Decent FPS? (Frames Per Second)

[712]

What is decent FPS to you? How high dos it need to be to be "playable"?

I can't really decide myself, maybe because I don't know when the slowdown is visable to the eye, anybody who knows when it is?

 

[Murray_H]

What i normally do is don't give a flying fish about fps - just play the game without fraps or the engine's own monitor and then frame rate never becomes an issue, even when it drops by about 20 frames, if you don't read it on some display and you didn't notice it while playing, then there is no problem

But my solution on really works if you are getting 40fps +

 

[Majestic XII]

30-40 is good enough for me, everything above that is sweeeet.

Only cs players whines about the fpsmeter (only because its there, take it away and you wont notice).

 

[DarkStar]

30 for me.

 

[KagePrototype]

I find 25-40 is good for me.

 

[Harryz]

+30 is a good FPS.

 

[Gunner]

60+ and most CS players couldn't bind a key if their lives depended on it. Quakers are the real tweakers.

 

[Kyorisu]

+50 anything below is just wierd.

 

[Axyon]

50 for sure, otherwise I'll really begin to notice the choppiness and it'll distract me to no end.

 

[MapE]

It can be 30 fps and stable... The reason most people notice their lack of frames per second is a FPS drop. If you keep the framerate stable it really doesn't matter aslong as its 30-50 +

 

[EVIL]

a stable 60 fps is enough

 

[Razor]

Depends on the game,
Flight Simulators = 20+
Slow First Person = 35+
Fast First Person = 60+
Realtime Strategy = 15+

 

[Warbie]

Depends on the game really.

In a first person shooter I find a decent frame rate depends on how detailed the gfx are - and how quickly you have to look about. Old games (Quake 2) looked quite smooth at 30-40 fps. Far Cry I found to look choppy on anything less than 50, simply because of the detail and the fact it's an arcady shooter (and you have to look around quite quickly ............. compared to say Thief 3)

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Isn't 26 the height at which a series of images looks like its moving anyway?

 

[Razor]

Isn't 26 the height at which a series of images looks like its moving anyway?

I think that is based on television and on a linear medium, but games are played in realtime, so it is easier to spot slowness and jerkiness, compared from 30fps - 60fps.

 

[Axyon]

Isn't 26 the height at which a series of images looks like its moving anyway?

It must be 24, since that's what films are recorded at.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Are you sure it makes a difference that its done at real time? Isnt the slowdown more to do with the processing time of the picture rather than how fast its displayed. E.G, it looks jerky because it falls below the 26 (or whatever it is) fps mark due to it having trouble generating the images.

 

[burnzie]

25 frames per second is what the human eye sees as constant movement, you wouldnt realy notice the difference between 40 and 50 frames per second so i dont know why people worry bout things that fast, 30 is plenty

 

[nw909]

I don't give a shitewagon about my FPS as long as its above 25, becuase me r slow eyes.

 

[Warbie]

25 frames per second is what the human eye sees as constant movement, you wouldnt realy notice the difference between 40 and 50 frames per second so i dont know why people worry bout things that fast, 30 is plenty

That's not true m8 - you can definately notice way above 30 fps on a monitor.

This is quite a good article:

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

'So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? Anything over 60 fps is adequate, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill). Framerates cannot drop though from that 72 fps, or we will start to see a degradation in the smoothness of the game. Don't get me wrong, it is not bad to play a game at 30 fps, it is fine, but to get the illusion of reality, you really need a frame rate of 72 fps.'

I find playing Far Cry at 30 fps way to jerky :/ Even at 40 fps in grates.

 

[burnzie]

i guess so, thanks for the link, some good info, i still find 30 is good enough for me

 

[SidewinderX]

25 frames per second is what the human eye sees as constant movement, you wouldnt realy notice the difference between 40 and 50 frames per second so i dont know why people worry bout things that fast, 30 is plenty

that'ds wrong.... in general, everybody's eyes are different. Some people, like gamers or pilots, can notice fps differneces between 55 and 65...while many other people cant notice any difference betweem 35 and 105.

 

[burnzie]

ok i get the point, i was wrong, this is what i get for pretending i have a braincell, i said tokyo was the capital of china in another thread .....

 

[IchI]

30-40 is good enough for me, everything above that is sweeeet.

Only cs players whines about the fpsmeter (only because its there, take it away and you wont notice).

you only notice the fps in cs because the hl1 engine is really crappy. 100fps in cs is proberly the same as 30/40 fps in ut2k3 or ut2k4. But once you go bellow 70fps in the hl1 engine u can definatly tell.

 

[CrazyHarij]

I am not very demanding when it comes to FPS mostly.. But 30ish is good.

 

[Kyorisu]

Some of you are bizare. The problem is the developers of these games think 30-40 frames on a top end machine is good.

 

[Warbie]

Some of you are bizare. The problem is the developers of these games think 30-40 frames on a top end machine is good.

Why do you think that?

 

[Maxi]

Actually people can't see an improvement over 35 or so fps I think, but if it's varying alot then it's disturbing and then you can see a difference between 100 and 50.

 

[Kyorisu]

Becuase in my case anything below 40 in a twitch game like Quake 3 usually makes me miss a Railgun Headshot.

 

[blahblahblah]

30 FPS

Mind you, I use to play games in software mode back in the day. So I haven't (yet, hopefully never) trained my eyes to see the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. :naughty:

 

[Mr. Redundant]

anything under 60 makes me puke.

unless its Farcry, then IM distracted by the purdyness.

as long as its constant Im happy.. I cant stand frame tearing, or sticking.

 

[A2597]

normally? 30-40

in an intense action area? 60+

 

[Sprafa]

40+

I never play fast, intense games that require more than that (I hate FC, you can guess that)

 

[Axyon]

you only notice the fps in cs because the hl1 engine is really crappy. 100fps in cs is proberly the same as 30/40 fps in ut2k3 or ut2k4. But once you go bellow 70fps in the hl1 engine u can definatly tell.

What on earth are you talking about? 100 FPS is 100 FPS, doesn't matter what game it's in.

 

[joule]

60+ for me

 

[crabcakes66]

Depends on the game.....


In bf42 i like to have atleast 60+

 

[ray_MAN]

As long as it runs smoothly enough for me to be able to play it, I don't care about the FPS.

 

[Razor]

Does smooth frame rate or high frame rate matter more though?

If you had a choose of 100fps that dips to 30fps in severe battles or could guarentee a constant 60fps in every situation, which would you prefer?

 

[712]

Does smooth frame rate or high frame rate matter more though?

If you had a choose of 100fps that dips to 30fps in severe battles or could guarentee a constant 60fps in every situation, which would you prefer?

The stabil 60fps one. I don't personally like to be desturbed in a battle situation...

And hey, thanks for all the replys!

 

[Top Secret]

Becuase in my case anything below 40 in a twitch game like Quake 3 usually makes me miss a Railgun Headshot.

Q3 doesn't have hitboxes.

*Edit*

(Unless I'm retarded)