Planetside 2: High Graphics or High Frames per Second?

[Noctis]

This is a warm topic among hardcore players for all FPS genre gamers.
The most recent games absolutely have astonishing graphics, just think about BF3 or PS2 itself. Even on TOP Machines you will never get more then 90 frames, in crowded battle especially. I really doubt on PS2 during a 1500 players engagement on ultra settings anyone will be able to run the game at 80 FPS.

So what matters?

Frame Per Second is the value used to recognize how many frames of single images we have per second. Since our monitors do not stream a constant flux of image but rather millions of "frames", like the old video projectors in a certain point of view.

Has been stated, proved many times that a player playing on 60 Frames has better overall awareness and hardware response then a player playing at 30.

The other bells say that the human eye is only able to perceive 30 frames, and doesn't matter if you get 100 FPS on your shooter game.

This discussion ends up with one side stating that no matter how the game looks good, but always play on lowest settings to maximize performances, because a player with 60-100 FPS has a more fluidly screen, more awareness and best hardware response.

The other side simply wants to enjoy the game fully, and doesnt care about having more then 30 FPS.

Effects:
Samething applies for weapon effects such dust explosions flashlights and all those kinds.
A distant on-going engagement filled with high-res smoke, explosions and flames will surely burden the weight of one's eyes causing distractions and loss of focus on the current objective.
In many games such things can be turned off or lowered at least. Everything at the cost of graphic approach.


So, how does this affect a game like Planetside that despite having a big tactical approach the TTK is very short, and the ranges of engagement are long sometimes?

-Whats your opinion about Frame Per Second impact on gameplay?
-Are you going to lower your settings even if the game runs smoothly? And have you ever done this before in other games?
-Do you think certain things only apply in common FPS round based games, and it will get lost among the hundreds of players fighting?


The concept of this question goes to an Italian streamer named Azoto-
http://www.youtube(.)com/user/AzotoPwny
This thread doesn't aim to advertise the above user and his channel and its written there cause I don't want to claim thoughts who don't belong to me.
If any Moderator wants to remove the link do it.


/Discuss

[AThreatToYou]

I want as many frames as I can get without sacrificing battlefield performance.

Max LOD, Max draw distance, highest quality user-interface integration.

[BlueSkies]

The graphics are very nice... but in general shooter = graphics down, view distance max

Also... no one can run this game on Ultra.. period :p

[MasterMind]

I will probably have my graphics on medium even though they could easily handle high. I will also tone down many effects.

All these things are distractions for the eye and will prevent your eye from focusing on an enemy and getting the drop on them. With such a low TTK getting off the first few shots means all the difference.

So in conclusion, its not about frame rate, its about distractions from shiny effects

[Noctis]

The graphics are very nice... but in general shooter = graphics down, view distance max

Also... no one can run this game on Ultra.. period :p

The next upcoming GPU will be able to do so, "but"...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

I will probably have my graphics on medium even though they could easily handle high. I will also tone down many effects.

All these things are distractions for the eye and will prevent your eye from focusing on an enemy and getting the drop on them. With such a low TTK getting off the first few shots means all the difference.

So in conclusion, its not about frame rate, its about distractions from shiny effects

Of course, I'll gladly add this thing in the question if you don't mind. Effects are really a mess sometimes. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Ivam Akorahil]

The other bells say that the human eye is only able to perceive 30 frames, and doesn't matter if you get 100 FPS on your shooter game.


/Discuss

first of all they are biologicaly wrong i dare them to play a game at 30 and one at 60 you do see a major difference, the difference from 60 upwards is negligbile however.

biological : the human eye recognizes about 18 to 20 fps, 60 in absolute panic situations. The reason that we still notice a game beeing slighly influent at something like 30 fps is however that the game does not substitute for motion blur in a form like the human eye does. Technicaly if you would take the motion blur effect off the human eye the car outside your window would lag like crysis on a bad computer.

but the games cannot fully substitute for it so they feel laggy unless there are so many pictures per second that it appears as fluid motion, for the human eye the fluid motion is created by unsharpness of picture or motion blur.

long text short info

i prefer to play (if i had to) at to border to beeing influent to squeeze the last bit of gfx eyecandy out. but i dont have to, coz i got an awsome pc

[Noctis]

Added.

[Remzsz]

I'm all for the best fps, and most clarity when playing a game, the thing I hate most is when its soo hard to see whats going on because of bloom, screenshake, and all that other useless flashy shit that I don't care about.

Its one of the reasons why I still play counterstrike is because its clean and simple, and doesnt make you feel like you need to wear sunglasses when playing, like BF3.

[Tatwi]

I prefer a mix of both. If a game looks like crap, I won't like playing it. But at the same time, I accept the technical limitations of products as well, so I generally draw the line at the following "must haves":

1. No forced FXAA/Bloom/Ambient Occlsion/Other Post Processing Effect, because I like the world to not look like washed out garbage.

2. 4x AA / 8x AF / VSync ON at no less than 30FPS

3. Flora ON, so must be optimized (WoW and SWG flora is/was great, Everquest II flora is awful, as far as performance goes).

4. Shadows OFF, as they don't add much to a game except a performance hit. Character shadows are fine and in WoW I keep them set to Medium (which makes them look like people rather than a grey circle)

For Planetside, I still like to make it look nice even though I know I am taking a performance hit when I do. Anti Aliasing is a must for me, because the shimmering effect on objects is distracting/annoying without it. In a fire fight I have between 40-60 FPS, which is acceptable. I did turn off the bullet hole decals, because I found that granted a huge FPS increase, despite how I liked the look of them. So, really in the end FPS does always win out. :)

[Noctis]

first of all they are biologicaly wrong i dare them to play a game at 30 and one at 60 you do see a major difference, the difference from 60 upwards is negligbile however.

biological : the human eye recognizes about 18 to 20 fps, 60 in absolute panic situations. The reason that we still notice a game beeing slighly influent at something like 30 fps is however that the game does not substitute for motion blur in a form like the human eye does. Technicaly if you would take the motion blur effect off the human eye the car outside your window would lag like crysis on a bad computer.

but the games cannot fully substitute for it so they feel laggy unless there are so many pictures per second that it appears as fluid motion, for the human eye the fluid motion is created by unsharpness of picture or motion blur.

long text short info

i prefer to play (if i had to) at to border to beeing influent to squeeze the last bit of gfx eyecandy out. but i dont have to, coz i got an awsome pc

Still with an awesome pc I'd low the settings during big crowds, personal preference, don't like staring the grass moving under the wind blows :D

I prefer a mix of both. If a game looks like crap, I won't like playing it. But at the same time, I accept the technical limitations of products as well, so I generally draw the line at the following "must haves":

1. No forced FXAA/Bloom/Ambient Occlsion/Other Post Processing Effect, because I like the world to not look like washed out garbage.

2. 4x AA / 8x AF / VSync ON at no less than 30FPS

3. Flora ON, so must be optimized (WoW and SWG flora is/was great, Everquest II flora is awful, as far as performance goes).

4. Shadows OFF, as they don't add much to a game except a performance hit. Character shadows are fine and in WoW I keep them set to Medium (which makes them look like people rather than a grey circle)

For Planetside, I still like to make it look nice even though I know I am taking a performance hit when I do. Anti Aliasing is a must for me, because the shimmering effect on objects is distracting/annoying without it. In a fire fight I have between 40-60 FPS, which is acceptable. I did turn off the bullet hole decals, because I found that granted a huge FPS increase, despite how I liked the look of them. So, really in the end FPS does always win out. :)


I like to play games with horrible graphics if the game is good
@Quake 3 Arena

[Tatwi]

I like to play games with horrible graphics if the game is good
@Quake 3 Arena

Totally, I agree on a case by case basis. Some of the textures in Quake 3 may be low resolution, but with AA/AF on it doesn't look offensive. The original Everquest on the other hand, it's just a bit too dated for me to get into now, even though some of the game play is enjoyable. Perhaps I am fickle and if so, I am OK with that. :)

[Sledgecrushr]

Lol I really hope I get 30 fps.

[Noctis]

I'll turn everything off 1 second after logging in, then activate the must-have things.

Must have things are the ones that not having them would be an handicap.

[AThreatToYou]

Note that the max most monitors can display is 60 FPS. This is tied to the refresh rate of the monitor (most common is 60 Hz); some new monitors are putting out increased refresh rates that will allow the monitor to actually display higher frames per second. Because of this, getting above 60 FPS is just putting an unnecessary burden on your hardware and your utilities bill.

[Noctis]

Note that the max most monitors can display is 60 FPS. This is tied to the refresh rate of the monitor (most common is 60 Hz); some new monitors are putting out increased refresh rates that will allow the monitor to actually display higher frames per second. Because of this, getting above 60 FPS is just putting an unnecessary burden on your hardware and your utilities bill.

True story, if you want something higher you gotta spend 300-400 bucks for specialized stuff. Anyone tried such screens?

[james]

I have a 7970 if i can't play near max with 60 fps there is a problem

[SFJake]

The whole "you can't notice more than 30 FPS" is absurd, testing and proven everywhere. 60 FPS is more obvious. Just google it or something.

Back a few years people were talking about 60 FPS vs 120, not 30 (what the heck). I don't mean to offend, I just find it absurd. 60 is undeniably a huge improvement. Anything above however, barely is, nevermind the monitor limitations.

A game isn't maxed if its not at 60 FPS, and 60 FPS -is- important for quality. However options to cap at lower FPS for lower hardware, is definitively a godsend, because 30 FPS is very much playable.

[SixShooter]

I really want to try to have the best of both worlds which means that I'm going to have to comprimise on both sides. I like it when a game is pretty to look at but if I'm trying to crank up the graphics quality at the loss of frame rate then it's defeating the purpose because if it's chugging along then it becomes less pretty anyway.

The key for me is balance. I'm not going set everything as low as possible to try to get some insane framerate. I drink and play games on my days off so my ability to percieve frame rate it probably goes down a lot anyway:cheers:

[scroogh]

I just tone stuff down until I hit a steady 60.

[Zulthus]

I'm really not a 'serious' gamer where I turn down graphics to get an advantage, I make the game look as nice as I can before I drop below 30 FPS. That's plenty for me.

[Noctis]

I just tone stuff down until I hit a steady 60.
Good advice for everybody, 30 fps is really bad compared to 60 try it yourself.

[Hamma]

I think turning shit off to gain the best advantage possible is probably one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

[mindmines]

It's going to be hard on people who don't want to build a new rig to just play this game though. I mean my monster computer overheated, due to my fault (leaving it on ALL the time). But I'm on my fiance's Laptop and it's 4 gigs and only a one core. It does the job just fine for other games. Do you think I will have issues? (Eventually I will replace the destroyed parts on my rig.... Evenutally).

[Noctis]

I think turning shit off to gain the best advantage possible is probably one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

Completely disagree, competition tournaments are played at lowest settings. If the player wants to, and usually they do.

[Hamma]

I could give a rats ass about competition tournaments to be honest. As long as they make it so people can't turn off leaves in trees and grass on the ground I'm fine. Allowing people to see stuff others cant because they choose to look at a horrible game detail settings is dumb.

I think it's bullshit disagree with me if you want to. :p I for one will enjoy the beauty of the Forgelight engine.

[Noctis]

I want my games to run at 60 FPS in any situation otherwise it ruins my gaming experience personaly. I think you can understand that, if 2 players meet at a corner, given the same skill, the same reaction time the guy with 60 fps will likely get the first shot.

I know you are aware of hardcore gaming is.

[Drakkonan]

If a game's not immersive, I won't play it. Games like this need to look pretty to be immersive. Generally I decrease video settings from max until the FPS doesn't drop below 30 at any point.

[Noctis]

If a game's not immersive, I won't play it. Games like this need to look pretty to be immersive. Generally I decrease video settings from max until the FPS doesn't drop below 30 at any point.

I do the inverse, I hop in a bad situation with 0 settings, and watch what I can increase up to 60 frames :)

[Boone]

I think turning shit off to gain the best advantage possible is probably one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

I always lower shadows. Always, just because it seems it usually eats up system resources. Hope you have a pretty beefy PC.

[Hamma]

I really doubt 30fps is going to give someone an advantage over another but what do I know.

[Remzsz]

I think turning shit off to gain the best advantage possible is probably one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

How is having the smoothest and clearest experience the most stupid thing to do? Thats why options are amazing you can enjoy super shiny things, while ill enjoy smooth and simple graphics.

[Boone]

I really doubt 30fps is going to give someone an advantage over another but what do I know.

You should look into it. I'm so frantic when playing anyway I never noticed all the extra bells/whistles.

[exLupo]

The whole "you can't notice more than 30 FPS" is absurd, testing and proven everywhere. 60 FPS is more obvious. Just google it or something.

There are a wide number of posts, articles and related studies that debunk the concept. For those not willing to google it, here's a place to start:

http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/How_many_FPS_human_eye_can_see

OP, you may want to edit your post.

[Salad Snake]

Personally, I agree with others here that even though I want my game to run at 60, I would like it to still look nice. I don't mind sacrificing a little framerate, but I try not to dip below 40 in a fight. However, to me a game is not just a competition to win, but also a world to experience, and thus I need it to look nice too. Crap graphics breaks immersion, for those like me who find that concept important.

[Hunterzen]

I think turning shit off to gain the best advantage possible is probably one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

I agree I want my game to look the best it can as long as I'm not under 25-30 FPS. I play video games for immersion, not to try and show how "leet" I am unless I'm playing Jedi Knight series online.

[Jonny]

I agree things that affect gameplay shouldn't be turn -offable. If someone puts their game at lowest settings, grass and leaves should go minecraft style, but not dissappear.

[exLupo]

I agree wholeheartedly with the flora being required. PS1 would have been a bit of a different place if you could hide mines in bushes but everyone had their ground clutter off.

[Kipper]

I want my games to look as nice as possible without sacrificing smoothness. So I'll try to aim for a minimum of 30fps, maybe a bit more if I'm likely to need some in reserve for when there's a particularly large battle or lots of explosions to render.

I also disagree with setting everything to minimum. Everything should be as high as your hardware allows.

If you're actually playing in a competition that's worth something to you, then maybe fair enough - although I would have thought that any "real" competition would have everyone on the same hardware at the same settings, otherwise its not an even playing field.

And yeah... Any game that gives people an advantage by turning off their settings is dumb, if you can hide in bushes, then bushes should not be something people can turn off.

I play for fun first, and to win second.

[Firearms]

I want it to look as whizy as possible without me suffering graphics lag. As I'm poor, I start at high settings and begin switching things off until it's playable :)

PS2 is currently averaging 39FPS for everyone in beta....

[fod]

i play on low settings (except textures on high so stuff still looks crisp) on just about every game even with a kickass PC

i dont care about how pretty a game is only performance so i will be running on low everything in PS2

i7 3820@5ghz
16gb 2000mhz ram
6970@1ghz

as you can see its not like i have a bad PC i just prefer performance than looks

edit: i just noticed people dont like others playing on low because of an advantage they may have graphics wise, this is not the case with me - i want more FPS (hopefully 60 minimum - ave 80-100) not an advantage so i agree some things like bushes should be rendered the same for everyone

[Ivam Akorahil]

4. Shadows OFF, as they don't add much to a game except a performance hit. Character shadows are fine and in WoW I keep them set to Medium (which makes them look like people rather than a grey circle)


i personaly like to strain my system to the max with shadows, they add SO MUCH depth to a scenery its worth the loss of performance for me

i play on low settings (except textures on high so stuff still looks crisp) on just about every game even with a kickass PC



but but! its unhealthy! you might get eye cancer! :D

[theBreadSultan]

Yes your eyes stream a constant actually moving image into your brain.

however the eyes have nothing to do with it.

It is how your brain perceives time.

Which is lovely and complicated, but in essence involves your brain dumping vast amounts of data from the "now" 'memory banks/processor core' to the "just now" memory banks, and then again milliseconds later into the "hey that just happened" memory banks/processor core.

and so on and so forth.
And want to know something really fun?

We have absolutely no perception of the "now" data stream
we actually perceive the world, and present, a fraction of a second behind what the present is.

This linked in with a reaction time that is well over a second, means the advantage you would gain from 30fps vs 60fps is negligible if it exists at all.

If you want an edge, you will get far more of an edge being well rested and drinking a can of red bull before you play than maxing your frame rate.

[Ivam Akorahil]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mVNjLprva94" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

will this settle the fps discussion ?

[Emperor Newt]

This linked in with a reaction time that is well over a second, means the advantage you would gain from 30fps vs 60fps is negligible if it exists at all.

No difference. At all:
http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

[Gortha]

True story, if you want something higher you gotta spend 300-400 bucks for specialized stuff. Anyone tried such screens?

I got the fastest TFT around.

A LG Flatron W2363D TFT. 120 Hz (120 Frames per Second possible) and almost NO Input Lag like an old CRT-Monitor.

You can feel a slight difference between 60 real Frames on a TFT with 60Hz
(when the game runs at synced 60 FPS (V-Sync ON) or when the game has more than 60 FPS)
AND
my 120 Hz TFT when i run a Game with more than 60 FPS(at best with exact 120 FPS).
When you turn fast(fast Mouse move)in Shooters you can see a smother and sharper Picture, you are able to recognize more details, can see more during the fast pan.

I do not play Competetive Shooters any more with a minimal FPS less than 30-45 FPS.

I could give a rats ass about competition tournaments to be honest. As long as they make it so people can't turn off leaves in trees and grass on the ground I'm fine. Allowing people to see stuff others cant because they choose to look at a horrible game detail settings is dumb.

I think it's bullshit disagree with me if you want to. :p I for one will enjoy the beauty of the Forgelight engine.

I am with Hamma. BF3 did this very good. Even on toned down GFX you still had no advantage over higher detailed GFX, because DICE managed make BF3 that way, that you had the same Visiible handicaps - still Trees, bushes, Grass, fog, Sunblind etc...

Thats a way to programm a competetive Shooter. To make the handicap even on every Grafic-Setting.

I püersonally want very high average-FPS but paired with almost maxed Grafix.
So good ahrdware is a must for me. Current build:

Sandybridge i5 2500k @ 4400 MHz
4GiG 1333 MHz DDR3 at CL7
ASUS CU2 6950 @ 6970 Oced by ~15%

Reg
Gortha

[Toppopia]

On my current computer, i can play games on lowest settings, except for view distance. but i keep resolution at maximum, so this is Borderlands, Just Cause 2, Red Orchestra 2 etc. So i am hoping to beable to stay on max resolution, or i will turn it onto maybe 1200x800. Any lower and i would probably be at a disadvantage but might even still play at 800x600. So i prefer high framerate over graphics.

[Sunrock]

-Whats your opinion about Frame Per Second impact on gameplay?
-Are you going to lower your settings even if the game runs smoothly? And have you ever done this before in other games?
-Do you think certain things only apply in common FPS round based games, and it will get lost among the hundreds of players fighting?


Well its true that the human eye or I should say the human brain can't presses more then 30 FPS. However the game code gives a fuck about what you see on the monitor. Having a higher FPS will help you with your accuracy in the game as having a high FPS will actually help your game client to communicate what the game code is communicating between different clients. IE, it will sync up better.

It's always a good idea to have best posible FPS when PvPing. But I think it's still playable if you have 25+ FPS if every one else have that too. It's when you have 25 FPS and your opponent have 125 FPS you will start to get into a disadvantage.

The 3rd point you make is really situational. But yes some times you will get killed because you where 0.01sec slower at aiming then your opponent no matter if its 1 Vs 1 or 1 million Vs 1 million. And if you have low FPS and your opponent faster you might aim faster without your game client knows about it.

[VikingPignvin]

I think turning shit off to gain the best advantage possible is probably one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

A good example for this is arma 2 in my opinion. So for example you have full setting you see the bushes/grass farther away than a person with medium settings. If you turn this down its much easier to spot farther away enemies, your pc doesnt render their coer etc.

[Fanglord]

I jerk about in blacklight in 25fps an still come top most of time time, If i could max the gfx i would. I understand that devs need to make the game accessible to older computers else they would loose alot of players; however, it does annoy me when there are options that effect gameplay that can be turned off to get an 'fps boost/advantage'. Especially when I find that things that don't affect the gameplay too much like shadow particle density make the biggest improvement to fps (okay maybe not the latter... but in blacklight it just turns smoke opaque, so in fact makes it worse :S lol )

[Duskguy]

ill have a new computer running 8 cores, 8 gigs of ram but only a 1 gig nvidea 550ti, so hopefully ill be able to run 40-50 fps while running decent graphics.

i personally like seeing most, though not all effects, ill turn some things off or tune them down if possible, such as water reflection and water wave effects...those are pointless in a shooter imo, who sits there looking at their reflection and the waves in the water? and some of the bloom or explosion graphics sem like they are unnessecary. and seeing as i've been on an xbox for 5 years, the frame rates being better than 30 AND having good graphics is a nice change.

[Fanglord]

ill have a new computer running 8 cores, 8 gigs of ram but only a 1 gig nvidea 550ti, so hopefully ill be able to run 40-50 fps while running decent graphics.

i personally like seeing most, though not all effects, ill turn some things off or tune them down if possible, such as water reflection and water wave effects...those are pointless in a shooter imo, who sits there looking at their reflection and the waves in the water? and some of the bloom or explosion graphics sem like they are unnessecary. and seeing as i've been on an xbox for 5 years, the frame rates being better than 30 AND having good graphics is a nice change.

If you havn't already bought it, don't. Go intel - unless planet is side is gonna use more than 2/3 cores which most games currently don't, the whole 8 core thing is pretty useless.

[AThreatToYou]

If Forgelight doesn't use 4 cores, this game is going have a really bad time. A really bad time. In development by the time shit storebought PCs have quad-core processors... this game needs to use 4 cores with all the stuff its tracking in real-time.
Compare the difference in performance between CryEngine 2 and CryEngine 3. CryEngine 3 performs dramatically better on quad-core systems because it will actually use 4 cores and CryEngine 2 is dramatically more bottlenecked because it's really only using 1 core for the game and then 1 core for physics and some other low-level, meaningless things. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure CryEngine 3 looks better and performs better.

To keep on this discussion, what is more important to the user than 30 or 60 FPS is stable FPS. A jittery FPS throws a player off way more than the sheer visual difference between the frames they jitter between. We can understand that PlanetSide 2 will have to use a fairly aggressive LOD system, but I hope it doesn't use one that is too aggressive or is forced upon the player as such. If the LOD system is too aggressive, the frames can get really unstable depending on where the player is looking which would just be all-around bad. If it isn't aggressive enough, we'll all be stuck with something like 15 FPS (lol). Both are bad, however I don't so much want good frames as I want smooth frames, kind of why being at or above 60 FPS is such a big deal... if you go above 60, your frames can jitter around as much as they want and there will never be a difference. Jittering between 30 and 60 FPS can be very jarring to the player if it happens at the right (or wrong) times.

[Duskguy]

If you havn't already bought it, don't. Go intel - unless planet is side is gonna use more than 2/3 cores which most games currently don't, the whole 8 core thing is pretty useless.

i have bought it and the processor is an AMD FX-8150 3.60 GHz Eight-Core AM3+ CPU 8MB L2 Cache & Turbo Core Technology.

i hear that the amd fx cores arent as good as the intel ones core to core, and i dont plan on upgrading my cpu for a few years, so i figure better to be safe than sorry. and the company had a free upgrade from the amd 6 core to 8, so i figured what the hell, might as well

[AThreatToYou]

AMD FX cores are the absolute worst processors core-for-core. They NEED good application multithreading support in order to even come close to competing with Phenom IIs, let alone Intel processors. You pretty much wasted your money there unless you can turn off half of those cores and overclock it to something like 6 GHz. Yes. 6 GHz.

[Duskguy]

oh well. i will be overclocking, though i dont think it will get close to 6 ghz. i was also on a budget and wasnt looking for a top end gaming rig, simply a mid range that i can upgrade later.
tower and motherboard have plenty of room for expansion and my next computer i plan to build myself either through literally replacing this one piece by piece or starting from scratch when this one dies. as i said, i was on an xbox for 5 years, i had little or no knowledge about current euipment.

pulled last computer apart...had 2 sticks of 500 mb ram a single core cpu and a gt 5000 gpu...yeah, out of date is an understatment

[RushAndAPush]

Could anyone tell me if i can run planetside2?

Specs:

-ATI Radeon HD 4800
-8 Gigs of RAM
-Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz


Thanks.

[Boomhowser]

I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

I agree, I also like games to look good and the way they are intended.

Saying that I really dont care if others turn off stuff hoping to achieve an advantage, all that means is everytime I take them down I prove im that much better than them :lol:

[Noctis]

Could anyone tell me if i can run planetside2?

Specs:

-ATI Radeon HD 4800
-8 Gigs of RAM
-Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz


Thanks.

You will with medium low setting probably, but it's offtopic you know. There's another section for such questions.

[RushAndAPush]

Double post

You will with medium low setting probably, but it's offtopic you know. There's another section for such questions.
Sorry about that. I thought that this thread was linked close enough to my question. Thank you for answering nonetheless.

[TtD]

Have to say i'm a performance guy, though more through necessity that choice. Have been limited in my gaming the past few years waiting for the 120Hz flatscreens to come down in price as even at 60Hz I suffer vision blurring and headaches from FPS gaming (given my hypersensitivity the minimum has always been about 80Hz for headache free gaming on CRTs and about the same on LCDs though 75Hz is bearable). In my case there is nothing smooth even about 60FPS, the ghosting and unresponsiveness are painful. Gamers who can survive with 30FPS just baffle me.

[AThreatToYou]

Could anyone tell me if i can run planetside2?

Specs:

-ATI Radeon HD 4800
-8 Gigs of RAM
-Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz


Thanks.

Probably, but you'll have to play on the lowest settings to get a smooth framerate.

[Tactical Pony]

I think turning shit off to gain the best advantage possible is probably one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

I think killing your frames just for some eye candy is one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. Like it or not, you are playing on a team with other people, and when you kill your FPS and die all the time, it effects more than just your enjoyment of the game. Wanna play a game in some passive and uncompetitive way to enjoy scenery, play games where there aren't 1499 other people getting pissed off at your selfishness, like miniture golf or chess in a park.

[MrBloodworth]

PS1 was uncapped frames per second. This was built in to allow elbow room for large battles. At times, my old rig got 200+ Frames, large battles would dip to 50-60.

[IronMole]

I think turning shit off to gain the best advantage possible is probably one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

Nice opinion...

I like to play games because of its gameplay - not its looks! I couldn't give 2 shits about AA/AF/Ultra settings - that doesn't interest me one bit. I play all my games on low/off because FPS > Graphics.

It really grinds my gears when people like you whine about players like me who play with low/off settings because YOU CHOOSE to play with Ultra and want to look at pretty graphics - yet complain about the advantages (which you can also have) that we get.

[Phisionary]

I play for highest setting I can play and still have responsive movement. Usually this means blur off (I don't feel they add much to the game's I've played) and low AA, medium textures.

I've been playing BLR with a res of 1440x900 instead of 1920x1200, as the min frame drops just a little bit too low at times, and I can definitely feel it when swinging the camera around. PS2 looks like the screen might get a bit crowded at that res though....

Furthermore I would outright reject the idea that the human eye or brain cannot appreciate motion above 60Hz on a monitor. 60Hz on a CRT monitor would produce a visibly annoying flicker. 60Hz LCD's are just slow enough that we don't see the transitions.

The one thing that video clip shows, besides that 240 res video is useless shit, is that a 60Hz video renders a moving object more than twice as many times as 24Hz. The brain can individually recognize the rendered frames, since it is an integration of the visual field over time, not a discrete frame like a rendering. Besides, threshold of detection for eye response, detection in replayed footage, and detection in a real interactive test, these are all different things. So this theory, that >60Hz has no purpose, hasn't been proven to my satisfaction.

Motion blur could help this, but I find that it's usually a trade off between FPS and blur, and the pure FPS gain still does better. Once video cards are powerful enough (others than mine might be) to drive that blur without compromise, it will be a much improved situation. But I think that people will eventually be using at least 120Hz displays, in the not-too-distant future. The 60Hz 'standard' of today is a compromise in itself.

Finally, I severely dislike games where visual options can be reduced to give a discrete advantage (more than simply a smoother display). Bad game design.

[MrBloodworth]

I like to play games because of its gameplay - not its looks!

People say this, but its never true, or we would still be playing MUDS. FPS in particular, drive discrete video game hardware.

[Noctis]

Cutting trees and ither enviroments to have advantages is surely bad game design, but let's focus more on FPS thing, I dont expect PS2 to be able to remove completely certain things.

[IronMole]

People say this, but its never true, or we would still be playing MUDS. FPS in particular, drive discrete video game hardware.

So I'm lying, right?

[Duskguy]

still think a balance of 40-50 fps and good or even great graphics is the way to go. assuming of course that you can get those rates to stay steady.

personally i want my game to run 35-40 steadily in a big pitched battle and go up to 50-60 when only a little is going on. so ill be lowering the non essential options while keeping overall graphics and things like render distance as high as possible without the game getting choppy in a big battle.

[Goku]

I do like my graphics, but I will tone them down if needed for FPS games to have a proper FPS. I like to average around 60 FPS. I have upgraded every GPU gen, since I started building my own PC's back in 2005. Going from my 7900 GT -> 8800 GTS G92 -> HD 4770 (side grade for my small case) ->HD 5770 -> 5770 CF -> GTX 560 Ti -> HD 7950. CPU wise gone from an Athlon X2 4200+ -> E8400 -> Phenom II X4 955 BE -> 2500K. I will say CPU's have lasted me longer anyway.

[NePaS]

Nice opinion...

I like to play games because of its gameplay - not its looks! I couldn't give 2 shits about AA/AF/Ultra settings - that doesn't interest me one bit. I play all my games on low/off because FPS > Graphics.



Maybe you should get a decent rig,then you can have the fps and eye candy.

[Envenom]

I didn't drop $500 on a Geforce 580 to go low performance. lol.

[IronMole]

Maybe you should get a decent rig,then you can have the fps and eye candy.

Maybe I shouldn't? :rolleyes:

What's the point if I can achieve the FPS I want/need by setting to low/off? ;)

[fod]

I didn't drop $500 on a Geforce 580 to go low performance. lol.

hmm that doesnt really answer the question
graphics or fps?

"low performance" is high graphics settings to me because you get a lower frame rate than low graphics settings or "high performance"

[MrBloodworth]

So I'm lying, right?

No, but people have a tendency to live in a self sustaining bubble.

[Boone]

No, but people have a tendency to live in a self sustaining bubble.

A lot of games out there are bought/played that aren't the best in the graphic department but excel at gameplay.

[soadnathan]

People say this, but its never true, or we would still be playing MUDS. FPS in particular, drive discrete video game hardware.

:huh:

[MrSilentF]

This thread is stupid. All I see in here is people with disposable incomes who can spend that type of money on high powered machines. What about the common man with his above average PC or average PC? Does anyone care about them?

Many of the potential planetside 2 players have machines that play Planetside very well. However, Planetside2 so far has been lagtastic on many machines I've heard from so far

So the real question is, does Planetside staff care more about a bigger playerbase or prettier graphics? Seeing how this is Sony, I don't see it going towards playerbase as they are generally terrible when it comes to people. I hate to badmouth a great company but that is one of it's major flaws; it does not care much about it's consumer

Where was I going with this?

[Toppopia]

This thread is stupid. All I see in here is people with disposable incomes who can spend that type of money on high powered machines. What about the common man with his above average PC or average PC? Does anyone care about them?

Many of the potential planetside 2 players have machines that play Planetside very well. However, Planetside2 so far has been lagtastic on many machines I've heard from so far

So the real question is, does Planetside staff care more about a bigger playerbase or prettier graphics? Seeing how this is Sony, I don't see it going towards playerbase as they are generally terrible when it comes to people. I hate to badmouth a great company but that is one of it's major flaws; it does not care much about it's consumer

Where was I going with this?

I am one of the people that like perfomance over graphics, because i have a badish graphics card i play on lowest settings, which actually still look awesome compared to my 5+ years gaming on Xbox and Xbox 360, i only joined the PC race this year when i got to university. So i hope they choose playerbase over graphics, or heavily optomise the game so it can look awesome if you want it to, or be fast if i want it to.

[Azarga]

-Whats your opinion about Frame Per
Second impact on gameplay?

60fps is good, 30fps is also fine. I see no point going higher than 60fps, but also I think no graphic fluff can justify playing on <30fps. (I played Morrowind on something like 8fps and enjoyed it, but that is the single exclusion)

-Are you going to lower your settings even
if the game runs smoothly? And have you
ever done this before in other games?

Absolutely yes. First I will disable environment shadows leaving only character/vehicle shadows. Then set grass density to lowest, disable if possible. Disable weather effects. Disable motion blur and all shinies. All the above is done regardless of the games performance. If all runs smooth and I can enable some of this fluff without harming my fps, I still won't.

After that I will check games performance, if fps is within acceptable range, then I'm done with graphic settings, if not, I'll begin lowering texture resolution and the like. Draw distance is a holy cow and not to be lowered until there is something else left to lower.

[Ghostwithbroken]

Well, thats the difference between hardcore competitive gamers, and hard core single players/casual gamers.

I will always cut the detail level in order to have my FPS highest as possible.

You can always do some spray and pray marvels with 30 fps, but sniping, and taking the right shot takes nothing but skill wich needs to be supported with some smooth FPS performance.

I just don't want to play some kind of slideshow eyecandy, and I think that SOE knows what to do with their engine from examples like bf3.

[Dkamanus]

I'd say I go for graphics. Though I do have a tendency of playing in lower resolutions due to my monitor (1280x1024), and it gives me an advantage of being able to turn almost everything up without sacrificing FPS. If I have to kill GFX, normally I'd lower considerably the AA, Blur (which is totally unnatural in games anyway), maybe some post processing. But shadows, grass and stuff? Nop.

The reason for this is that, while it is very distracting, there'll be a time when the distractions will become more common, depending on how long you play the game. You actually start to understand the mechanics, and adjust accordingly.

[bjorntju1]

I'd rather play at 60 FPS than have great graphics in MP games. A low amount of FPS just puts me at a disadvantage.

[Katanauk]

Well . . . err . . . something . . . that's poorly optimized doesn't make it the best graphics, but does heighten its demand in terms of system specs . . . which seems to impress some people . . .

[MaxDamage]

I have no magic disposable income, I built this PC with blood and sweat for Planetside!

There are many within competitive gaming who take great pride in tweaking their client side configs for maximum efficiency and absolute minimal detail for performance and the visual edge, I used to be one of them in Quake III Arena.

No point arguing with them, each to their own.

[Boone]

This thread is stupid. All I see in here is people with disposable incomes who can spend that type of money on high powered machines. What about the common man with his above average PC or average PC? Does anyone care about them?

Many of the potential planetside 2 players have machines that play Planetside very well. However, Planetside2 so far has been lagtastic on many machines I've heard from so far

So the real question is, does Planetside staff care more about a bigger playerbase or prettier graphics? Seeing how this is Sony, I don't see it going towards playerbase as they are generally terrible when it comes to people. I hate to badmouth a great company but that is one of it's major flaws; it does not care much about it's consumer

Where was I going with this?

Lag or FPS drops? Completely different. The above average PC should be fine for PS2 (I'm thinking something like 560Ti should run Medium) that is a shot in the dark though and pure speculation, and that's the reason there are going to be testing for months to iron things out.

[Dkamanus]

Lag or FPS drops? Completely different. The above average PC should be fine for PS2 (I'm thinking something like 560Ti should run Medium) that is a shot in the dark though and pure speculation, and that's the reason there are going to be testing for months to iron things out.

Shouldn't we try to base ourselves on other game engines to try to get a base for the Forgelight one? I mean, cmon, people saying that, for instance my PC

- i5 2500k 3.3 Ghz Intel Sandy Bridge
- 8 Gb of 1600 Mhz DDR3 Ram
- Radeon HD 6870 1ghz

would make a MMOFPS like Planetside 2 run on medium is quite the tale. These configurations could run Battlefield 3 on a very smoothly manner, if you take AA of the equation, which is by far, one of the most demanding effects on GPUs available (going from nothing to 2x gives you a slight FPS drop).

I don't believe PS2 will be AS demanding as people are saying (OF COURSE, MEGA ULTRA would make most PCs blow anyway, considering what people are speculating).

[MaxDamage]

I don't believe PS2 will be AS demanding as people are saying (OF COURSE, MEGA ULTRA would make most PCs blow anyway, considering what people are speculating).
Negatory. People exaggerate.

But the fact is, the big money titles used to crush most peoples average PCs.
Keeps money going into hardware advances, which gives developers more scope - the cycle that made PC gaming so great in the first place.

The titles would be promoted well in advance, and people knew to upgrade. Console titles helped stagnate this. The bar has become only as high for PC games as the current gen. dated consoles reached.

Planetside pushes out of that, and in doing so pushes some folks out of their comfort zone.

Yes it's sad that some people can't afford to upgrade, but that logic is what leads 'boffins' and communists to promote cloud style computing/gaming - they think we will end up with essentially, screens, modems and interfaces.. with all major processing done remotely (and all power/information/'private' information stored remotely, conveniently accessible to whatever authorities and corporations are granted access in the small print).

That might be OK for third world countries, not for Maxy.

[Ghoest9]

I love people who play at 30 fps - because they are easier to kill.

The reason is NO ONE ever has a consistent 30 fps. IF you are getting 30 fps in normal combat that mean youll have 40 50 or 60 in light combat.
Inconstant FPS makes it hard for you mind to react to what its seeing.

If you have a normal monitor refresh rate of 60 then you need to be playing at 60 FPS in large majority of combat if you dont want to be at a disadvantage.

Shouldn't we try to base ourselves on other game engines to try to get a base for the Forgelight one? I mean, cmon, people saying that, for instance my PC

- i5 2500k 3.3 Ghz Intel Sandy Bridge
- 8 Gb of 1600 Mhz DDR3 Ram
- Radeon HD 6870 1ghz

would make a MMOFPS like Planetside 2 run on medium is quite the tale. These configurations could run Battlefield 3 on a very smoothly manner, if you take AA of the equation, which is by far, one of the most demanding effects on GPUs available (going from nothing to 2x gives you a slight FPS drop).

I don't believe PS2 will be AS demanding as people are saying (OF COURSE, MEGA ULTRA would make most PCs blow anyway, considering what people are speculating).

Since you havnet ben playing the game you really shouldnt talk.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

silly thread, I'll have both lmao.

[SixShooter]

:rofl:This thread is stupid. All I see in here is people with disposable incomes who can spend that type of money on high powered machines. What about the common man with his above average PC or average PC? Does anyone care about them?

Many of the potential planetside 2 players have machines that play Planetside very well. However, Planetside2 so far has been lagtastic on many machines I've heard from so far

So the real question is, does Planetside staff care more about a bigger playerbase or prettier graphics? Seeing how this is Sony, I don't see it going towards playerbase as they are generally terrible when it comes to people. I hate to badmouth a great company but that is one of it's major flaws; it does not care much about it's consumer

Where was I going with this?:rofl:

Disposable income:rofl::lol::rofl::lol:
Thats some funny shit man:lol::rofl::lol::rofl::lol:

[Predemption]

I used to play call of duty on my old laptop at 15FPS (with everything on it's lowest) and I don't know how I did it. Nowadays if my FPS goes below 45 it is immediately noticeable and makes a huge difference on my performance. That being said, I usually keep my FPS to around 60.

[Forsaken One]

I like both honestly and it makes me pissed when newer games are having shitter graphics yet take MORE power to run.



Crysis 1 should be the standard. Great graphics, semi low hardware needed. Crysis one has proven it can be done.

So how the heck are newer games coming out with less then Crysis level impressive graphics yet take twice or more the minimum requirements to run decently?

You can't even say that its because tech is advancing Its honestly a very big downgrade to require more power for less end result.

[Meriv]

IMO i don't think they will go for great graphic performance, remember it is a F2P ,bigger the playerbase /more succesfull it is. IDK how it works but it could have a great range of variation beetween the lowest and the higher setting (that would be the best) but i don't think they are willing to cut out a lot of players (possibles buyers) in exchange of perfect graphics.

lets take in consideration the most successful F2P out there, like LOL, WOT, etc..etc.. they don't have amazing graphics soo i think they will try to follow that model.

[fb III IX ca IV]

I like what RAGE does, it dynamically adjusts the graphics settings until the game runs right at 60 FPS, if you go into a more resource intensive section, it will lower the settings to maintain the 60 FPS.

[sgtbjack]

I like what RAGE does, it dynamically adjusts the graphics settings until the game runs right at 60 FPS, if you go into a more resource intensive section, it will lower the settings to maintain the 60 FPS.

Thats pretty highspeed. I didn't know that.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

I require a constant 60 FPS. That's restricted by my monitor and biology. I have a sneaking suspicion that monitor manufacturers chose 60 FPS for a reason.

After 60 FPS is locked in, then the next thing is maximum draw distance and to see the enemy before they see me. Anything that helps me see up to the horizon is my number 2 priority.

Anything after that is pretty. The mesh on the VS uniforms, bulletholes, smoke, whatever. All of it is optional.

[MaxDamage]

I require a constant 60 FPS. That's restricted by my monitor and biology. I have a sneaking suspicion that monitor manufacturers chose 60 FPS for a reason.

After 60 FPS is locked in, then the next thing is maximum draw distance and to see the enemy before they see me. Anything that helps me see up to the horizon is my number 2 priority.

Anything after that is pretty. The mesh on the VS uniforms, bulletholes, smoke, whatever. All of it is optional.

The 60fps 'biology' claim is a vague thing, the human eye can register the difference between 120 and 60 very easily (as any pro Quake III Arena player can happily tell you), as we do not simply register 'frames' with our eyes.

There is no 'vertical sync' interface between our eyes and monitors.

[FortySe7en]

The 60fps 'biology' claim is a vague thing, the human eye can register the difference between 120 and 60 very easily (as any pro Quake III Arena player can happily tell you), as we do not simply register 'frames' with our eyes.

There is no 'vertical sync' interface between our eyes and monitors.

No Q3A "pro" would have ever made this statement.

The only difference FPS made in quake was allowing you to jump further and crouch faster (http://www.funender.com/quake/articles/fps.html). It had absolutely zero to do with being able to visually notice a difference in framerate.

But please, go on.

[MaxDamage]

No Q3A "pro" would have ever made this statement.

The only difference FPS made in quake was allowing you to jump further and crouch faster (http://www.funender.com/quake/articles/fps.html). It had absolutely zero to do with being able to visually notice a difference in framerate.

But please, go on.
Wrong.
That counter argument is as old as, well, Quake III Arena.

We who actually experienced the difference rather than simply throwing your completely ignorant and inexperienced opinion around, know better.

Also the 60fps thing was debunked by actual scientists, a bloody long time ago. It's just old wives tales that prolongue this lie that the eye can only somehow see EXACTLY 60 FPS OR LESS.

This isn't about jumping, the frame lock at 120 was indeed used for enhancing movement and jumping (as if you needed to link me to what I already knew), 120 is far more comfortable and easy on the eye, reducing strain and far smoother.

I realise console gen folk and some hardware-pride clowns take all of this personally as an attack on their epeen for their machine not running everything beyond 60fps. 60fps became the norm because it was more realistically attainable as an ideal for developers, technology and typical flatscreens. Nothing to do with science, bud.

With the advent of 120Hz monitors becoming more affordable (hopefully cheap enough for your price range), you too will notice the difference and eat your hat.

Your friendly neighbourhood FPS (ex)pro. :]

[Pancake]

BOTH

[GLaDOS]

With any game, I just hope and pray that it'll run on my computer. And if it does, then I turn everything down so it's playable, usually around 30 FPS, but less for more modern games like Tribes Ascend. I'm just happy I can play them.

[FortySe7en]

Your friendly neighbourhood FPS (ex)pro. :]

Pics or it didn't happen

[lawnmower]

People say this, but its never true, or we would still be playing MUDS. FPS in particular, drive discrete video game hardware.
lol what

No Q3A "pro" would have ever made this statement.

The only difference FPS made in quake was allowing you to jump further and crouch faster (http://www.funender.com/quake/articles/fps.html). It had absolutely zero to do with being able to visually notice a difference in framerate.

But please, go on.
sounds liek you know what every quakepro would say. please, go on

[Swatmat]

to those that say you cant tell between 30 and 60, im sorry you just can 30 is jumpy and slow, 60 is smooth, 120 is even better but the noticeable difference is much smaller compared to 30-60.

and in regard to high fps or high graphics fps is more important as you can react quicker and don't get slowdown when you need that situational awareness. however you can have both just dont play on a standard pc you buy from pc world, if you want a decent gaming experience buy custom made or build it yourself, im not talking 5000 dollars/pounds/euros but for the price you can buy a pc from pc world you can actually get a much more powerful one if you buy the parts

[Kitsune]

Personally I balance both performance and quality.

Something tells me however I'm going to need something around an Nvidia GTX 650 to support this many quality shadows however...

[Swatmat]

I like both honestly and it makes me pissed when newer games are having shitter graphics yet take MORE power to run.



Crysis 1 should be the standard. Great graphics, semi low hardware needed. Crysis one has proven it can be done.

So how the heck are newer games coming out with less then Crysis level impressive graphics yet take twice or more the minimum requirements to run decently?

You can't even say that its because tech is advancing Its honestly a very big downgrade to require more power for less end result.

Semi low hardware? the nvidia 600 series and AMD 7000 series is the only range tahat can actually mainatain 60 fps throught the entire game on maxed out settings and how old is that game

[FortySe7en]

sounds liek you know what every quakepro would say. please, go on

A.) It's like*
B.) Its Q3A not quake
C.) I do, seeing as how I've competed in CAL-I, was within the top 10 at Quakecon 2000, and top 5 in 2001. In fact, a bunch of us just got together at Quakecon 3 weeks ago to play quakelive for fun.

Would you like me to keep going? There's still 11 years I haven't told you about.

You should really do your research next time before you try and backlash what I say. Google is your friend.

[lawnmower]

A.) It's like*
B.) Its Q3A not quake
C.) I do, seeing as how I've competed in CAL-I, was within the top 10 at Quakecon 2000, and top 5 in 2001. In fact, a bunch of us just got together at Quakecon 3 weeks ago to play quakelive for fun.

Would you like me to keep going? There's still 11 years I haven't told you about.

You should really do your research next time before you try and backlash what I say. Google is your friend.
yes i dont know how liek is spelled. sickest comeback, quakepro.
no its quake
i can belive how garbage people must have been a year after its release. as you didnt come up with any value at all, i would liek you to continue. try to come up with some of that supposed proof youre sitting on this time

[FortySe7en]

no its quake

Quake 3 Arena is Quake? I'm confused. I thought Quake was Quake.


i can belive how garbage people must have been a year after its release.

It was released in December of 1999. Again, google. Quake 3 Arena was the biggest competitive game online until late 2002. They had the highest cash payouts for tournaments, and still hold the highest ratio (per gamer at that time, even higher than Q2) of competitive gamers. Not to mention it was one of the first games to come out multiplayer ready out of the box, which means you didn't have to connect through a browser or 3rd party equipment, which meant more people were playing.


try to come up with some of that supposed proof youre sitting on this time

Whatcha talkin bout Willis - YouTube


http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7486/img20110209141109.jpg

The first thing you need to understand is flicker frequency. It is the number of times per second (measured in Hertz-Hz) a light can turn on than off. That is considered one cycle. When BLOPS redraws all or part of a frame, this is technically what's happening, it flickers.

Now, it should be obvious to most everyone that the faster you flicker things, the harder it will be to discern that there is a light going on, off, THEN on again.

The Critical Flicker Frequency on the Y-axis of that graph stands for the point where half of the time you CAN notice that something is flickering, and the other half you CANNOT notice that something is flickering. It's the 50/50 point.

So, once you have something that flickers ABOVE that Critical Flicker Frequency, you will see it as continuous, as fused, or as not flickering.

So, looking at that graph, you'll see that with very bright lighting (looking at the solid square line), humans max out around 80Hz or so, which is VERY dependent on where the flicker occurs in regards to where you are looking. The lighting from our computer screens should fall somewhere between the solid square line and the empty triangle. So under computer monitor conditions, we max out around ~70Hz or so. More on that in a second.

Now look at the bottom of the graph, it refers to retinal eccentricity. The 0 on the left side refers to where you actually point your eyeballs. If you are looking at the period at the end of this sentence, that is a retinal eccentricity of ZERO. Now, if you are looking at that same period at the end of the last sentence, and you can still notice off to the corner of your vision, say a cup or a post-it note, that is a point of higher eccentricity.

I have a 24" (about 50centimeters lengthwise) LCD, and I sit about 60centimeters away from it. Using some ol fashion inverse tangent trig, while staring at the dead center of my screen, my monitor spans ~40 degrees of my vision. So that's 20 degrees eccentricity to my left and to my right.

Looking back at that graph, you'll see that at 20 degrees of eccentricity, the max CFF we can see is about 80-ish Hz. But, while looking direct at the center of our monitor (0 eccentricity), the CFF is way lower, it's about 45Hz. If you still have an old CRT monitor you can set it to 60Hz, and look off to the side, and you'll see that you're better able to notice flicker from the side of your vision than when you look directly at it.

Now with all that knowledge, it can partially be applied to video gaming. Applying a cycle (Hz) to a frame per second is a little bit of a stretch, but it works better when considering vsync as being on.

When you've got Vsync turned on, you get 60 new frames for each second of time. This looks relatively smooth to us, key word being relatively. For the areas where our eye is directly pointing, 60FPS or 60Hz is above our CFF, so it will look continuous and smooth. But, off to the corner of our eyes, somewhere around 20 degrees to each side, the CFF is about 65-70Hz, which means that at 60FPS, our eye will see 50% of that as continuous, and 50% as a bit of flicker.

But once you turn off vsync, the video card is no longer in sync with the 60Hz of your LCD/olderCRT. Your computer will just display as many frames as as it can within 1 second, which means that you will get tearing of the screen. But, if you had an LCD that could pull 75Hz (some do 120Hz, right), and if you computer could crank out that many FPS, then you would be above your CFF and all would look smooth.

*PHEW!*

[Janzani]

I'm going to update my pc and I will aim as high graphics as possible but with high fps as my priority.

[lawnmower]

Quake 3 Arena is Quake? I'm confused. I thought Quake was Quake.
this issue is as relevant with any quakegame

It was released in December of 1999. Again, google.
I JUST SAID THAT, in that exact sentance you quoted! that i cant believe how bad people must have been a year after its release, and 12 years ago on top of that. are you drunk?



It's nice that a topic regarding FPS has come up that hasn't devolved into trollbait just yet. Not often does that happens nowadays.

Here is a wall of text for you.

A thing a lot of people get confused over is the fact that most monitors only display 60Hz (or 75Hz) - 'why bother pushing more than that?'

The simplest way to think about this is probably as such - if a game renders 80 frames a second, and the monitor displays 60, it's going to drop two frames out of every 8. The higher and further away the framerate is from refresh rate (i.e. say 250fps, 60Hz refresh) the more evenly distributed displayed frames will be.

For example, displaying frames 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, etc has much more noticable 'skips' since the jumps from 3 to 5, 7 to 9, etc are 200% the usual distance, whereas displaying i.e. 4, 8, 13, 17, 21, 25, etc won't be as obvious, since the skip of 5 is only 125% the 'normal' value of a skip of 4.

It's somewhat functionally and perceptively related to actual jitter, but with a completely different cause.

That's why it's easier to track at high FPS with a mouse - Even over the monitor refresh rate, at lower FPS moving the mouse at a steady rate will pan you very different amounts from frame to frame being displayed, whereas at higher FPS that difference is reduced.

This is also why capping at a steady framerate is better for tracking than having a fluctuating higher FPS, i.e. 125FPS steady > 150-200 fluctuating. (Although 125FPS/250FPS is yet another whole different can of worms with regards to un-patched id tech 3 games)

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7486/img20110209141109.jpg

The first thing you need to understand is flicker frequency. It is the number of times per second (measured in Hertz-Hz) a light can turn on than off. That is considered one cycle. When BLOPS redraws all or part of a frame, this is technically what's happening, it flickers.

Now, it should be obvious to most everyone that the faster you flicker things, the harder it will be to discern that there is a light going on, off, THEN on again.

The Critical Flicker Frequency on the Y-axis of that graph stands for the point where half of the time you CAN notice that something is flickering, and the other half you CANNOT notice that something is flickering. It's the 50/50 point.

So, once you have something that flickers ABOVE that Critical Flicker Frequency, you will see it as continuous, as fused, or as not flickering.

So, looking at that graph, you'll see that with very bright lighting (looking at the solid square line), humans max out around 80Hz or so, which is VERY dependent on where the flicker occurs in regards to where you are looking. The lighting from our computer screens should fall somewhere between the solid square line and the empty triangle. So under computer monitor conditions, we max out around ~70Hz or so. More on that in a second.

Now look at the bottom of the graph, it refers to retinal eccentricity. The 0 on the left side refers to where you actually point your eyeballs. If you are looking at the period at the end of this sentence, that is a retinal eccentricity of ZERO. Now, if you are looking at that same period at the end of the last sentence, and you can still notice off to the corner of your vision, say a cup or a post-it note, that is a point of higher eccentricity.

I have a 24" (about 50centimeters lengthwise) LCD, and I sit about 60centimeters away from it. Using some ol fashion inverse tangent trig, while staring at the dead center of my screen, my monitor spans ~40 degrees of my vision. So that's 20 degrees eccentricity to my left and to my right.

Looking back at that graph, you'll see that at 20 degrees of eccentricity, the max CFF we can see is about 80-ish Hz. But, while looking direct at the center of our monitor (0 eccentricity), the CFF is way lower, it's about 45Hz. If you still have an old CRT monitor you can set it to 60Hz, and look off to the side, and you'll see that you're better able to notice flicker from the side of your vision than when you look directly at it.

Now with all that knowledge, it can partially be applied to video gaming. Applying a cycle (Hz) to a frame per second is a little bit of a stretch, but it works better when considering vsync as being on.

When you've got Vsync turned on, you get 60 new frames for each second of time. This looks relatively smooth to us, key word being relatively. For the areas where our eye is directly pointing, 60FPS or 60Hz is above our CFF, so it will look continuous and smooth. But, off to the corner of our eyes, somewhere around 20 degrees to each side, the CFF is about 65-70Hz, which means that at 60FPS, our eye will see 50% of that as continuous, and 50% as a bit of flicker.

But once you turn off vsync, the video card is no longer in sync with the 60Hz of your LCD/olderCRT. Your computer will just display as many frames as as it can within 1 second, which means that you will get tearing of the screen. But, if you had an LCD that could pull 75Hz (some do 120Hz, right), and if you computer could crank out that many FPS, then you would be above your CFF and all would look smooth.

*PHEW!*
what are you trying to say

[FortySe7en]

i cant believe how bad people must have been a year after its release, and 12 years ago on top of that. are you drunk?


December 1999- July 2000 is a year? Are you saying that all people who played games 12 years ago were bad? Are you saying that people who played Quake a year after release were bad? If I had to guess, I would say you were a MW/BO player.

what are you trying to say

There is no spoon. :rolleyes:

[lawnmower]

December 1999- July 2000 is a year? Are you saying that all people who played games 12 years ago were bad? Are you saying that people who played Quake a year after release were bad? If I had to guess, I would say you were a MW/BO player.



There is no spoon. :rolleyes:
i was attempting to be specific? 1999-2001 is a year?
yes the quality was garbage back then, as evidenced by someone practicing a couple of hours a day able to get to top10 in the world.
yes they were horrible.
ive been playing competetively since q3 and im still searching after the next great fps game since i stopped playing enemy territory, but as you must know its a total trainwreck out there the last bunch of years. theres probably no game i hate more than cod.

what were you saying, because it was never made clear in your initial comments. that you cant tell difference between 120hz and 60hz?

[FortySe7en]

Anyone confused about FPS and how it actually works relating to games can feel free to go a few posts back and look at the breakdown. Going to try and make another graph for it that's color coded and not out of a book. Sorry if its hard to read.

Hopefully it helps you guys.

[lawnmower]

Anyone confused about FPS and how it actually works relating to games can feel free to go a few posts back and look at the breakdown. Going to try and make another graph for it that's color coded and not out of a book. Sorry if its hard to read.

Hopefully it helps you guys.
whats the matter buddy, whatever happened with your perfect comebacks and proof?
so you agree that you and everyone were horrible back then?
and you never really did answer the original q3 guy did you?

could you clarify what your original point was? this time without copypasting from a site preferably.

[FortySe7en]

Has anyone had any luck with the OC'd 5970? I haven't touched mine because most of my PSU is going to my processor, and I didn't have the extra power to go to the GPU.

If anyone can tell me how much power they are running to their OC GPU I would appreciate it. Thanks!

[fb III IX ca IV]

Personally I balance both performance and quality.

Something tells me however I'm going to need something around an Nvidia GTX 650 to support this many quality shadows however...
I hope you mean 680 or even 690.

[FortySe7en]

I hope you mean 680 or even 690.

Yeah no kidding :P

[AnamNantom]

I need my visuals. As long as they make sense. What's great about Forge Light is the , you guessed it, lighting. Tramell Isaac said it best in an interview once. "Lighting is 80% of graphics..."

That's the thing, if I turn down graphics all the way on any machine, it still has very realistic looks. That's because the lighting is always there and never takes a hit. The edges will be fuzzier, but the experience of the sun breaking through the clouds and glinting off your gun is there.

For me, if I can get it at 30-40 fps, that's good. I'll turn visuals all the way up, test FPS, and go from there. I want performance because I want success, but I also want the experience, the look, the feel of being in this awesome sci-fi scenario.

By the way, I'm doing this on an ATI HD Radeon 5700 with 8GB Ram and i7 proc. I got two other machines, one an AMD 64 Dual Core (+3800), the other an i3 and they can run 30 fps with lower settings. On my main machine, the i7, graphic qualities are high, but resolution slider sits around %65 most of the time. Looks great!

[dethred]

I'm using. 4.5ghz 2600k, 16GB DDR3 1600, and GTX580 SLI 3GB and Its just at the threshold of being perfectly smooth. There are some laggy bits, but probably no worse than 30fps. At this rate, a good Nvidia driver with better SLI support for this game will probably make it 100% smooth on high end systems.

[Drakkonan]

Visuals and Graphics make the game more immersive than high FPS. Obviously the game needs to be playable, but in an FPS, I can deal with anything above 30fps.

[Fenrys]

I would gladly use the lowest settings (except resolution and field of view - need that awareness) if it meant never dropping below 60 fps.

CyclesMcHurtz posted a great explanation about the link between fps and input lag on the official forum. Here's an excerpt:

So your brain, at 45 fps, is seeing smooth motion (if the screen is stable for the sake of this discussion) but your "gut" is feeling 13 fps of [input] "lag" - and that's why the opinions tend to vary. Once you get to 60 fps of displayed frames, the [input] lag gets up into the 18 fps range and the brain is much less concerned, since that input result is typically below the average reaction time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time) for people.
SOURCE (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/poor-performance-x58-gtx-560-ti.27251/#post-364385)

[Alex Forge]

I can fool.
And at 50 FPS too.
My rig is so AWESOME!!!!!

[PClownPosse]

Personally, I prefer performance and gameplay over eye candy every day of the week.

Eye candy is nice, sure, but it doesn't make a difference how good something may look if gameplay is poor. It's like dressing up a turd, or a silk hat on a pig, even in a tuxedo, it's still a pig, lol.

But again, that's just my preference.

Edit: and in no way was my statement directed towards PS2. I'm actually enjoying myself so far.