Jump to content

Frames Per Second, AA, Tearing etc...

The Mighty Ash

By The Mighty Ash,
in Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Raff

Raff

Posted
Posted

I've been mostly playing PC games again for about 2 years now and am getting really sick of v-sync issues.

The main problems are:

-Difficulty getting v-sync to work on post-vista windows especially with ATI cards. More and more often, it's totally impossible

-V-sync fucking up the game with absurd levels of input lag

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Butane Bob

Butane Bob

Posted
Posted

I can't stand tearing. It completely destroys the image on screen. Also it's the sort of thing that once you know what it is and you notice it, you can never unnotice it! I couldn't believe my eyes when i first got my ps3 and noticed just about everything had screen tearing. The most powerful console around and it can barely sync its frames together. Even the title screen of Arkham Asylum had it... the fucking title screen! :huh:

Framerates i'm a little more easy on, but i hate when it jumps all over the place. If devs can't get a solid 60FPS then they should lock it at 30 or 45 or whatever. Films are locked at 24/25/30 FPS and they don't stutter around because it's consistent. It's when the framerate is jumping around all over the shop you notice it.

All This shit wasn't as big an issue last gen, why now with 3 times the GPU power are we seeing all these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angel

angel

Posted
Posted

It's very easy to see how 60FPS is better than 30FPS - just look at how silky smooth something like COD4 is in comparison to Halo Reach.

I don't think it super important because Halo's got loads more going (in a less superficial way), it looks great etc but would Reach be harmed by making it 60FPS?

No, it could only be an improvement. Of course there are good technical reasons for why they can't, and as I said I think the game looks brilliant and the framerate doesn't bother me, but if Bungie could somehow make it 60FPS that would made a great game even better, just that bit better visually.

It would be cool if a locked 30 FPS could be seen as the standard, though. Castlevania does look a bit choppy at points, but ultimately I don't think i'll be that bothered, and it certainly wouldn't chage my interest in the game.

I prefer Reach's framerate to COD actually, the 30fps suits the grittiness...and you can see where that extra processing's being used (in the awesome environments). Its about balance..i reckon Reach nails it.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dimahoo

Dimahoo

Posted
Posted

FPS's to be fair are not normally an issue anyway - their somewhat limited enviroments mean they have the memory to process the frames with effects properly.

Same with racing games (although Forza 3 does a stiring job as some tracks are huge, despite the fact its basically wide corridors with huge skyboxes).

The downside is though, if the game gets busy you start to drop frames. A problem Reach has apparently (i've not played it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beertiger

Beertiger

Posted
Posted

I prefer Reach's framerate to COD actually, the 30fps suits the grittiness...and you can see where that extra processing's being used (in the awesome environments). Its about balance..i reckon Reach nails it.

I prefer it too. I'm not sure if it's to do with the frame rate but CoD feels so light weight, much more like controlling a camera with a gun than a character.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NecroMorrius

NecroMorrius

Posted
Posted

I've been mostly playing PC games again for about 2 years now and am getting really sick of v-sync issues.

The main problems are:

-Difficulty getting v-sync to work on post-vista windows especially with ATI cards. More and more often, it's totally impossible

-V-sync fucking up the game with absurd levels of input lag

Lol, dude. Just install D3Doverrider, which comes bundled with rivatuner, and lock it to 60. Works for every single game ever made. On XP, Vista and 7.

Can't believe I got -9 negs for saying Halo has a lower framerate than Cod, even though it's a stone cold fact. Less than half, I believe. Them some rabid fanboys, fo sho. Granted COD only runs at 60fps on console because it runs at the resolution of a scart lead, I was just commenting on how noticeable it is to go from one to the next. I played Halo, Halo 2 and all the CODS on PC at 60fps anyway :lol:

I have what I believe is called a high retinal persistence, which means anything below about 35-40fps looks like a series of still frames quickly displaying one after another, rather than a smooth animation. When I go to the cinema, any fast motion looks like a series of still images flashed up very quickly. Even with motion blurring at 24fps, it still looks like a slideshow running quickly. This is one of the reasons why I feel the need to to keep ahead of the curve with my graphics card etc. I appreciate some people (probably most) can't tell the difference at all, or notice it slightly but aren't bothered by it. I see phosphor trails on almost all plasma TV's too, when no-one else can see them no matter how much I try to point them out.

Also, some motion blur looks really fucked up to me at a low framerate, and makes me feel sick. It's worse than if it wasn't there at all. Especially when it's overdone.

Also, youtube limits the framerate of uploads to 30fps, so those vids are kind of bullshit. In fact, I don't know anywhere on the web that lets you upload 60fps video.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
angel

angel

Posted
Posted

Lol, dude. Just install D3Doverrider, which comes bundled with rivatuner, and lock it to 60. Works for every single game ever made. On XP, Vista and 7.

Can't believe I got -9 negs for saying Halo has a lower framerate than Cod, even though it's a stone cold fact. Less than half, I believe. Them some rabid fanboys, fo sho. Granted COD only runs at 60fps on console because it runs at the resolution of a scart lead, I was just commenting on how noticeable it is to go from one to the next. I played Halo, Halo 2 and all the CODS on PC at 60fps anyway :lol:

I have what I believe is called a high retinal persistence, which means anything below about 35-40fps looks like a series of still frames quickly displaying one after another, rather than a smooth animation. When I go to the cinema, any fast motion looks like a series of still images flashed up very quickly. Even with motion blurring at 24fps, it still looks like a slideshow running quickly. This is one of the reasons why I feel the need to to keep ahead of the curve with my graphics card etc. I appreciate some people (probably most) can't tell the difference at all, or notice it slightly but aren't bothered by it. I see phosphor trails on almost all plasma TV's too, when no-one else can see them no matter how much I try to point them out.

Resolution of a SCART lead? COD doesnt run at 480i you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rudi von Starnberg

Rudi von Starnberg

Posted
Posted

I wouldnt call 30fps a low framerate, and my god does Reach have some impressive environments.

30fps is perfectly acceptable if it's consistent, yeah. I think I've probably played more games at that framerate or similar than any other, over the years. But how does it make it 'grittier' than a higher framerate? Makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angel

angel

Posted
Posted

Just has a nice feel, and Reach does some nice smoothing effects..they combine the previous frame with the current one to give it a nice effect. Its on the digital foundry report on eurogamer. But yeah, its just how it feels to me. A bit like films look good at 24ps. Its just "right" for an FPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dimahoo

Dimahoo

Posted
Posted

Halo vs COD "feel" is simply a matter of different inertia physics being used to simulate walking and movement.

Because your generally moving slow in either game or your in the air, tactile feeling is somewhat neglegable.

Its nice to see 60fps on a FPS, but its not important and makes little different really, IMO.

Same with many 3PS where driving is only a "part" element rather then core to the game itself. As long as its locked at 30fps, your usually too blown away by the enviroements for it to matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dimahoo

Dimahoo

Posted
Posted

It runs at 600p :D

I'd rather have 60fps with classy motion blur, like this:

Zomg you need a million pound PC etc. This wasn't even rendered in realtime, though I expect you could do it now with the latest GPUs.

My GTX 480 can do that no problem, but its cost me a bundle. Such is the price you pay for perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NecroMorrius

NecroMorrius

Posted
Posted

COD2 had autoaim on the console as well didn't it? I can't remember, I played it on both - it came with my 360 in fact.

It's not much of a problem as the game is built around it, I played most of the CODs on 360 as well, I'm not turning my nose up at it. But I prefer finding my own targets ie PC version, or mild autoaim ie Halo. The snapping to enemy heads takes the fun out of it a bit.

It's all about COD:UO anyway :eyebrows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angel

angel

Posted
Posted

It didnt have the L trigger next target thing..i dont mind console mild autoaim either. Im an ex-PC gamer, I know i can accurately headshot with a mouse...that little autoaim just adds a speediness to the kill and lets you move on to the next target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robo_1

Robo_1

Posted
Posted

I think a big part of it is the fact that good graphics sell games, much moreso than a good frame rate etc. For every person who would trade some graphical fidelity for v-sync and a solid frame rate, there's going to be another ten who will hysterically cry PS2 like graphics. I think there's a trade off point which most games aim for, which is an overall strong graphical look, with the occasional dip in performance when a game is running at peak.

Personally I like games to look good, but I hate tearing. The odd frame drop or even a compromised resolution don't impact my enjoyment much, but tearing is really invasive and spoils both the look and performance of a game. I think the future for console game performance is going to be ever more intriguing. The new types of AA such as Sony's MLAA and the frame interpolation techniques seen in dev builds of Force Unleashed 2 will be the precursor to ever more convoluted solutions to many of the performance issues which face current games developers trying to build graphical showcases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A Hen

A Hen

Posted
Posted

Found a bunch of videos on youtube the other day about this, the initial part with the spheres got the reasoning across to me best, the example TF2 footage at the end didn't seem too bad to my eyes.

Thanks for posting that. While I could see the difference with the swinging ball, the two TF2 examples looked identical to me. Maybe if I played them both I'd really notice it, but watching the vid? No difference whatsoever. :unsure:

Yes, tearing is by far the worst. Now I may be wrong, but isn't this a problem that never existed in the pre-HD console era? Stuttering/bad framerates are something we've seen for ages (Perfect Dark for example, GTA3 in places), but tearing seems to be a relatively new phenomenon.

Wasn't Riddick the first game to have tearing, and that was ageeeeeeees ago?

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept