Support NeoGAF

[Shompola]

No, it's not wrong, it's just the way it is. Triple buffering basically only allowes the console/pc to store and menage previously rendered frames as the next one is being prepared (will think of a better way to say this later ) but it can in no way change the rate at which the tv / monitor brush 'paints' the screen, which remains 60 times a second for a ntsc tv no matter what. Having 45 fps on a ntsc tv would only mean having 60fps with 15 repeated frames which would result in some noticeable stuttering, much less desireable than a consistent 30fps.

It would basically mean less tearing if v-sync is off.

 

[border]

Because it has ZERO effect on gameplay. Smooth is smooth.

Neither does HD, FSAA, HDR lighting, or normal-mapping or any of the graphical shit that people are pushing as justification for the purchase of a new system. For some reason it's "elitist" to want 60 fps, but okay to slam the shit out of something that doesn't have other graphical features....

 

[borghe]

No, it's not wrong, it's just the way it is. Triple buffering basically only allowes the console/pc to store and menage previously rendered frames as the next one is being prepared (will think of a better way to say this later ) but it can in no way change the rate at which the tv / monitor brush 'paints' the screen, which remains 60 times a second for a ntsc tv no matter what. Having 45 fps on a ntsc tv would only mean having 60fps with 15 repeated frames which would result in some noticeable stuttering, much less desireable than a consistent 30fps.

ok, so how do games that run under 30fps work? or games that run at 5fps? hell, how do games that run at 30fps work then? refresh rate and framerate opr two mutually independent things. framerate dictates how often a full frame is able to be rendered to the framebuffer of the video device. refresh rate is simply the frequency at which the photon gun makes one full pass across the screen.you can do 45 frames per second the same way you do 30 frames per second and the same way you do 10 frames per second. the framebuffer outputs whatever frame it has in it at the time of refresh. if a new frame hasn't been drawn to the framebuffer, then it sends out the same frame that was already in there. based on what you are saying, EVERY game would essentially be forced to run at 60fps as that is the refresh rate even on interlaced TVs. does every game run at 60fps?

and for the record, movie DVDs are encoded at 24fps and run on 60Hz display devices just fine. sure there is some jerking on the screen during pans, but does the average viewer even know this? of course not. as long as the video generator is generating a signal 59.97 times a second (NOT the same as the framerate) the display doesn't care what it is showing.

 

[eso76]

It would basically mean less tearing if v-sync is off.

yes, that's what triple buffering is used for, basically.

 

[eso76]

ok, so how do games that run under 30fps work? or games that run at 5fps? hell, how do games that run at 30fps work then? refresh rate and framerate opr two mutually independent things. framerate dictates how often a full frame is able to be rendered to the framebuffer of the video device. refresh rate is simply the frequency at which the photon gun makes one full pass across the screen.you can do 45 frames per second the same way you do 30 frames per second and the same way you do 10 frames per second. the framebuffer outputs whatever frame it has in it at the time of refresh. if a new frame hasn't been drawn to the framebuffer, then it sends out the same frame that was already in there. based on what you are saying, EVERY game would essentially be forced to run at 60fps as that is the refresh rate even on interlaced TVs. does every game run at 60fps?

and for the record, movie DVDs are encoded at 24fps and run on 60Hz display devices just fine. sure there is some jerking on the screen during pans, but does the average viewer even know this? of course not. as long as the video generator is generating a signal 59.97 times a second (NOT the same as the framerate) the display doesn't care what it is showing.

Easy, games that run under 30 fps either run at 20, 15, 12, 10..there's many options below 30. You have 60 fps when a new frame is being drawn at every photon gun pass, 30 fps is when a new frame is drawn every other photon gun pass, 20fps is one new frame once every 3 passes... So basically you can have
60 / 2 = 30 fps
60 / 3 = 20
by 4 = 15
by 5 = 12
by 6 = 10
all the way up with integers (?) : you can't have 60/1.5 = 40 fps with v-sync enabled.

40 fps means the instructions needed to draw the first frame reach the photon gun before it 'departs' from the top of the screen; everything goes fine, the first frame is displayed correctly. However, the following frame takes too long to become ready and the next photon gun pass "leaves" without the informations needed to update the image.
The new frame will have missed the photon gun: with v-sync the image will only be updated at the next gun pass. = once every 2 passes = 30 fps.
V sync disabled allowes the gun to start painting the screen with new informations as soon as it receives them, wherever it is. 40 fps means the second frame will reach the gun when it's exactly halfway down the screen. As a result u'll have: upper half of the screen displaying frame 1, lower half of the screen displaying frame 2 = hence the tearing effect.
Buffering helps in that: if frame 2 isn't ready by the time the gun 'departs' from the top of the screen, then the console will send it a copy of the same frame it had stored previously: this obviously eliminates tearing.

24 fps is for cinema btw.

45 fps wouldn't be homogeneous.. you wouldn't have 45 new frames equally distributed in 1 second, you'd have 60fps with sometimes one frame lasting twice as much as it should.
it would look like the game was going 60,60,60, 30 It wouldn't look very good at all

 

[nextgeneration]

Just a commentary on 30 fps vs 60 fps, from a perspective that most of you probably aren't looking at this from. As it pertains to 360, I'm disappointed with the 360's inability to output the graphics that we are seeing so far AT 60 fps, mainly the first person shooters that are out right now. FPS is one of my favorite genres and with the graphics that we have seen so far with the fps for 360, I'm disappointed that the system isn't running these games with these types of graphics AT 60 fps. Whether this is due to unoptimized code or the system not being powerful enough to run these at 60 fps, I really hope it's the former and not the latter.

When you take a look at all the fps so far on 360, the only fps that is 60 fps is Call of Duty. While it is 60 fps, I'm disappointed with the fact that there so many frame rate hiccups in this game. Throw a smoke bomb, and the frame rate tanks. Condemend, while an awesome game, I don't understand why the 360 can't run this at 60 fps. Perfect Dark - when you look at this from a graphical point of view, why isn't this running at 60 fps?

And before any of you label me as an Xbox hater, I am looking at this from a hardware point of view. I apply this logic to all systems and for me, it's the software that show off what the system is capable of doing. When PS3 comes out, and if I see graphics that are marginally better than 360 and ps3 can't run those games at 60 fps, I will be severely disappointed.

 

[Speevy]

I still don't think about this. Not even once. Games are games. Most gamers don't either. And apparently, many of the biggest developers (360 or PS3) don't either.

 

[Ranger X]

You know what's really lame with thread like this one?
It happens all the time....
This thread didn't start as an elitist whatever comment on how 30 fps sucks and 60 fps is for the win. It's just that there's always posters here rendering those threads in some 30 fps vs 60 fps thread.

Thing is, you are short sighted. I prefer 60 fps over 30 anyday. I could ask about games that are 60 frame, maybe i want to try them.
Where does that makes me a 30 fps hater? Even if i prefer 60 fps, of course you're right that 30 fps still is smooth. Why is the war always started over stupid stuff? Wait for an elitist comment before launching your rockets. Poor thread starter really.

 

[nextgeneration]

I still don't think about this. Not even once. Games are games. Most gamers don't either. And apparently, many of the biggest developers (360 or PS3) don't either.

Very true, but for me, I enjoy a game much more if it's running at a constant 60 fps as opposed to a game that's running at 60 fps with stutters, or a game that's running at 30 fps. Also, the frame rate tells me a lot about a system's power. If, for example, PGR, which is arguably one of the more graphically intensive 360 games, were to be ported to ps3, and that game were to run flawlessly at 60 fps with no hiccups, that then tells you a lot about the power of the system.

 

[pilonv1]

Most gamers don't either.

Now you know why some people care here.

 

[Tain]

Now you know why some people care here.

Please. You're implying that people who care about framerates aren't "gamers"?

 

[pilonv1]

Gamers play games, GAFers play frame rates and sales charts.

 

[dark10x]

umm.. yeah.. buffering definitely allows for framerate changes, even with vsyncing.. you guys saying a framerate HAS to be 30 or 60 because of the NSTC frequency rate are just wrong. when BF2 on my PC drops to 38 FPS my refresh rate on my monitor isn't magically dropping from 100Hz. Same thing with TVs. Buffering allows for pretty much any framerate out of the framebuffer as long as it doesn't exceed the refresh rate of the tube.

The poster was suggesting that many games were actually running at 45 fps...which is straight bullshit.

You could indeed achieve a 45 fps of sorts, but as others have said, it would look absolutely terrible.

No console games are doing this with v-sync enabled.

 

[_Angelus_]

GAF has the worst 60 frames per second whores anywhere and yet this forum praises games like Shadow of the Colussus to no end..what happened to the folks who had a problem with frame rates?

Selective thinking at its finest baby.

 

[Tain]

Gamers play games, GAFers play frame rates and sales charts.

People who play games tend to discuss things that are related to them.

 

[Bebpo]

GAF has the worst 60 frames per second whores anywhere and yet this forum praises games like Shadow of the Colussus to no end..what happened to the folks who had a problem with frame rates?

Selective thinking at its finest baby.

Lower framerates (30fps) can be acceptable if they are a tradeoff for something that's worth it. Some games drop their framerates to add reflections and fancy sun effects...that's not really worth hurting the overall visuals for. Other games like SotC and GTA drop their framerates to give larger areas, seamless environments, things that effect the gameplay...in these situations it's a worthy tradeoff.

 

[Tain]

Yeah, pretty much.

Christ, look at EDF2. Despite it chugging along at well under 30 most of the time, I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[mashoutposse]

GAF has the worst 60 frames per second whores anywhere and yet this forum praises games like Shadow of the Colussus to no end..what happened to the folks who had a problem with frame rates?

Selective thinking at its finest baby.

The graphics are extremely ambitious; the visual presentation justifies a slow framerate, especially considering the platform. Different situation.

 

[_Angelus_]

Really?

You refuse to compromise frame rates on racers that still are pretty damn fast even at 30 frames and yet are still willing to add a compromise to a game like Shadow of Colussus which runs way too slow? Yes I know both are different genre playing games but the problem is some can't will continue to complain a bout about racers being 30 frames but are perfectly fine with even lower frames for other games? Thats not really standing behind your views really,its more like back peddling for the sake of an agenda. Shadows of The Colusssus is a valid point,frame rate whores should not be bitching about 30 fps racers if theyre willing to play Shadows of the Colussus.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Really?

You refuse to compromise frame rates on racers that still are pretty damn fast even at 30 frames and yet are still willing to add a compromise to a game like Shadow of Colussus which runs way too slow? Yes I know both are different genre playing games but the problem is some can't will continue to complain a bout about racers being 30 frames but are perfectly fine with even lower frames for other games? Thats not really standing behind your views really,its more like back peddling for the sake of an agenda. Shadows of The Colusssus is a valid point,frame rate whores should not be bitching about 30 fps racers if theyre willing to play Shadows of the Colussus.

One thing you have to take into account is that you're referring to a current gen game when this thread is about next gen framerates. You can be almost certain that people aren't going to be as forgiving if Team ICO's next game has a framerate similar to SoTC's since its going to be on the PS3.

 

[Speevy]

Lower framerates (30fps) can be acceptable if they are a tradeoff for something that's worth it. Some games drop their framerates to add reflections and fancy sun effects...that's not really worth hurting the overall visuals for. Other games like SotC and GTA drop their framerates to give larger areas, seamless environments, things that effect the gameplay...in these situations it's a worthy tradeoff.

Well then Morrowind's framerate drops are the most acceptable thing I've ever seen, since the game's outdoor areas are much larger than GTA and Shadow combined.

Or maybe people set their own priorities about what's "worth it" with respect to visuals.

For example, I can appreciate the gorgeous and sprawling environments in Jet Set Radio Future, or the futuristic, wide-open battlefields in Phantom Dust. Each of these games is technically excellent.

On the other hand, I see something like Splinter Cell Chaos Theory or Rallisport Challenge 2 and I realize that graphics of another sort are necessary for visual impact.

I like looking at Sly 2 just as well as Riddick. Zelda Wind Waker just as well as Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.

Art design, technical achievement, and visual impact are all necessary components to a great looking game.

PLEASE tell me you guys aren't going to excuse any PS3 games for going 60 FPS but cutting out other effects. The machine is a beast.

 

[Ganondorf>Link]

play forza and GT4 back to back, youll see the difference.

Hmm, I've yet to play either of those games and I doubt I ever will, but I did notice a difference between Halo 2 and Prime 2. Is that what you guys are talking about?

It certainly isn't something you put into words, I can tell you that. You can't tell? Well, that's fine.

What annoys me are those who, like you, can't tell...but then go on to blast others that can claiming that they are only making such statements in order to troll something else.

I didn't mean to troll, and I just wanted to know if there was some specific way of noticing the difference. Is it something like just the smoothness of how everything moves?

 

[nextgeneration]

I didn't mean to troll, and I just wanted to know if there was some specific way of noticing the difference. Is it something like just the smoothness of how everything moves?

The easiest way to tell the difference between a game that runs at 30 fps vs 60 fps is to play an fps that runs at both frame rates. Turn 360 degrees in both games and in the game that runs at 60 fps, you'll notice that it's significantly smoother than the fps that runs at 30 fps.

 

[Ganondorf>Link]

The easiest way to tell the difference between a game that runs at 30 fps vs 60 fps is to play an fps that runs at both frame rates. Turn 360 degrees in both games and in the game that runs at 60 fps, you'll notice that it's significantly smoother than the fps that runs at 30 fps.

I see... I'll be sure to try that. Thanks.

 

[Bebpo]

Really?

You refuse to compromise frame rates on racers that still are pretty damn fast even at 30 frames and yet are still willing to add a compromise to a game like Shadow of Colussus which runs way too slow? Yes I know both are different genre playing games but the problem is some can't will continue to complain a bout about racers being 30 frames but are perfectly fine with even lower frames for other games? Thats not really standing behind your views really,its more like back peddling for the sake of an agenda. Shadows of The Colusssus is a valid point,frame rate whores should not be bitching about 30 fps racers if theyre willing to play Shadows of the Colussus.

Look at what you are comparing:

Racers - framerate is 30fps because of visual effects that have no bearing on gameplay. If the buildings didn't reflect off the car would it really make the game any worse?

SoTC - framerate is <30fps because of huge environments and gigantic collosi. If the collosi all had to be half the size and the environments smaller or filled with loading screens would it make the game any worse?

And to Speevy, yes I do feel that Morrowind/Oblivion having framerate issues can be justified by their scope. I didn't play enough Morrowind to really see how big the scope of that is, but if the entire world is available at your fingertips and there are lots of towns that are big and bustling, then yes it would make a lower framerate less of an issue.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

I didn't mean to troll, and I just wanted to know if there was some specific way of noticing the difference. Is it something like just the smoothness of how everything moves?

As someone annoyingly sensitive to framerate in games, 'smoothness' is probably the best general word for it. Ill try to go into a little more detail if I can. 30fps camera movement is probably the most noticable to me, either in first or third person perspectives. Rotation on either axis at this rate is very different compared to 60fps. Anything below the rate of 60 feels sorta like something is tugging at my "peripheral" vision as my viewpoint scrolls across the screen. Its like the images arent registering fast enough, yet my eyes subconciously keep searching for visual feedback that isnt there. Halo was probably the best at getting around this because they absolutely nailed the deadzone and acceleration of camera movement so your 'scroll' remains impeccably consistent. Its still very noticeable to me though.

60fps on the other hand has a silky, natural quality to it thats just incredibly pleasing to the eye, especially in fast moving fps and racing games. The movement just looks "free" in comparison to the lower framerate, for lack of a better term. Its important to distinct natural from filmic. Filmic describes the use of motion blurring, but natural is more like having a speed of reference akin to what your eyes normally register. Being "in sync" so to speak.

The other aspect of framerate in games is animation. You're essentially seeing twice the detail at 60fps compared to 30fps. This is very important to me, especially in sports games that rely on lots of quick transitional movements involving lots of action. Something like MGS2 still looks stunning to this day because of how natural everything moves. Animation at 60fps has a discernable quality to it that even a laymen on the subject invariably picks up on, whether they realize it or not.

I realize developers, particularly Western developers feel a locked 30fps + the most effects we can push = the proper base to go for. Pretty pictures are emphasized as being more important than how they move, react and animate, this isnt anything new. But the assertion that "smooth is smooth" is nonsense. 60fps can have just as much of an effect on realism, detail and immersion as any lighting or shading technique. Movement/speed/animation in of itself is a form of detail. 30fps is just sacrificing one element of detail for another IMO and yeah, its more forgivable/understandable in certain genres than others. But its a trend I dont like to see all the same.

 

[Tain]

It's not scope as much as it is what you can see at once. And in Morrowind, well, you can't see too much.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Well, I went to go buy CoD2. Not disappointed in the least.

@ 60 bucks a game, I'm amazed that some of you are so willing to settle for less. It's not like 60fps can ever be a bad thing. Adds tremendously to the suspension of disbelief. I wouldn't find CoD2 half as immersive if it was running @ 30fps. I know it's not locked, but the game is smooth as hell for a rushed console fps.

 

[dark10x]

GAF has the worst 60 frames per second whores anywhere and yet this forum praises games like Shadow of the Colussus to no end..what happened to the folks who had a problem with frame rates?

Selective thinking at its finest baby.

Selective thinking? No.

It comes down to this: I can enjoy any game, regardless of framerate, if the game is good enough. I would never skip a game because of a bad framerate. I actually played and enjoyed Advent Rising, for example, despite a really bad framerate. It certainly reduced my enjoyment, but I still had fun.

Something like SotC worked simply because everything else within the game was so damn amazing. My opinion of the game would probably have shot up even higher had it run at a high framerate, however.

I'm picky as hell about framerates, there is no doubt, but I want to make it very clear once again that I do not skip games if the framerate is low. Basically, a high framerate will always push my opinion in a more positive direction while a low framerate will push it in a negative direction. How negative the opinion becomes depends on how bad the framerate is coupled with the actual quality of the game. Killzone, for example, was an average shooter with a truly awful framerate. The result? A below average game.

I also take into account what a game might be doing. A game like GTA or Morrowind deserves a break here, as their worlds are much more demanding than, say, a fighting game. A more simplistic looking game with a low framerate is going to bother me more than something of immense scope with a low framerate. Something more complex with a high framerate will typically blow me away.

That's why I found MGS2 so impressive back in the day. We had some of the most amazing visuals ever seen in this game...and they were running at 60 fps. Amazing.

 

[Solo]

That's why I found MGS2 so impressive back in the day. We had some of the most amazing visuals ever seen in this game...and they were running at 60 fps. Amazing.

Still, to this day, 5 years later, the best looking game-of-its-time ever. Not even close in my eyes. Hell, the tanker still looks damned good today.

 

[dark10x]

Still, to this day, 5 years later, the best looking game-of-its-time ever. Not even close in my eyes. Hell, the tanker still looks damned good today.

I agree.

The game STILL looks fantastic in motion today. The greatest looking game of all time (taking release period into release).

 

[Piepz]

What about Fight Night 3 ?

 

[borghe]

Easy, games that run under 30 fps either run at 20, 15, 12, 10..there's many options below 30. You have 60 fps when a new frame is being drawn at every photon gun pass, 30 fps is when a new frame is drawn every other photon gun pass, 20fps is one new frame once every 3 passes... So basically you can have
60 / 2 = 30 fps
60 / 3 = 20
by 4 = 15
by 5 = 12
by 6 = 10
all the way up with integers (?) : you can't have 60/1.5 = 40 fps with v-sync enabled.

40 fps means the instructions needed to draw the first frame reach the photon gun before it 'departs' from the top of the screen; everything goes fine, the first frame is displayed correctly. However, the following frame takes too long to become ready and the next photon gun pass "leaves" without the informations needed to update the image.
The new frame will have missed the photon gun: with v-sync the image will only be updated at the next gun pass. = once every 2 passes = 30 fps.
V sync disabled allowes the gun to start painting the screen with new informations as soon as it receives them, wherever it is. 40 fps means the second frame will reach the gun when it's exactly halfway down the screen. As a result u'll have: upper half of the screen displaying frame 1, lower half of the screen displaying frame 2 = hence the tearing effect.
Buffering helps in that: if frame 2 isn't ready by the time the gun 'departs' from the top of the screen, then the console will send it a copy of the same frame it had stored previously: this obviously eliminates tearing.

24 fps is for cinema btw.

45 fps wouldn't be homogeneous.. you wouldn't have 45 new frames equally distributed in 1 second, you'd have 60fps with sometimes one frame lasting twice as much as it should.
it would look like the game was going 60,60,60, 30 It wouldn't look very good at all

and again, this is all 100% bullshit. the video signal generator grabs whatever frame happens to be in the framebuffer. if the frame is updated or not is absolutely irrelevant to the video signal generator. is the GPU drawing the pause screen at 60fps or 30fps? no, it draws the pause screen and then issues a wait function for input. no further images are sent to the framebuffer and the same frame is just continuously grabbed until updated (as an example). you essentially say that the framebuffer can indeed hold the same frame for multiple refreshes for the signal generator to grab but yet insist that it can only do it for divisible numbers of frames. you offer no technical explanation why (because there isn't one), just that it would look bad, which is ridiculous to consider.

now mind you I am not arguing here that 30 or 60fps don't look best, and I am not arguing that somethign like 45fps wouldn't have mild jerky issues on pans like 24fps encoded DVDS have when pulled down to NTSC,.. What I AM arguing is the utterly moronic logic that a video GPU is only able to render frames in evenly divisible quantities based on what the scan rate is. If this were true there would be a fairly dramatic difference on my PC in framrate using a fps counter when switching from say 85Hz and 100Hz.. and there isn't. I am still rendering at the same framerates in a game the only difference being the stability of the screen flicker.

and everything you said about the screen drawing with the framebuffer being switched is the entire purpose of vsync. with vsync on buffer swaps will occur timed with new scans. if a new scan comes up and a new frame isn't ready, the signal generator will grab the existing repeat frame and paint that. the framebuffer will then swap out with the next available finished frame. will it be an evenly divisible frame? if the programmers can hold framerate. if they can't it very well might not be an evenly divisible frame and then you have framerate issues until it resolves itself. But this retarded stance that you have to have evenly divisble frames makes no sense. There is no difference between running at 60fps, 30fps, 49fps, or 17fps.. I agree completely that running at evenly divisible framerates looks best, but from a technical standpoint it is required nowhere to be the case and arguably in many cases IS NOT the case which is what leads to framerate problems.

anywho, this has gone beyond the scope of the actual topic at hand here.. but let's stop this shit right now that there is some technical requirement in the video chipset for framerates to match precisely with evenly divisble rates of the refresh rate. the signal generator only cares that there is a frame to grab when it paints the screen. it couldn't care less what frame is there. vsync insures that the the frame the signal generator is sending remains the same for the entire refresh paint. nowhere in there does anything care how fast or how often the buffer is refreshed. does 45fps look jerky? a little. is it impossible for the 360 to do 45fps? not on your life.

 

[Blimblim]

What about Fight Night 3 ?

120 fps on PS3. 30 on Xbox 360.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

120 fps on PS3. 30 on Xbox 360.

:lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Blimblim]

:lol :lol :lol :lol

Yeah, I wonder how I'll manage to make 120 fps videos. Imagine how big they will be... Yikes !

 

[momolicious]

screw 120 fps, 60 fps is already impossible for most developers to keep

 

[Tain]

@ 60 bucks a game, I'm amazed that some of you are so willing to settle for less. It's not like 60fps can ever be a bad thing. Adds tremendously to the suspension of disbelief. I wouldn't find CoD2 half as immersive if it was running @ 30fps. I know it's not locked, but the game is smooth as hell for a rushed console fps.

Again, better technology doesn't solve the "30fps problem" or whatever. There will always be a few incredibly talented developers who know how to make a game look great without being very technically taxing, but there will also always be good developers who can make a beautiful looking game at 30fps. It just doesn't make any sense to expect any different because of newer technology. And again, sometimes the decision to make a game run at 30 with more detail is a good, good thing.

 

[Bebpo]

Again, better technology doesn't solve the "30fps problem" or whatever. There will always be a few incredibly talented developers who know how to make a game look great without being very technically taxing, but there will also always be good developers who can make a beautiful looking game at 30fps. It just doesn't make any sense to expect any different because of newer technology. And again, sometimes the decision to make a game run at 30 with more detail is a good, good thing.

Eventually we will hit a point though where consoles have so much power that it would takes 5-10 years to make a game that fully uses the max polygon count, lighting effects, etc...to push the system to the limit. So when we reach this point in technology, every game should basically be 60fps.

I'd expect something like that maybe 2 consoles down the line. PS5 and X~~.

 

[Tain]

Well, yeah, there's always that. But it definitely isn't any time soon. Even two consoles seems a bit too soon, but it's impossible to tell.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

OMG @ NBA2K6!!!

 

[Wafflecopter]

Elitists?

Hmmm......guess I should say this then since that's out in the open.


PC is better

 

[eso76]

and again, this is all 100% bullshit. the video signal generator grabs whatever frame happens to be in the framebuffer. if the frame is updated or not is absolutely irrelevant to the video signal generator. is the GPU drawing the pause screen at 60fps or 30fps? no, it draws the pause screen and then issues a wait function for input. no further images are sent to the framebuffer and the same frame is just continuously grabbed until updated (as an example). you essentially say that the framebuffer can indeed hold the same frame for multiple refreshes for the signal generator to grab but yet insist that it can only do it for divisible numbers of frames. you offer no technical explanation why (because there isn't one)

There isn't one ? are you kidding ?
You see, you probably got this wrong because you're thinking of the average framerate in a second. You can obviously have 45 different frames displayed within a second, but these frames will either last 1/60 of a second or 1/30 (or 1/20 and so on) in no way you can have a frame lasting 1/45 of a second. If the average framerate in a second is 45, this means you had 15 frames lasting 1/30 seconds on screen and 30 lasting 1/60.
This means in a second you had a part of the animation being 60fps smooth and part being 30fps smooth and you'll perceive the 30fps bits as huge slowdowns.

The photon gun makes 2 passes every 1/30 second, it will take roughly 0.016 seconds for each pass. If the gpu can send 2 different frames within this 'time limit' then you'll have a 60 fps smooth 2 frames animation (NOTE that here, when i say 60fps i don't mean you'll have 60 different frames in the entire second - i am just talking about these 2 frames, what happens for the remaining part of the second is a different story and can lead to any kind figure for fps average)
If either one of these frames is late, it will have missed the photon gun pass and will have to wait for the next: this means it will stay on screen for 2 passes: that is 1/60 x 2. 2/60 or 1/30 if you prefer. Which is exactly how long a frame remains on screen in a 30fps animation.
So, below 60fps you can only have a 30fps smooth animation (or less), not something in between: again i am not talking about how many different frames will actually be displayed in a second, i am talking about the smoothness of this 2 frames sequence.

I think it's obvious now why it has to be 60/2 and not 60/1.5. We're talking how long these frames will have to stay on screen; if it's longer than 1/60 then it has to be 1/30 because that's the soonest available photon gun pass.
in this case, 2 represents the number of photon gun passes between the screen refreshes; obviously it can't be 1.5 passes, because this would mean having the second frame being drawn when the photon gun has done one and half pass: the frame will be drawn when the gun is already halfway down the screen = tearing.

Either a new frame is displayed when the gun starts painting the screen or it isn't. Either it takes 1 pass to be drawn or it takes 2 or more; it can't take one and half pass, i am sure you'll agree. That's why you can either have a 60fps smooth animation or a 30 (20, 15etc) fps one.
Again, notice that i am using "frames per second", but this doesn't mean the refresh rate must be the same for the entire second. Just accept that within a second, the animation can either be 60fps smooth or 30fps smooth (or 20, or 10 etc); of course you can also have 45 different frames in a second, but that would only mean you had 30frames being drawn at 60fps and 15 being drawn at 30; and your eye won't perceive that as a 45fps smooth animation, it will perceive the sequence for what it is: bits running at 60fps and bits running at 30.

now mind you I am not arguing here that 30 or 60fps don't look best, and I am not arguing that somethign like 45fps wouldn't have mild jerky issues on pans like 24fps encoded DVDS have when pulled down to NTSC,.. What I AM arguing is the utterly moronic logic that a video GPU is only able to render frames in evenly divisible quantities based on what the scan rate is"

But of course not ! that's not what i'm saying at all ! a GPU can do whatever it is able to do, it can render at 117 frames per second, or 34 or 76 or 13. Scan rate doesn't directly affect GPU rendering times, of course, BUT if you want your game not to look jerky, with serious tearing issues etc. you will have to somehow synchronize the GPU output with the tv scan rate.

If this were true there would be a fairly dramatic difference on my PC in framrate using a fps counter when switching from say 85Hz and 100Hz.. and there isn't. I am still rendering at the same framerates in a game the only difference being the stability of the screen flicker.

Of course there's no difference in rendering times, but there should be a difference in the way it's displayed

But this retarded stance that you have to have evenly divisble frames makes no sense. There is no difference between running at 60fps, 30fps, 49fps, or 17fps.. I agree completely that running at evenly divisible framerates looks best, but from a technical standpoint it is required nowhere to be the case and arguably in many cases IS NOT the case which is what leads to framerate problems.

I think after the explanation you'll agree it's not retarted...it's just simple logic.
And it does indeed lead to framerate problems; If the GPU outputs 54 frames in a seconds and v-sync is enabled, 6 of those 54 frames will be displayed as a 30fps animation and the remaining 48 as a 60fps animation. And you don't want that.

Does 45fps look jerky?

An awful lot.

is it impossible for the 360 to do 45fps? not on your life.

X360 can do whatever it wants, of course.
Still a 45fps output will be displayed as bits at 60fps and bits at 30fps: and trust me, you don't want to play something like that (remember Sega Rally 2 on dreamcast ?).

 

[DaCocoBrova]

^^

Framerateologist.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I've made some simple animated GIFs to illustrate what eso76 is saying. To try and simulate the interlacing would be an extra pain, so consider these progressive. The animations clearly aren't really going at 30, 45, or 60 frames per second, but proper speeds relative to each other. In all images the ball starts at the same point.

Simulated 60 fps, ball moving 30 pixels to the right per frame.

Simulated 30 fps, ball moving 60 pixels to the right per frame.

Simulated 45 fps, ball moving 45 pixels to the right per frame.

Simulated 45 fps as it would appear on a 60 fps screen, ball still moving 45 pixels to the right per frame.

 

[Ranger X]

60fps has a silky, natural quality to it thats just incredibly pleasing to the eye, especially in fast moving fps and racing games. The movement just looks "free" in comparison to the lower framerate, for lack of a better term. Its important to distinct natural from filmic. Filmic describes the use of motion blurring, but natural is more like having a speed of reference akin to what your eyes normally register. Being "in sync" so to speak.

The other aspect of framerate in games is animation. You're essentially seeing twice the detail at 60fps compared to 30fps. This is very important to me, especially in sports games that rely on lots of quick transitional movements involving lots of action. Something like MGS2 still looks stunning to this day because of how natural everything moves. Animation at 60fps has a discernable quality to it that even a laymen on the subject invariably picks up on, whether they realize it or not.

I realize developers, particularly Western developers feel a locked 30fps + the most effects we can push = the proper base to go for. Pretty pictures are emphasized as being more important than how they move, react and animate, this isnt anything new. But the assertion that "smooth is smooth" is nonsense. 60fps can have just as much of an effect on realism, detail and immersion as any lighting or shading technique. Movement/speed/animation in of itself is a form of detail. 30fps is just sacrificing one element of detail for another IMO and yeah, its more forgivable/understandable in certain genres than others. But its a trend I dont like to see all the same.

Wow. You nail it right there. I agree 100% here that's for sure!


"60 fps mandatory" should be a TRC rule imo.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Yea, huka's post was basically [/Thread]

 

[Kabuki Waq]

MGS2 and its bland corridors were in NO ways stunning. The tanker part was impressive tho. But the rest of the game looked crap especially in fps mode.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

^
Not if you could appreciate what the game was doing on a technical level. The particles and smoke effects were leagues beyond anything at the time and has held up well, even by today's standards.

The object interactivity (bottles at the bar) amazed me at the time.

All at a silky smooth 60fps.

 

[Red Blaster]

MGS2 and its bland corridors were in NO ways stunning. The tanker part was impressive tho. But the rest of the game looked crap especially in fps mode.

:lol