Planetside 2: High Graphics or High Frames per Second? - Page 8

Kitsune · 2012-08-23, 05:18 AM

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 · 2012-08-23, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2012-08-23, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by lawnmower

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 · 2012-08-23, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

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 · 2012-08-23, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by lawnmower

no its quake

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

Originally Posted by lawnmower

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.

Originally Posted by lawnmower

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

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7...0209141109.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 · 2012-08-23, 03:45 PM

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

lawnmower · 2012-08-23, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

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

this issue is as relevant with any quakegame

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

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?

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

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/img189/7...0209141109.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 · 2012-08-23, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by lawnmower

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.

Originally Posted by lawnmower

what are you trying to say

There is no spoon.

lawnmower · 2012-08-23, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

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.

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 · 2012-08-23, 11:08 PM

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 · 2012-08-23, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2012-08-23, 11:38 PM

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 · 2012-08-24, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by 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...

I hope you mean 680 or even 690.

FortySe7en · 2012-08-24, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by fb III IX ca IV

I hope you mean 680 or even 690.

Yeah no kidding :P

AnamNantom · 2012-10-16, 06:18 PM

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!