What framerate do you play at?

[bben46]

@Goliathus: I would be interested in seeing the documentation on visually differentiating frame rate at 200fps as all of my own research shows around 30 fps with very few people being able to differentiate at higher rates, but a few were found that could see a difference up to near 50fps. (usually video engineers that worked with high resolution video) However, most people can see that the fps changed when it was running at 100fps, then suddenly dropped to 90fps - they saw a small jump, but usually only if they were told to watch for it.

 

When shown a standard 480 line NTSC on one screen, and a high res 600 line of the same thing on another, with the sets situated so that they had to look away from one to see the other - Most people saw no difference. :tongue: At the time, I was working with video and the difference was obvious to me though. These were both 13 inch studio quality monitors though, and most people thought the 480 line was high resolution - Studio monitors are usually much sharper than home TV. :wink:

 

Movies, are mostly 24fps. TV is 30 fps (29.97fps) interlaced US (NTSC) and in Europe and asia 25 fps interlaced PAL. Interlace means that they only show half the frame, every other line, then the alternate set of lines.

 

HDTV is still just 30fps. The big diference in HDTV is the number of lines - old NTSC had 512 horizontal lines of resolution But you could only see about 480 as the extra lines were used for sync and sub carrier information such as closed captions and SAP, while HDTV has 768 or 1080 lines. PAL uses a larger number of horizontal lines, but a lower frequency 50 Hz vs 60 Hz.

[Goliathus]

@Goliathus: I would be interested in seeing the documentation on visually differentiating frame rate at 200fps as all of my own research shows around 30 fps with very few people being able to differentiate at higher rates, but a few were found that could see a difference up to near 50fps. (usually video engineers that worked with high resolution video) However, most people can see that the fps changed when it was running at 100fps, then suddenly dropped to 90fps - they saw a small jump, but usually only if they were told to watch for it.

 

When shown a standard 480 line NTSC on one screen, and a high res 600 line of the same thing on another, with the sets situated so that they had to look away from one to see the other - Most people saw no difference. :tongue: At the time, I was working with video and the difference was obvious to me though. These were both 13 inch studio quality monitors though, and most people thought the 480 line was high resolution - Studio monitors are usually much sharper than home TV. :wink:

 

Movies, are mostly 24fps. TV is 30 fps (29.97fps) interlaced US (NTSC) and in Europe and asia 25 fps interlaced PAL. Interlace means that they only show half the frame, every other line, then the alternate set of lines.

 

HDTV is still just 30fps. The big diference in HDTV is the number of lines - old NTSC had 512 horizontal lines of resolution But you could only see about 480 as the extra lines were used for sync and sub carrier information such as closed captions and SAP, while HDTV has 768 or 1080 lines. PAL uses a larger number of horizontal lines, but a lower frequency 50 Hz vs 60 Hz.

 

 

I'll try to see if I can find it, it was results from a test that the military did.

 

The eye itself can see well above 200 frames per second, but the brain only perceives around 30 to 60 while doing everyday activities, when concentrating at math problems, or other intense activities then it lowers the amount of frames processed per second to avoid stressing the brain too much.

 

The ability to perceive differences in frame rates partially come down to experience, if you've spent a while playing at 30 fps then it will seem smooth to you, but to someone that's used to 60 fps will easily notice the differences. I played CS 1.6 a year back or so, I played on a CRT because I wanted a high fps. I capped the fps at 200 and it was a lot smoother and responsive than playing on my 60hertz LCD monitor. I changed back to my LCD screen though, I didn't like sitting in front of a photon cannon. : )

[ShadowscaleB1980]

The eye itself can see well above 200 frames per second, but the brain only perceives around 30 to 60 while doing everyday activities, when concentrating at math problems, or other intense activities then it lowers the amount of frames processed per second to avoid stressing the brain too much.

 

The ability to perceive differences in frame rates partially come down to experience, if you've spent a while playing at 30 fps then it will seem smooth to you, but to someone that's used to 60 fps will easily notice the differences. I played CS 1.6 a year back or so, I played on a CRT because I wanted a high fps. I capped the fps at 200 and it was a lot smoother and responsive than playing on my 60hertz LCD monitor. I changed back to my LCD screen though, I didn't like sitting in front of a photon cannon. : )

 

technically there is no such thing as FPS rating for the human eye because there is no shutter in the optical system - light hits the retina in continuous stream,the intensity of light is varied by the iris, which is then focused onto the retina by the lens. I think what we should really be looking for is whether we are really able to perceive a difference between 30fps,60fps or 120fps which I think boils down to the hardware you are using, the manufacturer of the screen, the size of the panel, whether the screen is a TN panel or IPS, the GTG and black to white switching times on LCD panel, the video card used, the clock frequency of the RAMDAC there are too many variables in consumer computer equipment to make relevant scientifically accurate,empirical data.

 

many LCD panels these days cannot go any faster than 60FPS - so going any higher than this is really a colossal waste of frame buffer space.

Edited October 12, 2011 by shadow_scale9180

[diosoth]

I run the game on the Intel card that's pre-installed in this PC. Going through Tweaking Guide some, playing with the more major settings, and turning off bloom lighting(I can't use HDR), plus shutting off water reflections, with textures set to high(I seem to notice zero difference between running medium vs high, beyond being able to actually read in-game signs) and view distances decent, plus the low poly grass mod, I can get a fluctuating 19-20 at 1024 x 768, or 15-16 at 1152 x 864 while outside, no battle. Given I was getting about 9-10 outside before tweaking I think it's an improvement.

 

True, bloom lighting looks a bit better, as do water reflections, but it's also a matter of things looking their best but being slow vs things looking decent and being fast.

[spiritshadowx]

I run the game on the Intel card that's pre-installed in this PC. Going through Tweaking Guide some, playing with the more major settings, and turning off bloom lighting(I can't use HDR), plus shutting off water reflections, with textures set to high(I seem to notice zero difference between running medium vs high, beyond being able to actually read in-game signs) and view distances decent, plus the low poly grass mod, I can get a fluctuating 19-20 at 1024 x 768, or 15-16 at 1152 x 864 while outside, no battle. Given I was getting about 9-10 outside before tweaking I think it's an improvement.

 

True, bloom lighting looks a bit better, as do water reflections, but it's also a matter of things looking their best but being slow vs things looking decent and being fast.

 

Pretty much the same as me, however I reduced the graphics further to make battles slightly... battle-able.