level of noticable FPS shiteness?

[chriso20]

lol i didn't know what else to call it

Ok i said to my mate a day or two ago, "Can you honestly see any change in gameplay above 40-50fps?" at which he said "not about 80 no" (he's always said TFT monitors have lower refresh rates, which is true its just that, mine runs at 75 max, and i don't know why you'd want to go higher anyways :S).

Just wondering what FPS ppl can't see any difference.

So answer 40-50 if you can't see any difference above 40-50.

 

[bud7miker]

What? I don't have a clue what your on about, so i just guessed lol!

 

[CyberSh33p]

yep, 40-50 sounds about right.

if a game runs at that, I'm happy.

 

[Milo 7]

40-50 is playable 30 even but from there it gets really shitty.

60+ is the best if u play with 60 fps all the time and then play at 40 it even feels crappy, but thats for multiplayer more in single player i dont really care if my fps are 30 or something

 

[Cerpin]

True. I don`t really notice the FPS in singleplayer, unless it dips in the 20 area. The important thing is that the framerate is stable. If you have a CONSTANT 30 FPS it seems a lot better than having your FPS go from 10 to 60 all the time. Look at Halo for the Xbox, capped at a solid, stable 30fps, but it feels much faster

 

[SidewinderX]

Well, if you say you can see the difference above the refresh rate of your monitor, then you're lying. If your monitor is at 60Hz, you won't notice the differnec ebetween 60fps and 600fps.

99.9% of the human population can't tell the difference between a steady 35fps (movies) and a steady 100000fps.

A larger number of people will notice 35fps if the frame rate is variable, as in a gam, because the eye cna notice the slight difference, but if it never dips below 40 or so, only about .01% of the human population will notice the difference between that and 1 million fps.

 

[smwScott]

20-30 FPS for me, past that and it doesn't matter.

 

[FoB_Ed]

past 35 fps i cant tell the difference, I can't believe these guys who say 50fps is too slow

 

[MultiVaC]

I notice up to 60, but I don't really give a shit unless it's below 20.

 

[traesko]

If it's a good game, and you are totally absorbed you wont experience any difference between 40 and up unless you get huge fps-drops.

 

[Warbie]

It really depends on whether you're gaming on a tv or a monitor. As someone else pointed out, Halo (Xbox) looks fine at 30 fps on a tv. This isn't the case with a monitor, though. Here the eye can pick up over 60 fps with ease. (a constant 50 fps on a monitor looks considerably worse than a constant 30 on a tv)

This is a good article:

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

For those who can't be bothered to read it all:

"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."

The size of your monitor, and how close you sit infront of it, can effect how choppy the image looks ('flicker' being more apparent in peripheral vision) The game in question also plays a part - the more detailed the visuals the higher the frame rate your need, the speed of gameplay, how it's viewed etc etc.

Most of all, it's what you're used to that counts. If 30 fps works then it's all good

(After years of rtcw/et and CS i'm used to a capped rate of around 76. 60 is my personal cut off point, anything below looks too choppy (even at a constant 50 the difference is very noticable). So don't get used to 70+ fps or you'll end up paying an arm and a leg for pc components every 6 months :/)

 

[FoB_Ed]

well, after playing Planetside and other shitty running games, anything above 30fps is gold for me

 

[ShadowFox]

Anything over 30 is fine for me, but I prefer 40+.

 

[Pibborando San]

After playing Doom 3, with FPS around 20 - 30 most of the time (Playing on 1024x768 at High rez) I can tell you that the slower than exeptional framerates did not decrease my enjoyment of the game. Seeing as most of the weapons have a fairly wide spray, it was fine even when the FPS dropped down to <20 levels.
FPS is really important in MP games tho, as a player with 80 FPS will have a distinct advantage in the aiming department, as oposed to someone with 20 FPS. Hopefully games like CS:S will have rock solid framerates on even less than top of the line systems such as mine (Athlon XP 2800+, 512 MB DDR, Radeon 9600 Pro).

BTW, Doom 3 rox0r3d my b0x0rz!

 

[Shuzer]

I voted for 20-30 simply because you can't label a topic worth crap.
I thought you were asking when you notice slowdown the most.. :|

 

[Darkknighttt]

how can people vote for 1-10 fps?! i hate people who do that.

 

[Vegeta897]

Errr.. Our eyes view the world at 72 FPS...

So whoever voted higher than that is a... Refrain Vegeta, refrain.

So basically there is no difference between 72 FPS and 1,000,000 FPS.

Our eyes can't see it.

So ha! Pwned!

Or maybe I am completely wrong...

 

[Shuzer]

You are completely wrong.

how can people vote for 1-10 fps?! i hate people who do that.

Funny, I don't see a 1-10 FPS choice

 

[Vegeta897]

You are completely wrong.

Argh! How do you know!?!? You must be joking...

I AM NOT WRONG!!

NEVER!!

Admit it! Why don't you go "/me cries" about it!

 

[Illegal Amigo]

With more voters, that would be a bell curve.
FYI world.

 

[Gunner]

FPS shiteness? Hmm it's anything below 20 frames.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I hate when people say 'oh yeah I'm running 130fps!' and I say "what? you can't tell the difference above, like, 60 or something!" And their like "Yes I can! I so can!" etc.

Yes.

 

[un0x]

You can't see the difference above +/- 60 fps, but you can 'feel' it! I play a lot of cs, and I really feel a difference in for example the recoil, the guns react different in 60 in stead of 100..

 

[chriso20]

I did a bit of research on the net about eye refresh rates and the general consensus (sp?) is that your eyes refresh at 60-70fps.

Although there's certain things like "persistence of vision" which is that the image is kept for a split second on your retina, so you 'see' one picture whilst the last one is being processed, and the time between could allow a sense of seeing more fps, whilst you still actually can't. So you can tell there's more fps, but u can't really see them or use the extra fps to an advantage.

There's also "flicker fusion threshold" but that was a load of mumbo jumbo that didn't really apply to eyes, (about things like monitors/tvs flickering when filmed with a camera) blah blah...


So i'd guess above 60-70fps is POINTLESS

 

[Panthers_Domain]

40-50. Seriously can't tell the difference when Call of Duty hits 45 FPS and when it hits 60...