Atrocity Exhibition wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
Heh. Run.
Poor test, as the rendering is _shit_ regardless of framerate. The level of tearing is quite appalling. Despite that, couldn't tell the difference between 30 and 60 on scene one, could on scene 2, but that is because the rendering was very poorly done and wasn't actually 30FPS or 60FPS given the amount of tearing, despite its claims to the contrary.
Even if the demo is a sinister underhand plot to corrupt framerate discussions across the world, and even if the (marginal) tearing fundamentally breaks the distinction between 30 and 60 FPS (which it doesn't, is it still completely wrong if you set it down to 10FPS? Is the jerkiness there still a result of tearing?), you only need to look at real actual games to see the difference between various framerates.
10FPS will look bad because the brain no longer attempts to fill in missing information at that speed. The brain is provided with considerably more duplicate information from similar cells, and no longer needs to provide a quick response. But this wasn't a 10FPS vs 30 FPS discussion.
The main point was that it was utterly failing as a reliable, well programmed 3d engine which can't even reliably state what framerate it's running at, and so all it does is demonstrate that shit 3d engines show the difference between 30 and 60. But with a reasonable probability that it's not comparing 30 with 60, but rather 20 with 45.
Quote:
I've played all three games and I've enjoyed all three games, but I can see the huge and real difference between Paradise at the top of the table and GTAIV at the bottom, and anyone in their right mind would take GTAIV at 60FPS over the GTAIV that actually got released.
But curiously, most criticism I've read hasn't been about the graphics speed - the graphics were generally praised, but rather the input lag. Because it takes several frames to address the input.
Quote:
That's all I'm trying to say here, and this myopic head-in-the-sand attitude of 'They're all the same as each other' is clearly, objectively, factually, measurably wrong.
Except, of course, that many if not most people can't tell the difference.
Quote:
Unless, y'know, Criterion's senior engineer doesn't know what he's talking about:
Quote:
Criterion senior engineer Alex Fry concurred in our expansive Burnout tech interview. "We try to get the latency down to the lowest possible, because it's just a better experience. It's one of the reasons Burnout runs at 60FPS."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... or-article[/quote]
Where he's talking about input latency, not graphic speed. And the reason that's important is that doubling the framerate halves the latency. But a well made 30FPS game still has a response time that is well under reaction time (Edit: Not reaction time. I've forgotten the correct word. But well under a time where it breaks things. Considering it's about the same response time as a typical 60FPS game with a couple of order errors). It's just that errors are twice as costly and troublesome to track down.
JohnCoffey" wrote:
Why do gaming companies strive to push for 60 FPS on PC titles?
Because they can, mainly. They're using the same base assets as the console version, and yet because in general the PC crowd feel the need to get better benchmarks/better equipment, they have a graphics budget that far outstrips the assets which they have. They're not going to waste money on better assets. So they chuck in things like 'improved' AA and AF and 60FPS, because they're pretty much free. There's not much striving involved unless you've been utterly brainless in making your engine.
Johnnie wrote:
I always thought the 60FPS mark was because of refresh rates at 60Hz, therefore allowing for fewer v-sync issues
Sort of. It makes anything above 60fps pointless aside from allowing it to be comfortably synced to 60, as the tv can't display it, and anything between 30 and 60 display unevenly timed frames unless v-synced to 30.
Quote:
You're painting it as being the same binary decision that Mr Dave did
No, I got annoyed by you incorrectly telling someone they were broken.