• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is 30 FPS AVG playable?

mchammer187; you really have nothing better to do than to try to piss someone off? Sorry, won't work on me. You must have something better to do with your life than to attempt to incite flame wars...
 
I often find that when playing solitaire, 30 fps AVG doesn't cut it. The joker that appears and dances when I win does not move with fluid or realistic motion.
 
Originally posted by: walla
I often find that when playing solitaire, 30 fps AVG doesn't cut it. The joker that appears and dances when I win does not move with fluid or realistic motion.
Click to expand...



ahahahahah!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by: gf4200isdabest
mchammer187; you really have nothing better to do than to try to piss someone off? Sorry, won't work on me. You must have something better to do with your life than to attempt to incite flame wars...
Click to expand...

not trying to incite a flame war just find out the general consensus on AT

if i was trying to incite a flame war why would i include option 4 😀

 
Playable--->defnition--->"able to be played"...Unless you are questioning that plenty of people play games at 30 fps then you have no right to call in not playable. I'm sure than almost all gamers have played games at 30fps which means it is "playable"...

Any more questions?
 
try plaing tribes at 15 fps. You can play it and you can even do good at it, it just depends on the person prefernce. I prefer a consistant framrate. I will play games at 30 fps. I can do just fine that way. just take a little more prediction on my part 😛
 
Originally posted by: Adul
try plaing tribes at 15 fps. You can play it and you can even do good at it, it just depends on the person prefernce. I prefer a consistant framrate. I will play games at 30 fps. I can do just fine that way. just take a little more prediction on my part 😛
Click to expand...

30 AVG means < 30 half the time > 30 the other half not constant

30 FPS minimum i would say as playable

i guess i should say playable and enjoyable

not to me but thats just me
 
Personally, I consider 30FPS acceptable. I actually have to pay pretty close attention to notice an improvement at anything higher. I think even "FPS" on TV is in the low 20s.
 
Nah, the fps on a TV is 30....actually the screen as a whole is refreshed 60 times a second, but the picture is refreshed first with the odd numbered horizontal lines and then on the next pass the even numbered ones. So the full frame is refreshed 30 times a sec.
 
If the game is less than 60fps, I am pretty upset while playing. I prefer 100fps at all times, but if its lower than 60, I begin to not be happy with my current computer hardware. When it hits the 40s mark, its uber slow and when the FPS is in the 30 range, its time to tweak the settings for more fps.

It also depends on the game. Quake3 needs 120+ fps, constant to play well. With Operation Flashpoint, I need only around 40 to be pretty happy. Any higher than 60fps in a slow game like OFP, its icing on the cake.

vash
 
it is playable yes

but at what cost

on some hardware 30 fps means losing the details like shadows and details especially on older cards

i prefer all options enabled and screen size at 1024 x 768 minimum

so this is again a personal preference and as such must it be justified by all for you to find the answer acceptable?
 
Originally posted by: Leafblighter
Nah, the fps on a TV is 30....actually the screen as a whole is refreshed 60 times a second, but the picture is refreshed first with the odd numbered horizontal lines and then on the next pass the even numbered ones. So the full frame is refreshed 30 times a sec.
Click to expand...

It depends upon which standard your referencing. There are two broadcast television standards in the world, NTSC refreshes at 30FPS, and PAL refreshes at 25FPS.

TV is not comparable to a monitor though, typically you'll be viewing the TV under different lighting conditions then you would a monitor and from varying angles and distances also.
The biggest difference is the display is input vastly differently then it is on a CRT monitor though, plus TV's have the benefit of motion blur which will suffice to remove choppiness.
Monitors have no such benefit, and without motion blur will become eviedently choppy at lower speeds.


That said, I think what FPS is 'acceptable' depends considerably upon individual eyesight, what the user is accumtomed to, and what type of game is being played.

First person shooters with theri rapid movement, and twitch gaming are something of an excessive condition in which FPS are far more important then in most genres.
They thrive upon constant and rapid motion of many characters on scene at once, a twitch movement to the left/right or gun-fire can mean the difference between life/death in the game.
So is 30FPS in a FPS adequate?
Hell no.
IMHO 40FPS is a more suitable minimum.

The complete opposite stratum can be viewed with flight sims. Such games would feature large planes that cover any given distance dramatically slower then shooters. A fairly constant and standard surface texture doesnt necessitate rapid updates, nor is there any twitch gaming in which a split second reaction will make a subtantial difference. You'll typically be required to induce slower and more controlled movement.

Under such conditions I'd say 20FPS is ideally suited. Indeed, there are flight sims available from over two years ago that even today's most powerful systems can only manage 40FPS in, and yet you never hear anyone complain about that.

For me personally?
I play 90% RPG's.
In an RPG you'll traditionally have a large field of view, with multiple smaller characters and a lanscape that would only slowly deviate.
Movement relies almost exclusively upon AI path finding abilities, and isnt much dependent upon user input. Rapid responses are a virtual non-entity, as RPG's typically require more strategy and fore-thought then most other genres. Combat is also takes place at a much slower pace then other genres, and is usually relatively drawn out.

In RPG's I'd usually say 30FPS is 100% adequate. Higher frame rates usually institute more problems then they solve, AI pathfinding can be considerably impacted and with the necessity of far more rapid updates of landscape the pathfinding code will have to be far quicker and more accurate then might otherwise be necessary.
Combat scenes that are usually set on a standard time-line awaiting user in-put could be off-set and you may find individual animations partially cut off at the end as the engine struggles to catch up.
Hence the reason the vast majority of RPG's are fixed at a set frame rate that does not allow diviation.

More first person oriented RPG's like Morrowind don't suffer as heavily from the above issues, but even so you'll seldom require even 30FPS.

An example of a genre that can diviate hugely depending upon the individual game would be sports. As there are so many dfferent sports, different games could require vastly different responses and feature completely dis-similar manners of rendering.
 
For me, I can't play FPS games with an average frame rate of 30. Moreover, with an average frame rate of 50 - 60, I can "feel" the game not being smooth enough for me.
 
30 fps constant framerate probably would be pretty good. I wouldn't want it spiking down, but I wouldn't want it spiking up to 45, 60 or 100 either, that would make it seem just as choppy.
 
yes. i've done it. pretty? no. playable? generally, except when whatever the bottleneck is gets really loaded (UT on a p200mmx is SLOW in complicated scenes like lots of people/rockets/etc)
 
are we having another definition crisis? What exactly does pleasant mean to you?

let me create a scenario:

God comes to you and your computer and proclaims: No matter what hardware you ever buy, no game will run faster than 30fps.

Do you stop playing computer games? I mean, if they're no longer pleasant, you're gonna stop playing them....right?

Didn't think so....you guys are over exaggerating...
 
30 FPS average is not playable and is an utter slideshow. In fact anything measured with the number "30" in it (constant, average, maximum, minimum) is a slideshow.

The bare minimum for acceptable gameplay is 60 FPS average but in reality I prefer 120 FPS average or higher. There is a clear and obvious difference between 60 FPS average and 120 FPS average and heck, there is a clear and obvious difference between a constant 60 FPS and a constant 120 FPS.

Also since it's an average score it means that there's no telling how low things will dip during heavy situations so for this reason you simply want to your framerate to be as high as possible at all times. Anyone that tells you that you only need X FPS is utterly clueless with regards to the even the most basic concepts behind 3D games. I can easily see the difference between 120 FPS and 175 FPS in Quake3's demo four when playing the bigger maps such as the Dredwerkz and going to the outside area with seven other players, all producing explosions and gore.

Oh yeah, and I think I clicked on the wrong guy being a dumbass. I knew I should have just clicked "no" instead of trying got be clever. :disgust:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top