Tell you what, try taking any of my three previous posts and SPECIFICALLY prove any of them wrong or contradict them in any way. So far you have refuted nothing and have not once directly referenced any point we made. You have only commented on your point of visual smoothness where you were WRONG about your assumption which therefore INVALIDATES any point you thought you had.

And once again to point out the HUGE error from which you base your point: (frames rendered at equal times)
. . . . . . . . (output, which is what we perceive, remains at evenly spaced intervals, and is thus fluid motion)

You assume that any of the Sync techs METER the frames and they don't.

See taking certain liberties in a debate are only done to simplify the discussion and in this case to make it so even you, hopefully, can grasp it. Even I for arguments sake left human response out of the equation because even it helps my case but adds complexity to the discussion.

I could also mention that some people can not perceive the difference between 30fps and 60fps, granted a small population will say this. For the most part if you want to be technical NO ONE can discern a single frame @120fps, they can however feel it. In other words, there have been studies using 2 different color bursts for 10 ms each back to back and the participants all saw them as a single dot of their combined color. So technically @120fps said user can not perceive the individual frames : 120fps=8.33ms. However they can feel it. And moreover the variations in frame times will be tighter or rather less than 20ms so the motion will likely seem smoother as well even if not maintaining 120fps solid. Now this does speak to what you try to convey as far as visual but again your points are way off the mark.

This issue can be complex because there are so many variables and negating points to be made. But the underlying truth has been told by myself and countless others in this thread. I explained in great detail the facts using real math to help you understand WHY someone would buy 2 980s to run a 15ms response 60Hz monitor and claim it is because it FEELS smoother. Have you?
 
durquavian said:
See this is why your argument is so bad, it didn't in any way disprove anything anyone said about FEELING smoother. See here we are talking about nuclear fission and you are talking about Sponge Bob. And sorry your proof only goes so far to individual perception in a subject that has absolutely zero to do with what your friend mentioned.

Tell you what, try taking any of my three previous posts and SPECIFICALLY prove any of them wrong or contradict them in any way. So far you have refuted nothing and have not once directly referenced any point we made. You have only commented on your point of visual smoothness where you were WRONG about your assumption which therefore INVALIDATES any point you thought you had.

And once again to point out the HUGE error from which you base your point: (frames rendered at equal times)
. . . . . . . . (output, which is what we perceive, remains at evenly spaced intervals, and is thus fluid motion)

You assume that any of the Sync techs METER the frames and they don't.

See taking certain liberties in a debate are only done to simplify the discussion and in this case to make it so even you, hopefully, can grasp it. Even I for arguments sake left human response out of the equation because even it helps my case but adds complexity to the discussion.

I could also mention that some people can not perceive the difference between 30fps and 60fps, granted a small population will say this. For the most part if you want to be technical NO ONE can discern a single frame @120fps, they can however feel it. In other words, there have been studies using 2 different color bursts for 10 ms each back to back and the participants all saw them as a single dot of their combined color. So technically @120fps said user can not perceive the individual frames : 120fps=8.33ms. However they can feel it. And moreover the variations in frame times will be tighter or rather less than 20ms so the motion will likely seem smoother as well even if not maintaining 120fps solid. Now this does speak to what you try to convey as far as visual but again your points are way off the mark.

This issue can be complex because there are so many variables and negating points to be made. But the underlying truth has been told by myself and countless others in this thread. I explained in great detail the facts using real math to help you understand WHY someone would buy 2 980s to run a 15ms response 60Hz monitor and claim it is because it FEELS smoother. Have you?
Click to expand...

Placebo.


Real mathematics? What you have described is total nonsense, and has no basis in mathematical theory. You still fail to see the scenario between actualization and perception. How could you fail to recognize the same nature of "feeling" and "perception?"

It is unbeliavble that you actually believe you are correct. All you have said and shown is pure conjecture, with no facts or formulas.
 
bigbeard86 said:
Placebo.


Real mathematics? What you have described is total nonsense, and has no basis in mathematical theory. You still fail to see the scenario between actualization and perception. How could you fail to recognize the same nature of "feeling" and "perception?"

It is unbeliavble that you actually believe you are correct. All you have said and shown is pure conjecture, with no facts or formulas.
Click to expand...

Lol more big words.

You obviously aren't an FPS gamer or if you are you must have really, really slow reactions.

Even if we just stick to the visual side, It's quite simple and doesn't need any fancy theory. Lets say there were two versions of me both playing counter strike on a 60hz monitor. One gaming at 60fps the other me at 120fps. I guarantee you the me playing at 120fps will win. Even though the monitor is only 60hz, the person playing at 120fps is getting updates twice as fast as the guy at 60fps.

But there is a downside to getting updates faster than the monitor can display and it's called tearing.

AS for your Gysnc/freesync argument? A lot of gamers I know, while playing FPS games turn off gysnc and turn on ULMB because it feels better while playing. They might have to sacrifice some visual quality in order to get the 120+ fps needed for ULMB, but for any decent FPS gamer high framerate is king.

And that's been proven throughout the years by pro gamers in actual application.
 
Last edited:
bigbeard86 said:
Placebo.


Real mathematics? What you have described is total nonsense, and has no basis in mathematical theory. You still fail to see the scenario between actualization and perception. How could you fail to recognize the same nature of "feeling" and "perception?"

It is unbeliavble that you actually believe you are correct. All you have said and shown is pure conjecture, with no facts or formulas.
Click to expand...

First of, I used real math not conjecture. I gave times for each frame, previous frame times and how each impact smoothness. I also showed I was able to discern the difference between feel and visual. I have done more for the discussion toward FACT, whereas ignorance is all you have given.

Take any point I gave and refute it. If not go away and wallow in you ignorance.
 
You have not shown how fluidity is perceived. You just made a lame graph, requiring no mathematics, and then drew a conclusion from the self-created evidence.
 
bigbeard86 said:
You have not shown how fluidity is perceived. You just made a lame graph, requiring no mathematics, and then drew a conclusion from the self-created evidence.
Click to expand...

And you have proved absolutely nothing. Because you don't even understand the argument. Your perceived fluidity is just BS of the highest order.

Respond to the actual argument and stop waffling.
 
bigbeard86 said:
You have not shown how fluidity is perceived. You just made a lame graph, requiring no mathematics, and then drew a conclusion from the self-created evidence.
Click to expand...

Now I know you are full of it. I never showed a graph. And besides this whole topic is

About the FEELING OF SMOOTHNESS

Not about the PERCEPTION

And until you can make that argument or (FOR THE 3RD TIME) take a particular point of mine you disagree with and specifically reference it, you will remain wrong and be known as the ignorant poster who has no clue how any of this actually works.
 
Do you seriously see that "feeling of smoothness" and the perception of it are two separate things? Now i know you really are speaking without any sort of knowledge. You are claiming that we can "feel smoothness" without any sensory input?

I am the only one here that provided scientific facts; the rest of you are literally making up arguments. you claim that I do not understand the argument, while the discussion went over the top of most of your heads. I can't believe you are still sitting there defending nothing but fallacy.
 
bigbeard86 said:
Do you seriously see that "feeling of smoothness" and the perception of it are two separate things? Now i know you really are speaking without any sort of knowledge. You are claiming that we can "feel smoothness" without any sensory input?

I am the only one here that provided scientific facts; the rest of you are literally making up arguments. you claim that I do not understand the argument, while the discussion went over the top of most of your heads. I can't believe you are still sitting there defending nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...

Ok here we go. I stated more than once I was talking about feeing and visual smoothness, yet here you are not acknowledging that as an attempt to invalidate us and make any ignorant claim you made seem valid.

Fact is any game can look smooth yet feel very erratic. I have played a lot of Skyrim and can tell you, while 30fps looks very smooth, it doesn't feel smooth. Smooth here meaning any action taken seems slow to take action. HERE IS THE POINT WE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE: ALTHOUGH THE GAMES LOOKS BUTTERY SMOOTH IT DOESNT FEEL SMOOTH. Now do you understand? Or is it you lack the faculties to understand? It's fine. Not everyone can grasp even simple concepts.
 
I've lost track of what people here are arguing any more, but I can make one observation. bigbeard86, durquavian, and reaper12, you are all enganged in an unproductive discussion that is focused mostly on insulting each other. Here are the reasons your discussion is unproductive
1) Each of you has insulted someone. Sometimes this is a sarcastic remark you didn't even notice you were making. Sometimes you blatantly question someone's intelligence. Somtimes It can be as simple as using the word "obviously".
2) Each of you has displayed a complete lack of humility. I AM RIGHT. I WIN. YOU ARE WRONG.
3) Each of you has failed to properly communicate with someone else. This involves making sure the person understands your argument without insulting them, and simultaneously repeating someone elses argument back to them in your own works to make sure you understand it.

Ohh.. and bigbeard... posting a 10,000 word journal article and expecting people to read it so that you can prove your point on a forum is not reasonable. If the topic your arguing is so complex that you can't explain it and it requires a 10,000 word journal article you can post it on general forum such as this and hope people will read it, but that's about it.

Personally, If i was a moderator, I would have already locked this thread last page.
 
This is like a regular discussion in academia. I can't wait to get out of it. :p
 
bigbeard86 said:
Do you seriously see that "feeling of smoothness" and the perception of it are two separate things? Now i know you really are speaking without any sort of knowledge. You are claiming that we can "feel smoothness" without any sensory input?

I am the only one here that provided scientific facts; the rest of you are literally making up arguments. you claim that I do not understand the argument, while the discussion went over the top of most of your heads. I can't believe you are still sitting there defending nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...

You have presented no facts. That scientific article you posted is not fully relevant to this question. It does not have anything to do with tearing or display accuracy. It has nothing to do with interactive games. That article is talking about the differences between the progressive and interlace technologies in relation to the media they are shown on. Read it again, it is comparing the smoothness we feel in movies (progressive) vs the disparity some people experience when watching them on TV (interlace). You are falsely correlating their data to this discussion here. What they are saying is that something that is filmed using progressive cameras and then displayed on interlaced devices will not seem as smooth as something filmed in progressive and viewed on progressive devices. They also seem to be taking a possible further stance in suggesting that progressive is superior to interlace because progressive is filming a whole shot scene by scene where interlaced is taking a sample at set intervals. Meaning with interlaced you may not be getting the whole scene at each interval and thus could potentially be perceived as discontinuous based on the minds assumption of what should be in the next field.

The problem with your correlation is that this is:

1) It is based on the difference between successful filmed frames vs sequenced partial frames in a field. The difference is with progressive you are showing each whole frame in a sequence. Interlaced shows part of a frame in one sequence and part of a frame in the next sequence making it whole within the field of time. The idea being the mind believes its a whole image based on visual perception time. However, somehow despite the relative speed of the interlaced sequences, somehow our minds still relate there is discontinuity, where with progressive, even if the frames are put out slower, the mind feels there is more continuity because of the whole frames.

The problem your correlation has with this is that interlaced frames are not the same as tearing. Interlaced is half of the frame in one sequence and half of the same frame in the next sequence. Tearing is half of the previous frame and half of the next frame in the same sequence. They are not the same. So with tearing the mind is still getting the impression of the object moving at the expected speed, but the split image can confuse the brain if it does not understand what it is looking at, IE that the top is the previous frame while the bottom is the new frame. If the brain already is empowered with the knowledge then the discontinuity is greatly lessened.

2) It is based on an independent image with no interaction or input. The motion picture is merely being viewed, so your mind is making assumptions based on what it "sees" only. In computer games there are multiple factors your mind is taking into consideration, especially when you get into competitive games. The mind is calculating how fast your input devices respond, how much display lag there is, how much network latency/lag exist, and how the physics work in the game. So in an interactive game it is more than just 'watching' the motion picture, you are interacting. You are basing your decisions on multiple factors, not just the fluidity of the motion picture.

3) Date. That article was written in 1985. 1-9-freaking-8-5. It is now 2015, get a recent article, not something that is very much outdated.

For me, when I play competitively, my brain is taking into account what it expects based on previous experience. So if I see a target and I am leading them based on the physics of the game, my outcome is expected based on the computations going on behind the scenes and not necessarily the images that are appearing. For me, my brain understands tearing and I know the image at the bottom of the screen is going to be newer than that of the top. So when I am targeting I am going to weigh objects and surroundings at the bottom of the screen higher than that of those at the top, thus allowing me to better calculate where I need to point and click.
 
serpretetsky said:
I've lost track of what people here are arguing any more, but I can make one observation. bigbeard86, durquavian, and reaper12, you are all enganged in an unproductive discussion that is focused mostly on insulting each other. Here are the reasons your discussion is unproductive
1) Each of you has insulted someone. Sometimes this is a sarcastic remark you didn't even notice you were making. Sometimes you blatantly question someone's intelligence. Somtimes It can be as simple as using the word "obviously".
2) Each of you has displayed a complete lack of humility. I AM RIGHT. I WIN. YOU ARE WRONG.
3) Each of you has failed to properly communicate with someone else. This involves making sure the person understands your argument without insulting them, and simultaneously repeating someone elses argument back to them in your own works to make sure you understand it.

Ohh.. and bigbeard... posting a 10,000 word journal article and expecting people to read it so that you can prove your point on a forum is not reasonable. If the topic your arguing is so complex that you can't explain it and it requires a 10,000 word journal article you can post it on general forum such as this and hope people will read it, but that's about it.

Personally, If i was a moderator, I would have already locked this thread last page.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree with you on point 1, but, it only became like that for one reason and one reason only, when it became clear that Bigbeard had no interest in actually responding to other peoples arguments at all. Look at your own post for example of that, you asked him a simple question and he didn't even answer?

Now I don't know if he is serious or just trolling. But I know I am just writing back to see if he does actually say respond to our arguments.

I disagree with your second point. High framerate does improve your gaming experience even on 60hz monitors, so no I won't back down on that.

But Why lock the thread? There is no reason to, it's an on topic discussion with no name calling. If people don't like the ongoing discussion they don't have to come into the thread. In fact I would close the thread for your post more than any of the others. As you have come in taking the thread off topic and trying to mini-mod. The moderators are active in this thread and have already deleted two posts. My suggestions to you is leave the moderations to the moderators.

Oh, I find the condescending and arrogant tone used in your observations more insulting than anything else in this thread.
 
NoOther said:
You have presented no facts. That scientific article you posted is not fully relevant to this question. It does not have anything to do with tearing or display accuracy. It has nothing to do with interactive games. That article is talking about the differences between the progressive and interlace technologies in relation to the media they are shown on. Read it again, it is comparing the smoothness we feel in movies (progressive) vs the disparity some people experience when watching them on TV (interlace). You are falsely correlating their data to this discussion here. What they are saying is that something that is filmed using progressive cameras and then displayed on interlaced devices will not seem as smooth as something filmed in progressive and viewed on progressive devices. They also seem to be taking a possible further stance in suggesting that progressive is superior to interlace because progressive is filming a whole shot scene by scene where interlaced is taking a sample at set intervals. Meaning with interlaced you may not be getting the whole scene at each interval and thus could potentially be perceived as discontinuous based on the minds assumption of what should be in the next field.

The problem with your correlation is that this is:

1) It is based on the difference between successful filmed frames vs sequenced partial frames in a field. The difference is with progressive you are showing each whole frame in a sequence. Interlaced shows part of a frame in one sequence and part of a frame in the next sequence making it whole within the field of time. The idea being the mind believes its a whole image based on visual perception time. However, somehow despite the relative speed of the interlaced sequences, somehow our minds still relate there is discontinuity, where with progressive, even if the frames are put out slower, the mind feels there is more continuity because of the whole frames.

The problem your correlation has with this is that interlaced frames are not the same as tearing. Interlaced is half of the frame in one sequence and half of the same frame in the next sequence. Tearing is half of the previous frame and half of the next frame in the same sequence. They are not the same. So with tearing the mind is still getting the impression of the object moving at the expected speed, but the split image can confuse the brain if it does not understand what it is looking at, IE that the top is the previous frame while the bottom is the new frame. If the brain already is empowered with the knowledge then the discontinuity is greatly lessened.

2) It is based on an independent image with no interaction or input. The motion picture is merely being viewed, so your mind is making assumptions based on what it "sees" only. In computer games there are multiple factors your mind is taking into consideration, especially when you get into competitive games. The mind is calculating how fast your input devices respond, how much display lag there is, how much network latency/lag exist, and how the physics work in the game. So in an interactive game it is more than just 'watching' the motion picture, you are interacting. You are basing your decisions on multiple factors, not just the fluidity of the motion picture.

3) Date. That article was written in 1985. 1-9-freaking-8-5. It is now 2015, get a recent article, not something that is very much outdated.

For me, when I play competitively, my brain is taking into account what it expects based on previous experience. So if I see a target and I am leading them based on the physics of the game, my outcome is expected based on the computations going on behind the scenes and not necessarily the images that are appearing. For me, my brain understands tearing and I know the image at the bottom of the screen is going to be newer than that of the top. So when I am targeting I am going to weigh objects and surroundings at the bottom of the screen higher than that of those at the top, thus allowing me to better calculate where I need to point and click.
Click to expand...

Bravo, great post and well written :) I read some of that article he liked to but stopped reading after it became apparent that it had nothing to anything discussed in this thread and more to do with how we watch motion on film.

But we have made the same point over and over in this thread. Fingers crossed :)
 
NoOther said:
You have presented no facts. That scientific article you posted is not fully relevant to this question. It does not have anything to do with tearing or display accuracy. It has nothing to do with interactive games. That article is talking about the differences between the progressive and interlace technologies in relation to the media they are shown on. Read it again, it is comparing the smoothness we feel in movies (progressive) vs the disparity some people experience when watching them on TV (interlace). You are falsely correlating their data to this discussion here. What they are saying is that something that is filmed using progressive cameras and then displayed on interlaced devices will not seem as smooth as something filmed in progressive and viewed on progressive devices. They also seem to be taking a possible further stance in suggesting that progressive is superior to interlace because progressive is filming a whole shot scene by scene where interlaced is taking a sample at set intervals. Meaning with interlaced you may not be getting the whole scene at each interval and thus could potentially be perceived as discontinuous based on the minds assumption of what should be in the next field.

The problem with your correlation is that this is:

1) It is based on the difference between successful filmed frames vs sequenced partial frames in a field. The difference is with progressive you are showing each whole frame in a sequence. Interlaced shows part of a frame in one sequence and part of a frame in the next sequence making it whole within the field of time. The idea being the mind believes its a whole image based on visual perception time. However, somehow despite the relative speed of the interlaced sequences, somehow our minds still relate there is discontinuity, where with progressive, even if the frames are put out slower, the mind feels there is more continuity because of the whole frames.

The problem your correlation has with this is that interlaced frames are not the same as tearing. Interlaced is half of the frame in one sequence and half of the same frame in the next sequence. Tearing is half of the previous frame and half of the next frame in the same sequence. They are not the same. So with tearing the mind is still getting the impression of the object moving at the expected speed, but the split image can confuse the brain if it does not understand what it is looking at, IE that the top is the previous frame while the bottom is the new frame. If the brain already is empowered with the knowledge then the discontinuity is greatly lessened.

2) It is based on an independent image with no interaction or input. The motion picture is merely being viewed, so your mind is making assumptions based on what it "sees" only. In computer games there are multiple factors your mind is taking into consideration, especially when you get into competitive games. The mind is calculating how fast your input devices respond, how much display lag there is, how much network latency/lag exist, and how the physics work in the game. So in an interactive game it is more than just 'watching' the motion picture, you are interacting. You are basing your decisions on multiple factors, not just the fluidity of the motion picture.

3) Date. That article was written in 1985. 1-9-freaking-8-5. It is now 2015, get a recent article, not something that is very much outdated.

For me, when I play competitively, my brain is taking into account what it expects based on previous experience. So if I see a target and I am leading them based on the physics of the game, my outcome is expected based on the computations going on behind the scenes and not necessarily the images that are appearing. For me, my brain understands tearing and I know the image at the bottom of the screen is going to be newer than that of the top. So when I am targeting I am going to weigh objects and surroundings at the bottom of the screen higher than that of those at the top, thus allowing me to better calculate where I need to point and click.
Click to expand...

You have proved, for me, everything i have been vying for.

The article is absolutely relevant to our discussion, and you have inadvertently done so by explaining how we perceive motion. To say that it has nothing to do with out discussion is outrages, and the basis of the discussion rested on the perception of motion with differential frame outputs correlated with a monitors ability to display those frames in a manner that would allow one to perceive fluidity of motion.
 
bigbeard86 said:
You have proved, for me, everything i have been vying for.

The article is absolutely relevant to our discussion, and you have inadvertently done so by explaining how we perceive motion. To say that it has nothing to do with out discussion is outrages, and the basis of the discussion rested on the perception of motion with differential frame outputs correlated with a monitors ability to display those frames in a manner that would allow one to perceive fluidity of motion.
Click to expand...

You didn't even read what I posted then, because you obviously don't understand. The article is not relevant, and btw, if you took the time to read more than half a dozen of the articles posted since that article in 1985, you would see that many even disagree with some of the premises put forward in that article.

The fact you think I agree with anything you have said, just shows how disconnected you are. In my posts I have clearly stated over and over again that I prefer non Vsync as my brain can properly tell the difference and it allows me a much more accurate image of what is truly going on. And thus for me, the game is more fluid despite the visual discontinuity that tearing exhibits, because the real-time physics are better represented by the higher FPS I receive. Also, my expectations are based on computations that happen independent of the visual representation.

Here is a perfect example. Some years ago we had a professional Battlefield player in our LAN group. This guy could do a jump shot off of a building and one shot sniper guys in the middle of his jump from insane distances. He did not always see his targets at the time of his shooting, but rather based his shot on what he knew the physics of the game were and the intended destination of his target. However, he still needs the most current information to get the basis point from where the target started. In other words, if he has too much display lag, then the starting point of where he spotted the target will be off, and his calculations needed to perform that insane feat he can pull off would be null and void. This is the reason that he games at a much lower resolution which a number of details turned off so that he can get an insanely high FPS.
 
For what it's worth gta v does seem smoother to me at 30 fps than many other titles I have played at the same fps
 
NoOther said:
You didn't even read what I posted then, because you obviously don't understand. The article is not relevant, and btw, if you took the time to read more than half a dozen of the articles posted since that article in 1985, you would see that many even disagree with some of the premises put forward in that article.

The fact you think I agree with anything you have said, just shows how disconnected you are. In my posts I have clearly stated over and over again that I prefer non Vsync as my brain can properly tell the difference and it allows me a much more accurate image of what is truly going on. And thus for me, the game is more fluid despite the visual discontinuity that tearing exhibits, because the real-time physics are better represented by the higher FPS I receive. Also, my expectations are based on computations that happen independent of the visual representation.

Here is a perfect example. Some years ago we had a professional Battlefield player in our LAN group. This guy could do a jump shot off of a building and one shot sniper guys in the middle of his jump from insane distances. He did not always see his targets at the time of his shooting, but rather based his shot on what he knew the physics of the game were and the intended destination of his target. However, he still needs the most current information to get the basis point from where the target started. In other words, if he has too much display lag, then the starting point of where he spotted the target will be off, and his calculations needed to perform that insane feat he can pull off would be null and void. This is the reason that he games at a much lower resolution which a number of details turned off so that he can get an insanely high FPS.
Click to expand...

You keep proving your self wrong; you said "the game is more fluid despite the visual discontinuity." How can you not see the facts? Your statement is a paradox.
 
Ok I guess I will give this one more go and I will make it easier for you to ACTUALLY reference a point I make.

1: Visual fluidity does have some play in only the fact that frames that don't get posted can not be reacted to. (I think this is where you seem to be stuck and the sole basis for your argument)

2: But what people are referring to here is the response a player gets to frames they do see.

3: HERE IS THE MATH: [for arguments sake all frames in this section are metered= every frame takes the same time to render and input lag from sources other than render will be considered null for ease of discussion] @60fps each frame takes 16.67ms to post. Once you perceive this frame the next has already started so any input you give will have to wait till the next frame 16.67ms later. So at minimum the action you take will take 16.67ms to be taken and you wont see its result till the 3rd frame (first being the one you are looking at.

4: Now @240 fps each frame takes 4.16ms to render. (Now the point you get stuck on) Again the reaction to the 1st posted frames will not be made till the 3rd, but you wont see the third on a 60Hz monitor, you wont see a frame till the fifth rendered frame. But here is the cool part: Your action gets considered in the 3rd frame and you see its consequence in the 5th rendered frame but the 2nd visual frame. This is one full frame earlier than @60fps.

5: This is the smoothness that we were speaking of. Ok so I get your are hung up on smoothness of visuals and frames not seen are a problem. So lets say you have a car going from right to left on your screen at 60 mph. Rendering 60fps on a 60 hz monitor will look exactly the same rendering 240fps on a 60Hz monitor (bolded for mind blowing truth).

6: So what happens when we actually look at real world performance. Neither scenario will hold exactly the same frametime for every frame so we see the introduction of tearing and whatnot. But the truth is the tearing at 240fps is far less than at 60fps.

7: Remember that car across the screen analogy? Well lets say the is a vertical stripe on the side of the car. At 60fps tearing would have that stripe disjointed at the tear line by a distance equal to the difference in time between the overlapping frames and the distance covered within that time frame. THAT IS REAL MATH RIGHT THERE! It is a lot like cutting a picture straight across and then just not quite lining it back up perfectly putting it back together.

8: So the difference in a tear on a 60Hz screen between 60fps and 240fps would be that 240fps would be 1/4 the distance/disjointed of that of the 60fps. It is also why a lot of users using CF did not see tearing back during that debacle.

9: So technically running seriously high frame rates during fast paced shooters would be far preferable to say G-sync/Adaptive-sync/V-sync. Keep in mind those players are about the WIN not the visual beauty of the game.

So there you go, another delve to enlighten. If anyone wishes to debate further, PLEASE reference my post. You can just use the numbers, EASY.

ad: If you wish to discuss input lag and its impact on gaming including player response times to visual input, mouse/keyboard reaction to post said input, then computer CPU/GPU handling of that input, and lastly rendering the frame based on that input, well we can but honestly in all scenarios they would cancel each other out being they would all be the same or at least within 33ms of each other.
 
reaper12 said:
Oh I agree with you on point 1, but, it only became like that for one reason and one reason only, when it became clear that Bigbeard had no interest in actually responding to other peoples arguments at all. Look at your own post for example of that, you asked him a simple question and he didn't even answer?

Now I don't know if he is serious or just trolling. But I know I am just writing back to see if he does actually say respond to our arguments.

I disagree with your second point. High framerate does improve your gaming experience even on 60hz monitors, so no I won't back down on that.

But Why lock the thread? There is no reason to, it's an on topic discussion with no name calling. If people don't like the ongoing discussion they don't have to come into the thread. In fact I would close the thread for your post more than any of the others. As you have come in taking the thread off topic and trying to mini-mod. The moderators are active in this thread and have already deleted two posts. My suggestions to you is leave the moderations to the moderators.

Oh, I find the condescending and arrogant tone used in your observations more insulting than anything else in this thread.
Click to expand...

Agree with you on this and wish to add:

I tried in the beginning and it is proven solid in my first 3 posts ( the in-depth ones), to be kind and helpful. I thought that they were genuinely interested in understanding the point of how their friend could say they felt the game was smoother. And the first few attempts of the OP to debate I honestly thought was because he didn't understand so I really tried spelling it out in the basest of terms.

But after some time it became evident he had no real intention of understanding the stand point and then relegated us to being ignorant of how it works when we were they one explain in great detail FACTS. He never once counter-pointed directly or referenced directly any point we made.

So like you I do not appreciate being invalidated because of one bad egg nor the assumption we have done nothing more than behave like spoiled brats.
 
bigbeard86 said:
You keep proving your self wrong; you said "the game is more fluid despite the visual discontinuity." How can you not see the facts? Your statement is a paradox.
Click to expand...

You fail to read or understand my comments, others comments, even the scientific document you posted which was supposed to support your claim, yet failed. You just refuse to understand anything. That is okay, you can stay in your ignorance if that is your wish. I am done trying to explain the facts to you that you are unable to comprehend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top