Concealed Respite
Well, I very rarely get lag, my ping usually stays steady and low. And used to get much more CPU/vid card bottleneck before we upgraded. Now, fps are doing great, most maps we get around 80 avg. Some drop to 60, but thats still a vast improvement over the 20-30 I used to have. Verge is a prime example of a map that was once unplayable for me, at 18fps, and is now at 40-60. And I had thought the same would hold true for Concealed Respite, but it was still giving me issues even after the upgrade, which is why I figured it was the map that had issues. Thanks for the response, Toxic.
-
- DW Clan Member
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:00 pm
Storm you should give me your Video Card .. along with those 80 frames par second .. :) I never get up from 40 :( .. and yeah is easily to know when its server lag and when you slow pc wont handle that so much graphics .. my ping normaly wont be avobe 18 somethimes i get it down to +- 5 ( the lower ive seen it) But yeah my pc is crappy right now so in the big maps my aim is as bad as my fps .
Funny how frames make such a big differance play wise.
Seems to me anything under 30 fps and I cant see really whast going on....well until its to late. When I had my old computer and started playing UT 2004 I hated the manta cuz I got killed and never say what it was now I can see avrils coming and lest try and dodge them.
The thing I dont understand is I thought your eye only saw like 16 frames a second like for movies and stuff so why the differance between 30 vs 80 I dont really get.
wp
Seems to me anything under 30 fps and I cant see really whast going on....well until its to late. When I had my old computer and started playing UT 2004 I hated the manta cuz I got killed and never say what it was now I can see avrils coming and lest try and dodge them.
The thing I dont understand is I thought your eye only saw like 16 frames a second like for movies and stuff so why the differance between 30 vs 80 I dont really get.
wp
-
- DW Clan Member
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:00 am
There is no known upper limit on the frames per second that the human eye can see. Most movies run at about 25 FPS, if I remember correctly. If you look up some things on the subject you'll notice that there is a lot of theorizing that this FPS value actually produces a hypnotic effect because the brain subconsciously recognizes that it is seeing a series of still images (and if you concentrate on the picture enough you can usually see the jerkiness of the picture as well). Many more recent movies have made a switch to higher FPS, and film buffs used to the prior FPS have by and large rejected them, causing many to believe that the hypnotic effect is tied to the 25 FPS and that films that alter that do not receive the same reaction from viewers.joeblow wrote:Funny how frames make such a big differance play wise.
Seems to me anything under 30 fps and I cant see really whast going on....well until its to late. When I had my old computer and started playing UT 2004 I hated the manta cuz I got killed and never say what it was now I can see avrils coming and lest try and dodge them.
The thing I dont understand is I thought your eye only saw like 16 frames a second like for movies and stuff so why the differance between 30 vs 80 I dont really get.
wp
-
- DW Clan Member
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:00 pm
Hum .. I always had the idea.. that the Human eye could see the difference .. from the 1fps all the way to 60 fps .. as everything else goes around that number like.. mm the frequency of the ac etc etc.
first thing i found after a google search
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_c ... ns_see.htm
seems like and interesting topic to say the least.
wp
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_c ... ns_see.htm
seems like and interesting topic to say the least.
wp
Storm there isnt. Thats what I found was interesting about it and i was wrong to assume the eye connot see the differance more than 16 fps.
From that article and the others I read thru a google search which all were worded the same more or less ( go figure its the internet) that test on air force piolits showed possible see almost 200 fps a second going from very dark to bright light quickly. Not exactly a game senerio of course. I took out of the article that more FPS is better and not really a waste like I thought.
wp
From that article and the others I read thru a google search which all were worded the same more or less ( go figure its the internet) that test on air force piolits showed possible see almost 200 fps a second going from very dark to bright light quickly. Not exactly a game senerio of course. I took out of the article that more FPS is better and not really a waste like I thought.
wp
My understading is that the average player will not notice a slide show effect if it is above 30 fps. This is similar to audio formats, some people can tell if it has a lower bit rate, their eyes and ears are more fine tuned than others. It is all dependent on the individual. For me, I set all my settings up as high as I can, so long as I never see it dip below 30 fps.
Namu