FPS? The Myth The Reality

[M@rv!n]

Guys,

Found this while perusing the net the other night and wanted to share. Its a bit long and a bit old but all principles still apply. That should curb the infernal question of is more FPS better? hope you enjoy and learn

Marv

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

[Pate Dogg]

Seen it before.. and I think Twat Newall wrote it ;)

[HaYl0]

lol your probably right pate

[Kermit The Fr@g]

Great find here Marv.
I always wondered about this. I've been into IT for over twelve years and I always figured that more fps can only be achieved (other than the capabilities of the GPU) with a fast refresh rate. I gave introductory PC-classes to older people and to them it was a godsend that I taught them how to set their refreshrates proper to reduce flicker (reduces headaches and nausea).
To a large extent this also explains the sensibility to epileptic seizures in 3D-games for some. If you have a low framerate/refreshrate and you get intensive light images like explosions, you percieve a blast of light for just a very short moment. This will give a relative highpowered synaptic burst, compared to the regular ongoing stream. Like coming out of a dark room and looking into the bright sun all of a sudden. This is in effect a sort of overload on the system, like burning your hand on a hot stove and (at least in my reasoning) could well be the cause for serious problems with some people. Next to this theres ofcourse also the perceived repetitious on and off of the image, which can be rather strenuous to the nervesystem...

I really enjoyed this cause it confirmed some of my assumptions (as per above). Other than that it clearly shows why the v-sync option SHOULD always be set to off (just do the math). We shd have this URL bound to a key if ppl ask about vsync again. It also answers the enigma that we can have full glorious motion at 25 or 30 fps on video/film, whereas a digitally produced 30 fps stream looks chocky and wrecks up accuracy. I always wondered about that, the motion blur explains this.
As for the theoretical limit to what our eyes can perceive, that is of course a no-brainer. No reproductive system can match the quality of our eyes as yet (will it ever?). To look around you is to know that, lol
I have a new PC that I need to rig for my classes and it's well up to specs (3200+, 1024ram, GFX6800 etc.) My fpscounter in CS on that machine rests at a comfortably 99 and is stable. I can really tell the difference in gameplay. It seems to be much more responsive and fluid and it clearly shows that I really suck at CS.

Now some would argue that if your refreshrate is set to 85Hz, this is what you actually get as fps. Technically that is a given, but it doesnt necessarily reflect an appropriate accuracy.
Theres (next to skillz) other factors involved, like the speed of your PC (calculating coordinates) and the speed and accuracy of your networkcommunication. If these are ok, you can even get a good game on a low spec PC. I really noticed this on my trusty P600 when Max so courtiously helped me to sort my rates. It definetely improved my gameplay, even at a measly 18-30 fps (fekkin 9 - 12 on psychobilly).

It's now officially sorted, thanks Marv...

[Gazaridis]

It's all well and good getting the netgraph in cs to say 200 fps, but if your monitor refresh rate is only 75Hz then 75 fps is the max you're actually going to get, so you might as well set fps_max to your refresh rate and save some juice.

[M@rv!n]

At last an appreciator.. Np Kermy. .thanks for the comments