157 réponses à ce sujet

[goishen]

I don't know why you keep trying to use this baseball analogy, it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I don't think you know what framerate actually is or how it works. It's not about speed or detail, it's about fluidity and smoothness of motion.

 

You are literally arguing something that is NOT the topic. If you seem to think that framerate isn't very important, then go and play any first-person game at 30 fps, then again at 60 fps and note the difference in the animation quality. It's not about speed, it's not about being able to "see the threads" on a baseball, it's more frames being rendered per individual second, so the animation is less jerky and more fluid like natural motion.

 

And again, it's not just animation quality, there's tangible gameplay benefits to playing at a higher framerate. You'll have less input lag, meaning your controls will be more responsive and you will generally play the game better.

 

Also, you're arguing against established science. You asking me to "prove" this is like asking me to prove that the tectonic plates move, or that gravity is what keeps us tethered to the Earth.

 

 

No, it's not "established science".  Do you really need for me to break out the wiki article?

 

And no, I'm not arguing something that is "not on topic". 

 

The distance from a pitcher's mound in baseball is 60.5'.  Or 726".  The pitcher throws that pitch at 100mph.  As we all know, a mile is 5,280' or 63,360".  So, we divide 63,360" / 726" = 87.27" (per second).  I have no doubt that there are people who can see that well.  I am not one of them.  And I'll match that up with any scientific evidence you can find.  Most people can't.  That's why most people aren't baseball players.   BIG SURPRISE.

[DaemionMoadrin]

That's fine.  Let's have you stand in that batters box with someone zipping 100mph zingers past you.   If you can spot a ball's threads while it is motion, that's great, I'll give you $5.  If you can hit one, I'll give you $10.  Then I'll tell you that you should being playing baseball, not video games.

 

And water is wet and the earth is round, and fact after fact after fact after fact.  You claim that the human eye can see up to 225 frames per second, prove it.  Go into something that requires that kind'a precision.  But don't sit here and berate us for not being able to see what you want us to see.

 

I don't know, have you tried Google? This is a well established fact, it is 100% true. I don't understand why you're opposing it (it's not like 60fps took your lunch money in school, right?) or why you're arguing about the speed of a baseball, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Higher fps don't make anything faster, the same action takes exactly the same time no matter the fps. That's because the "s" stands for "second".

 

Have you ever seen a flipbook? On each page the drawings are a little different, so when you flip through it, it creates the illusion of moving pictures. Let's say we have a specific flipbook with an 10 second animation. It it only has 20 pages, then flipping through it will make the animation look choppy, it will jump from page to page. If the book has 100 pages, the animation will look much smoother, it won't jump as much and it will look better, because the illusion of movement is more believable. And that would be only 10fps. To completely fool the human eye you need at least 24fps. Even more if it's a three dimensional environment in which the player moves around.

 

Higher fps means the game can more accurately show you what's happening. If you aim, you move your target reticule and the game has to update its position on the screen. At low fps it will jump, meaning you may overshoot your target. At high fps you can see that you're moving it too far and stop in time. It's because low fps is missing frames, it doesn't update the information on the screen as often.

Same is true for enemies. It's easier to aim for them if their movements are fluid instead of teleporting from place to place. Yes, internally it's all the same but you don't see them walk between the "teleports" and if you can't see it... then that's a problem in a visual medium like computer games.

 

I hope you understand the topic now.

[DaemionMoadrin]

No, it's not "established science".  Do you really need for me to break out the wiki article?

 

And no, I'm not arguing something that is "not on topic". 

 

The distance from a pitcher's mound in baseball is 60.5'.  Or 726".  The pitcher throws that pitch at 100mph.  As we all know, a mile is 5,280' or 63,360".  So, we divide 63,360" / 726" = 87.27" (per second).  I have no doubt that there are people who can see that well.  I am not one of them.  And I'll match that up with any scientific evidence you can find.  Most people can't.  That's why most people aren't baseball players.   BIG SURPRISE.

 

OMG, don't try to argue science and then use your archaic system of measurements.

 

As I said above, it has absolutely nothing to do with speed. You are so far off topic, we can hardly see you anymore.

[goishen]

I don't know, have you tried Google? This is a well established fact, it is 100% true. I don't understand why you're opposing it (it's not like 60fps took your lunch money in school, right?) or why you're arguing about the speed of a baseball, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Higher fps don't make anything faster, the same action takes exactly the same time no matter the fps. That's because the "s" stands for "second".

 

Have you ever seen a flipbook? On each page the drawings are a little different, so when you flip through it, it creates the illusion of moving pictures. Let's say we have a specific flipbook with an 10 second animation. It it only has 20 pages, then flipping through it will make the animation look choppy, it will jump from page to page. If the book has 100 pages, the animation will look much smoother, it won't jump as much and it will look better, because the illusion of movement is more believable. And that would be only 10fps. To completely fool the human eye you need at least 24fps. Even more if it's a three dimensional environment in which the player moves around.

 

Higher fps means the game can more accurately show you what's happening. If you aim, you move your target reticule and the game has to update its position on the screen. At low fps it will jump, meaning you may overshoot your target. At high fps you can see that you're moving it too far and stop in time. It's because low fps is missing frames, it doesn't update the information on the screen as often.

Same is true for enemies. It's easier to aim for them if their movements are fluid instead of teleporting from place to place. Yes, internally it's all the same but you don't see them walk between the "teleports" and if you can't see it... then that's a problem in a visual medium like computer games.

 

I hope you understand the topic now.

 

 

That's fine.  I just don't think that when a baseball goes whizzing by your head in game, you should be able to detect the number of threads.  As you can't do that in real life.

 

Get my picture now?

[DaemionMoadrin]

That's fine.  I just don't think that when a baseball goes whizzing by your head in game, you should be able to detect the number of threads.  As you can't do that in real life.

 

Get my picture now?

 

Nope. You're arguing about the rising banana prices when we're making strawberry smoothies.

[goishen]

My point is realism vs. smoother game play.  You want it so smooth that you can count the threads on a baseball.  Realistically, that's not the truth.

[DaemionMoadrin]

My point is realism vs. smoother game play.  You want it so smooth that you can count the threads on a baseball.  Realistically, that's not the truth.

 

*headdesk* No, I don't want that. No one asked for that. The ball goes whizzing by in half a second either way, no matter if you play at 15 or 120fps. It'll be a white blur, nothing else. (The human eye reacts to the motion, not the details. Plus, seeing threads on a spinning fastball would require something like 1000fps and a slow mo replay.)

 

BUT the difference is that at high fps you can see the pitcher start the throw, which gives you the necessary time to react. All the little motions, like leaning back, taking aim, releasing the ball, you can see them. At low fps you'd see the pitcher standing there and suddendly there's a ball coming at you. Which means your chances to hit it go down dramatically.

 

Higher fps mean you have a better gaming experience. It looks more real.

[goishen]

*headdesk* No, I don't want that. No one asked for that. The ball goes whizzing by in half a second either way, no matter if you play at 15 or 120fps. It'll be a white blur, nothing else. (The human eye reacts to the motion, not the details. Plus, seeing threads on a spinning fastball would require something like 1000fps and a slow mo replay.)

 

BUT the difference is that at high fps you can see the pitcher start the throw, which gives you the necessary time to react. All the little motions, like leaning back, taking aim, releasing the ball, you can see them. At low fps you'd see the pitcher standing there and suddendly there's a ball coming at you. Which means your chances to hit it go down dramatically.

 

Higher fps mean you have a better gaming experience. It looks more real.

 

 

And that's definitely something I want more of in my video games.  More realism. 

 

Because I can't get enough taking a walk, or paying my mortgage, or paying my taxes.  I can't seem to get enough realism there. 

 

EDIT :  And you wonder why 6 million or whatever consoles have sold and will continue to sell.  ****, after this thread, I might be one of them.

[o Ventus]

No, it's not "established science".  Do you really need for me to break out the wiki article?

 

And no, I'm not arguing something that is "not on topic". 

 

The distance from a pitcher's mound in baseball is 60.5'.  Or 726".  The pitcher throws that pitch at 100mph.  As we all know, a mile is 5,280' or 63,360".  So, we divide 63,360" / 726" = 87.27" (per second).  I have no doubt that there are people who can see that well.  I am not one of them.  And I'll match that up with any scientific evidence you can find.  Most people can't.  That's why most people aren't baseball players.   BIG SURPRISE.

 

60 frames being rendered per second producing smoother animation compared to 30 frames rendered per second is an objective, scientific fact, because more frames are being rendered to facilitate the animation. That I have to explain this at all is mind-blowing. It should be common sense to anyone with even a remote understanding of animation.

 

And I'll say this one last time, because it's actually beginning to p*** me off a little bit that you seem completely unable to comprehend this and I'm trying very hard to remain civil here and avoiding insulting you: It's not a matter of speed or being able to see something traveling at high speeds. It's about fluidity of motion, irrespective of how fast something is moving. Speed and distance don't factor into this in any capacity whatsoever, stop bringing it up. I don't give any kind of crap if you're able to see the threads of a baseball or not, that's NOT THE POINT.

 

 

Here is gameplay footage of Grand Theft Auto 5, on the Xbox 360. The 360 version of the game is rendered at 30 frames per second. Go to 1:20 in the video for the actual gameplay to begin.

 

 

And here is gameplay footage of the exact same segment of Grand Theft Auto 5, but on the PC and rendered at 60 fps. The visual fidelity of the game doesn't change at all between the 2 versions. The "threads of the baseball", so to speak, don't show up in either one, because that's not the point. The second video is animated much more fluidly and has a higher quality due to the higher framerate.

[DaemionMoadrin]

And that's definitely something I want more of in my video games.  More realism. 

 

Because I can't get enough taking a walk, or paying my mortgage, or paying my taxes.  I can't seem to get enough realism there.

 

Different kind of realism, man.

 

But okay. How about you stick with 8bit graphics and midi sounds from your internal PC speaker, with very choppy animations in a 2D videogame world while the rest of us plays 1080p ultra realistic games at 60fps, with surround sound?

 

I mean, that is the logical conclusion of your "I don't want more realism in my games" argument. Fine. The old games had a certain charme after all.

 

I prefer a game world that looks realistic (yes, even if it's sci-fi). That means realistic character models and realistic movements. If everyone twitched all over the place because the fps are too low, then it would ruin the immersion. It would also make the game a lot less fun if aiming at and dodging enemies would be a hassle.

[goishen]

Wow, really?  Then, you must have a warped sense of logic.

 

EDIT :  This entire "PC master race" thing has gotta stop.  It just has to.  Otherwise, these companies will take a look at PC's and they'll decide to give what's left over.  They won't even optimize it.  You'll be lucky if you don't start seeing "Press start to continue" and "Press Y to continue" on your PC's.  If you ******, who cares.  PC players will always ******. 

 

Look at the RotTR forums on Steam right now, I can guarantee you that there are at least two to four threads on the main page bitching about frame rate.  "Waaaaaaaaah, I'm only getting 48 fps!" 

 

If that were me in the other side of that situation, I would say to you, "Fine, take your money and get the **** off'a my site."  Especially when they don't need you.  And they don't need you.

[DaemionMoadrin]

And you wonder why 6 million or whatever consoles have sold and will continue to sell.  ****, after this thread, I might be one of them.

 

Again, this has nothing to do with consoles or computers.

 

6 million is cute btw. The vast majority of gamers play on PC. All console gamers combined don't even come close to the number of people playing DotA2 or LoL. Not to mention the MMO players.

[slimgrin]

No, it's not "established science".  Do you really need for me to break out the wiki article?

 

And no, I'm not arguing something that is "not on topic". 

 

The distance from a pitcher's mound in baseball is 60.5'.  Or 726".  The pitcher throws that pitch at 100mph.  As we all know, a mile is 5,280' or 63,360".  So, we divide 63,360" / 726" = 87.27" (per second).  I have no doubt that there are people who can see that well.  I am not one of them.  And I'll match that up with any scientific evidence you can find.  Most people can't.  That's why most people aren't baseball players.   BIG SURPRISE.

 

 

If most people can't, then why do developers even bother with 60 FPS? Hell, it becomes a major marketing point the second it can be achieved on consoles.  

[goishen]

Again, this has nothing to do with consoles or computers.

 

6 million is cute btw. The vast majority of gamers play on PC. All console gamers combined don't even come close to the number of people playing DotA2 or LoL. Not to mention the MMO players.

 

 

That's great!   Keep testing them!   That's always a good route to take.  "Let's keep on pushing them to see how much **** they'll take!"

[DaemionMoadrin]

That's great!   Keep testing them!   That's always a good route to take.  "Let's keep on pushing them to see how much **** they'll take!"

 

... oookay? I think that's the point where I stop talking with you. Not really a fan of irate, irrational arguments that seem on the brink of violence. Especially not when they aren't even about the topic.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Wow, really?  Then, you must have a warped sense of logic.

 

EDIT :  This entire "PC master race" thing has gotta stop.  It just has to.  Otherwise, these companies will take a look at PC's and they'll decide to give what's left over.  They won't even optimize it.  You'll be lucky if you don't start seeing "Press start to continue" and "Press Y to continue" on your PC's.  If you ******, who cares.  PC players will always ******. 

 

Look at the RotTR forums on Steam right now, I can guarantee you that there are at least two to four threads on the main page bitching about frame rate.  "Waaaaaaaaah, I'm only getting 48 fps!" 

 

If that were me in the other side of that situation, I would say to you, "Fine, take your money and get the **** off'a my site."  Especially when they don't need you.  And they don't need you.

 

The most profitable non-mobile games on the market are more or less all PC exclusives or heavily PC centered. League of Legends. DOTA2, Blade and Soul, World of Warcraft, World of Tanks, etc. With maybe the possible exceptions of Call of Duty and GTA, which also (usually) have decent-ish PC versions to boot.

 

But keep telling yourself that massive market is being ignored because you cannot stomach that 60 FPS is objectively smoother than 30 FPS. This is akin to objecting that 1080p has better definition than 480p, or that a car going at 100 MPH goes faster than a car going at 50 MPH. This isn't subjective. If you can't see it, well that happens, but beyond that your entire analogy is baseless and you're arguing from a ground that is shakier that San Francisco during the Great Earthquake.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

30 fps went out of style when the Dreamcast came out. Screw 30 fps. 60 or nothing.

[goishen]

K, I guess I'm wrong.  PC Master race, FTW.

[xkg]

The distance from a pitcher's mound in baseball is 60.5'.  Or 726".  The pitcher throws that pitch at 100mph.  As we all know, a mile is 5,280' or 63,360".  So, we divide 63,360" / 726" = 87.27" (per second).  I have no doubt that there are people who can see that well.  I am not one of them.  And I'll match that up with any scientific evidence you can find.  Most people can't.  That's why most people aren't baseball players.   BIG SURPRISE.

 

Hey, I am interested in this math here.

 

looks like one mile length(in inches) divided by pitcher's mound(in inches)

63,360" / 726" 

 

What was the point of this operation(division) and even more importantly what does the result (87.27'') present ?

This doesn't  make any sense at all. What is this "87.27" (per second)" ?

[Akrabra]

K, I guess I'm wrong.  PC Master race, FTW.

This has nothing to do with PC master race. It is a simple fact that 60 fps is better than 30, and it should be the standard for gaming on any platform as of now. Accept it and move on. 

[DaemionMoadrin]

K, I guess I'm wrong.  PC Master race, FTW.

 

You are aware that consoles could do 60fps, too? Right? It has absolutely nothing to do with PCs.

[goishen]

You are aware that consoles could do 60fps, too? Right? It has absolutely nothing to do with PCs.

 

 

Yah, because I'm hitting the XBox live forums these days.  They're all the rage.  And seeing posts like, "I'm only getting 48 fps!  Waaaah, I'm returning it!"

 

Right.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I doubt they'll manage 60 FPS with the Frosbite engine. People saying there is no difference between 30 and 60 are in serious denial. I've played 20-30 for 4 years until I got my new PC and I refuse to go back to that frame rate. 30 is playable, but 60 is better with every game I own.

Several PS2 games are 60 fps, but I also noticed a significant difference just from playing the Mass Effect 3 demo on PC as opposed to PS3.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Yah, because I'm hitting the XBox live forums these days.  They're all the rage.

 

What's your goal here? Troll people until you get reported? Because if that's the case, just say so. I'm sure someone would do you the favor.

[Akrabra]

Yah, because I'm hitting the XBox live forums these days.  They're all the rage.  And seeing posts like, "I'm only getting 48 fps!  Waaaah, I'm returning it!"

 

Right.

Wasn't Halo 5 running at 60 a big deal for Xbox one? Yes it was. People want the best experience possible, 60 offers the best experience.