What's an acceptable FPS for you?

[Marsumane]

25fps at a bare minimum for when theres a lot of action. Traditionally, to get lower then 50fps is a debate between how much the iq setting means to me over how much percision i need in my game. But like I said, nothing below 25fps is ever acceptable.

 

[Tab]

Actually, no one has really proved how many frames per second humans can percieve. Anyway, as long as the game is playable then I like it So, thats pretty much 72 Frames Per Second, or my monitor's refresh rate.

 

[Acanthus]

I only notice low frames when it gets below 25-30 fps.

However. When im playing shooters, i prefer 50fps+ minimum.

For RPGs, anything over 15 is fine.

 

[imported_Apophis]

bump

 

[MichaelZ]

get a gig of ram and then you won't get annoying jolts here and there.

 

[Sonic587]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
i can live with it as long as it stays above 30, after about 45 it's all butter to me.

I'm the same way.

As for the eye stuff, that 24FPS/30FPS limit is BS. I can tell the difference between 60 and 100 FPS. After 100FPS, it makes no difference to me.

 

[HKSturboKID]

How do you check the FPS when playing FarCry. I want to test out my rig and see what are my numbers.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

As long as there isn't lag in my mouse movements I don't care about the fps.

 

[kyparrish]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Life begins at 60fps.

- M4H

 

[Jeff7181]

For Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 (and other "slow moving" games) I like at least 30... for Unreal Tournament 2003 I like NO LESS than 60. For racing games I like no less than about 45-50.

Also... there is no limit to what the human eye can detect. The human eye is analog, not digital... it doesn't "snap" pictures and send them to your brain. As with another other physical and mental task, practice will improve your capability. People in the Navy and Air Force are trained to recognize ships and aircraft that are displayed for as little as 1/600th of a second.
I took a "speed reading and comprehension" class in high school, and one of the exercises we did to increase the sensativity of the eye was to turn off all the lights in the room and use a projector to flash a word on the screen for a fraction of a second. We started at 1/16th of a second, and by the end of the class, I could read words that were displayed for 1/400th of a second.
While that doesn't translate DIRECTLY to frames per second in a video game, it proves that there's no general limit to how many frames per second the eye can see because everybody has different physical and mental capabilities. Give me a game like Quake 3 or UT2k3 and I guarantee I can tell you the difference between 60 and 85 frames per second. Not just sitting there standing still of course... but let me play for 1 minute and I can tell the difference. The best thing to do is use Vsync. Even if your video card is pumping out 500 frames per second in Quake 3, if your monitor is running at 85 Hz, you're only going to see 85 frames per second.

*EDIT* By the way... your 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 WILL be a tad slower than an Athlon-64 3400+ but in this case it shouldn't matter because it's not the CPU that limits the frames per second in Far Cry.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

ut 2004 seems perfectly playble 80% of the time at 20-30 fps for me, course it needs to be much higher for a intense fire fight else i get beat and trodden on

 

[g3pro]

25 FPS minimum. 30FPS average seems perfect for me. 45FPS is golden. If I could have 200FPS, I would definitely take it, but it's not necessary for me at this time.

 

[OMG1Penguin]

30 is playable (can play without complaining).
60 is nice.

 

[nitromullet]

How do you check the FPS when playing FarCry. I want to test out my rig and see what are my numbers

FAR CRY SINGLE PLAYER DEMO TWEAKS, CHEATS AND MODS


I personally prefer 1600x1200 w/ no AA/AF for FarCry. The lowest I've seen it dip to is 25 FPS at those settings (rarely), It usually hangs out between 50-70. With AA/AF turned on, they FPS don't really drop too much and should still be playable, but with AA/AF enabled the game just feels different, not as responsive - at all resolutions I've tried. So, I prefer to run at a high resolution, details maxed out (water on high, not ultra), with no AA/AF. The game looks great and plays well.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: OMG1Penguin
30 is playable (can play without complaining).
60 is nice.

I agree. I think 30-35fps is the minimum for smooth gameplay on a FPS, but after experiencing original UT at closer to a steady 60-70fps, I've found that my gameplay abilities seem to actually improve significantly, because everything just happens "smoother", and I can actually start to see things happen, and dodge them, before I get taken out. (This is on a LAN, btw.)

I was happy that my new 9200 could play UT2K4 at mostly 30+ FPS online, against a couple of other players on the default map, but I noticed that things started lagging considerably when I decided to spectate a an Onslaught botmatch. I guess this card isn't really enough of an upgrade after all, if I want to play UT2K4 seriously. Time to get a Ti4200 I guess.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
For Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 (and other "slow moving" games) I like at least 30... for Unreal Tournament 2003 I like NO LESS than 60. For racing games I like no less than about 45-50.

Also... there is no limit to what the human eye can detect. The human eye is analog, not digital... it doesn't "snap" pictures and send them to your brain. As with another other physical and mental task, practice will improve your capability. People in the Navy and Air Force are trained to recognize ships and aircraft that are displayed for as little as 1/600th of a second.
I took a "speed reading and comprehension" class in high school, and one of the exercises we did to increase the sensativity of the eye was to turn off all the lights in the room and use a projector to flash a word on the screen for a fraction of a second. We started at 1/16th of a second, and by the end of the class, I could read words that were displayed for 1/400th of a second.

That's a very interesting data-point, and tends to correlate with my personal observations about the subject as well. I always laugh when I read people posting "that the eye cannot percieve more than 24fps" on the internet, because I know that's not true, and that person is just repeating some bad information that they've been told.

The human visual perception system is an amazing, and complex thing. While it hasn't been totally unravelled, I suspect that a large portion of it works, as a continuous analog function, not as some sort of discrete frame-capture machinery. (Hence things like persistance-of-vision effects. Try swinging around a glow-stick on a string, in a darkened room.) Yet, there are some things that seem to be affected by very rapid "sample period" sort of things, like how things appear under the view of strobe lights.

It's all rather fascinating stuff. I doubt that true "machine vision" will happen anytime soon, in terms of exactly mimicking human visual capacity. Some animals (birds, mostly), have even better perception systems, in some cases.

Originally posted by: Jeff7181While that doesn't translate DIRECTLY to frames per second in a video game, it proves that there's no general limit to how many frames per second the eye can see because everybody has different physical and mental capabilities. Give me a game like Quake 3 or UT2k3 and I guarantee I can tell you the difference between 60 and 85 frames per second. Not just sitting there standing still of course... but let me play for 1 minute and I can tell the difference.

Exactly. There *is* a FPS number, that is the minimum required for the brain to percieve "motion", rather than a sequence of static images. It apparently varies between person, but is somewhere in the range of 10-20 FPS. But that number, is not the *limit* of visible perception of FPS, far from it. Too many people make that mistake.

Thanks for the interesting anecdote.

 

[clicknext]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Life begins at 60fps.

- M4H

And then it just goes downhill.

 

[igloo15]

I believe i read somewhere that the eye can only see about 27 frames per sec anyways so if its lower than that you will notice it higher then that your fine.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: igloo15
I believe i read somewhere that the eye can only see about 27 frames per sec anyways so if its lower than that you will notice it higher then that your fine.

Read the whole post... you'll see that info is false. There is no set limit as to the number of frames per second the human eye can see. Like any other physical or mental activity, training can increase the proficiency in that physical or mental activity.

 

[CHarrington]

Originally posted by: igloo15
I believe i read somewhere that the eye can only see about 27 frames per sec anyways so if its lower than that you will notice it higher then that your fine.

Sigh.

Read the many posts in this topic stating how wrong this misconception is. Please don't go around stating that same regurgitated misinformation, someone might believe you and the cycle will continue.

 

[Viper96720]

30fps if its consistant. I hate it when games fluctuate. Then I notice when it slows down. Like watching a movie and someone hitting slomo sometimes. But if it stays at 30fps always it's fine.

 

[clicknext]

lol, maybe that's why people love playing CS so much. It's so old that it'll run well on pretty much any computer.

 

[Insomniak]

Playable is 35 FPS or up. For smooth, I'd have to say at least 55+

 

[biostud]

In single player, it doesn't matter that much if the framerate drops to a little stutter now and then, but in MP games it must never drop below 30 fps.

 

[clicknext]

I think it varies from game to game as well, at least for me. For me to play multiplayer CS effectively, FPS has to be around 70 or higher. I notice drops to 55-60, and for twitchy games like that, it could be the difference between a kill and a death.