Theory of the framerate that is smooth to the eye.

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Wedge1

Originally posted by: BoomAM
Anything over 30fps keeps me happy.

You're not talking about 3D intensive gaming are you? Because anything I play (Q3, Undying, DF Black Hawk Down, etc.) need around 80-ish and higher to be smooth.

Yes im on about "3d intensive gaming".
Dont try and spark a war like oh-so-many others.
30fps is all I need.
I have several games that have fps locks on them. All locked at 30fps. And they are smooth.
If you need 80fps for things to be smooth, then you better get used to 30fps asap. As many upcoming titles (D3, DX2, T3, ectwill struggle to run at 40+ fps, never mind 80fps.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The mad theories people that are high come up with.....

 

[Wedge1]

Originally posted by: BoomAM
Yes im on about "3d intensive gaming".
Dont try and spark a war like oh-so-many others.
30fps is all I need.
I have several games that have fps locks on them. All locked at 30fps. And they are smooth.
If you need 80fps for things to be smooth, then you better get used to 30fps asap. As many upcoming titles (D3, DX2, T3, ectwill struggle to run at 40+ fps, never mind 80fps.

Dude relax, I never intend to spark a war. It was just a simple question. I'm not debating anything, just trying to get info from you -- learn about your perspective, that's all.

This forum seems to have stand-off-ish people who make false presumptions at some of the remarks and questions that are posted. I'm not referring to this thread only -- just yesterday I asked for a link to an article that I could not find, and since it was one that dealt with the nv dx9 problem, I was presumed to be "up ATI's sphincter".

For future reference: I do not care about these companies, nor do I care to argue about anything related to video cards. I seek information and conversation only. If you think I might *possibly* be trying to start something, then you are wrong.

 

[Jeff7181]

30 fps is not acceptable to me in an intense FPS... need at least 60 when you're panning really fast. Stuff like Ghost Recon... 30 would be fine, cause it's not fast paced. Stuff like UT2k3, 30 would suck.

 

[Wedge1]

So does it scale differently in OpenGL games vs D3D games? i.e., does one require a higher or lower fps in order to have a smooth game?

 

[mechBgon]

I remember when I got my first Voodoo 2 and ran Descent II with the 3dfx Glide patch for the V2. 120FPS, liquid-smooth... I don't know about the rest of you, but I long ago cast aside the various theories ("24fps is what TV runs at, and it looks smooth, so that's all you need for smooth gaming" etc) in favor of reality. My reality is that the difference between 60fps and 80-100fps is generally a noticable improvement, and desirable to have if possible.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Wedge1
Dude relax, I never intend to spark a war. It was just a simple question. I'm not debating anything, just trying to get info from you -- learn about your perspective, that's all.

Dont worry about it.
Its just a habit now. Any time that i mention that 30fps is fine for me, then i tend to get a few ppl complaining and starting an arguement.

So does it scale differently in OpenGL games vs D3D games? i.e., does one require a higher or lower fps in order to have a smooth game?

I wouldnt have thought so. As far as fps differences, they both work in the same way.

 

[Wedge1]

Originally posted by: BoomAM
I wouldnt have thought so. As far as fps differences, they both work in the same way.

Ok, makes sense. fps = fps regardless of the API.

So at the risk of getting far astray from topic, is DX a separate API like OpenGL and D3D? Or, is it something that Microsoft has created that works in conjunction with both D3D and OpenGL? Not sure if I'm wording the question correctly.....is DX something that Windows must have in order for OpenGL and D3D to work?

 

[BFG10K]

Also, I don't know if tripple buffering is enabled or not

Probably not. If you want to try it, try poking around your driver control panel and see if you can find an option to force it on. Most vendors usually have some way to do it.

so I can't say if this is helping to produce the high quality image or not.

Triple buffering has no effect on image quality. It's purely a speed boost for the multiples of your refresh rate problem that vsync causes.

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
30 fps is not acceptable to me in an intense FPS... need at least 60 when you're panning really fast. Stuff like Ghost Recon... 30 would be fine, cause it's not fast paced. Stuff like UT2k3, 30 would suck.

If you got a constant, never falling below 30fps you would not notice a difference. The eye can only see ~30-35 FPS so if any game can sustain above ~30FPS then you would not notice any slow downs. However most FPS games do slow down considerably in faster/more graphical sceens so if it does not drop below the magic number than you would never know.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
30 fps is not acceptable to me in an intense FPS... need at least 60 when you're panning really fast. Stuff like Ghost Recon... 30 would be fine, cause it's not fast paced. Stuff like UT2k3, 30 would suck.

The eye can only see ~30-35 FPS so if any game can sustain above ~30FPS then you would not notice any slow downs.

No offense, but my eyes don't believe you I'm certain that I've logged more hours of Descent 3 alone than I have driving all the cars I've ever owned, and I can certainly discern 80+fps from 30-50fps in D3

Six degrees of freedom... a real 3D game

 

[Pete]

Most of you need to start here. (The Penstarsys link doesn't work. I guess Josh is rearranging his site ATM. The article is worth a read when it's reinstated, though, as it's a good starting point. But Ars A/V has tons of repeat threads on this same issue/misconception that should solidly PYAITK.)

orion, I'll give you an example BFG uses: doing a 180 degree turn in one second at 30fps means 3 degrees per frame update. That isn't very accurate if you want to snipe someone from across the map. So you can always use a higher framerate in a twitch game genre like FPSs.

The obvious point, of course, is that 60fps should be sufficient--if it's a constant fps. As it's not constant, but an average, the higher the average, the closer to 60fps the minimum fps goes, and that's the whole point of sky-high benchmark numbers. I know a card that averages 200fps in FPS X will be smoother than one that averages 100fps, simply because I know both cards will bottom out at much, much lower than their average framerate, and the 200fps card is more likely to bottom out higher.

 

[chsh1ca]

Here's a good link with a detailed explanation.

Please read it, and everyone can correct their incorrect comments.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Wedge1
So at the risk of getting far astray from topic, is DX a separate API like OpenGL and D3D? Or, is it something that Microsoft has created that works in conjunction with both D3D and OpenGL? Not sure if I'm wording the question correctly.....is DX something that Windows must have in order for OpenGL and D3D to work?

LOL.
DirectX is D3D.
D3D is the graphical part of DX.

Originally posted by: orion7144
If you got a constant, never falling below 30fps you would not notice a difference. The eye can only see ~30-35 FPS so if any game can sustain above ~30FPS then you would not notice any slow downs. However most FPS games do slow down considerably in faster/more graphical sceens so if it does not drop below the magic number than you would never know.

You`ve just opened a whole can of arguements there. Cue the arguers....
Thats my opinion as well, but i never actually put it as blunt as you did, as of late, due to all the whining i got from other ppl. I just can be arsed arguing with them all.

 

[rbV5]

The reason there is always such a dispute over framerate is the attempt to quantify it by assigning a definative value to what is an acceptable framerate in all situations. The simple answer is that you can't assign a definative value to the minimum acceptable framerate. It is variable, dependant on the situation and the person.

 

[Jeff7181]

...tests on Air Force pilots have shown their ability to not merely notice, but identify the type of aircraft when shown an image for only 1/220th of a second...

THERE IS NO PROVEN LIMIT TO THE FRAME RATE THE HUMAN EYE CAN PERCEIVE.

Taken from the article chsh1ca linked to.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
30 fps is not acceptable to me in an intense FPS... need at least 60 when you're panning really fast. Stuff like Ghost Recon... 30 would be fine, cause it's not fast paced. Stuff like UT2k3, 30 would suck.

If you got a constant, never falling below 30fps you would not notice a difference. The eye can only see ~30-35 FPS so if any game can sustain above ~30FPS then you would not notice any slow downs. However most FPS games do slow down considerably in faster/more graphical sceens so if it does not drop below the magic number than you would never know.

That's not true... if I limit the FPS in Soldier of Fortune 2 to 30 fps, it looks like a slideshow every time I move, or something else moves.

Again I'll refer to the article I did in my last post...

This is one reason why a lot of people claim that anything over 60fps doesn't matter: because they've never been significantly over 60fps for long.

 

[Pete]

I just realized the thread title is misleading. The thing with computer games is that it's not just your eyes that appreciate the framerate. A low framerate also affects mouse control and accuracy, so a low framerate like a movie's 24fps or NTSC TV's 29.97fps will still seem stuttery. Besides, you can readily see the limitations of 24/30fps in some quick panning shots in movies.

I skimmed that Mikhailtech article, and it's not that great. I don't think the most common framerate on TV's is 24. In fact, most of his "Television" paragraph goes against what I've learned of the subject. That article is not comparable to Josh's article at Penstarsys (pity it's not available ATM), but I suppose it's a decent start.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Pete
I skimmed that Mikhailtech article, and it's not that great. I don't think the most common framerate on TV's is 24.

You realise of course, that this is simply an 'average' taken by adding the upper and lower bound of the range and dividing by two, right? (18 + 30) / 2 = (48) / 2 = 24.

In fact, most of his "Television" paragraph goes against what I've learned of the subject. That article is not comparable to Josh's article at Penstarsys (pity it's not available ATM), but I suppose it's a decent start.

Perhaps you could provide an overview of what you disagree with, and what you understand of the subject.

 

[rbV5]

You realise of course, that this is simply an 'average' taken by adding the upper and lower bound of the range and dividing by two, right? (18 + 30) / 2 = (48) / 2 = 24.

Television isn't broadcast in a "range" of framerates, it is constant. There are 2 main formats, NTSC and PAL. NTSC broadcast is 30 FPS (29.970 actual) each "frame" is actually 2 "fields", each field represents every other scanline displayed every 1/60th of a second(60Hz) and "interlaced" together to create each"frame". PAL uses the same basic approach, only the values are 25FPS (2 fields, 1 every 1/50th(50Hz) of a second interlaced together)

I completely agree with this statement however "THERE IS NO PROVEN LIMIT TO THE FRAME RATE THE HUMAN EYE CAN PERCEIVE"

 

[Pete]

chsh1ca, do you know more about TV formats than I do, or are you just challenging my vague dislikes?

I don't know much, but what I understand is that PAL is 50Hz and NTSC is 60Hz (both interlaced, so roughly 25 and 30Hz of full frame info). Which TV standard is 18fps/36Hz-interlaced, for the low end of the spectrum? I don't know of one, but, admittedly, my knowledge in this area is very limited. How do you arrive at the "most common" frame-rate by averaging different standards? I would think the more intelligent way of doing so is to see which standard has a bigger audience. TV "frame rates" are discrete samples, not something you can average. I'm not entirely sure by what the author means by TVs providing a "range" rather than "individual frames." AFAIK, TVs first draw the odd lines of a frame, then the even. I'm not sure how range is involved.

I just don't think it's very well-written or clearly explained. He seems to jump all over the place, and doesn't really explain any one idea fully. For instance, his references to "range" versus a "frame" are confusing, especially as spaced out as they are. It would be clearer if he mentioned motion blur in a frame, rather than contrasting a "frame" to a "blurred range." And not all games are not smooth at 24fps, as he seems to imply.

I also fail to see the obvious connection between a "smooth" framerate to his conclusion that "THERE IS NO PROVEN LIMIT TO THE FRAME RATE THE HUMAN EYE CAN PERCEIVE." We're not looking for the maximum framerate at which the eye can detect change. We're looking for the minimum framerate at which the eye (visuals) and the brain (control) cannot detect choppiness. And we're not really concerned with FSAA in this thread, though Mikhailtech's article is:

So what's enough? 30fps? 300? 3000? Who knows. But on a more practical scale, 1024x768, 2-4x FSAA and 16x Aniso between 50-100fps in most games is just fine.

FSAA has nothing to do with this thread, and it's really another issue entirely (related to his discussion of contrast). Resolution and AF are also peripheral to the issue at hand, IMO. Still, I suppose the broad generalization of "between 50-100fps" dovetails with VIAN's proposal that "100Hz@100fps should be the standard for unvisersal satisfaction."

The Penstarsys article is more clearly aimed at minimum acceptable gaming framerates, as (IIRC) it coincided with 3dfx's 60fps push. Basically, I think it's a clearer answer to the question at hand (frame rate vs. refresh rate / smoothness vs. flickering). The Mikhailtech article meanders over a broad swath of visual info without clearly delving into each aspect, IMO.

 

[Jeff7181]

I also fail to see the obvious connection between a "smooth" framerate to his conclusion that "THERE IS NO PROVEN LIMIT TO THE FRAME RATE THE HUMAN EYE CAN PERCEIVE." We're not looking for the maximum framerate at which the eye can detect change. We're looking for the minimum framerate at which the eye can not detect choppiness.

I thought it went without saying that everyone's eyes are different. Everyone's eyes have different capabilities... I doubt you could identify a picture of a warship that was flashed in front of you for 1/200th of a second. Yet MANY MANY MANY MANY aircraft pilots and sailors can.
So... minimum or maximum... everyone's eyes are different. And some people have a different idea of what "smooth" is... most people who think 30 fps is smooth don't play fast paced games like UT2k3.

 

[Pete]

There's a difference between perceiving smooth motion in UT2K3 (minimu acceptable framerate) and being able to identify a plane in a hundredth of a second (no proven limit to the human eye's perceived framerate). The two are different issues, and you're bundling them together like Mikhail's article did.

BTW, I also edited the part of my post that you quoted for clarity while you replied.

 

[VIAN]

Main difference between NTSC and PAL

NTSC = 30fps at 550 scanlines
PAL = 25fps at 650 scanlines

I don't know about refresh rates here.

I hate the theater 24fps, this and besides the fact that all of them aren't digital pisses me off.

My theory on minimum frame rate is partially correct. Minimum frame rate being 85fps because of no flickering at 85Hz.

You know how the refresh rate at 60Hz you see a flickering because the light goes on and off, well in videogames. after the frame is drawn, it stays there until another frame is drawn. Therefore we can conclude that on some level there is choppiness because of the refresh rate bit. But one thing I know is that there is high contrast between light and darkness and little contrast between one light and another. So we notice the flickering or choppiness in the refresh rate because of its high contrast. And that's only in 2d applications. I know my CS runs at 60Hz and I never noticed it until I found out, and I still don't notice it. In fast paced playing it isn't noticeable. With frames there is no high contrast and therefore it appears smooth to use, but it is choppy. And you cannot call it totally smooth until it matches the refresh rate you are confortable with.

85fps85Hz is my recommendation because I feel confortable with 85Hz. Another reason why not to go higher than that to 100Hz is because the higher you set your refreshrate, the degration happens to the picture due to lack of bandwidth and the lower the lifespan of the CRT is. So I guess 85Hz is a pretty good standard.

Now you can say that you don't notice anything over 60fps, but to some poeple who posted above, they say they lock it at 30fps because they don't notice anything above that. Now, I am totally happy at 30fps minimum, but i would like to have the smoothest framerate at 85Hz due to my conclusions.

When 3dfx mentioned this 60fps for optimal play, 60Hz was probably the standard, so it would make sense.

 

[Pete]

What do you hate about film's 24fps? I believe most theatres run film at 48"fps," running each frame twice for a more solid picture.

3dfx's 60fps marketing push had nothing to do with refresh rate. When people speak of framerate, they're usually not thinking of refesh rate. The two are separate, though related, issues.

(And LCDs will totally eliminate refresh rate flicker from this equation, substituting response time as a source of concern.)