Framerate capped at 60fps

DaJuice said:

Trust me, not everyone is like you. I can tell the difference in GLQuake when it runs at 100fps, to when it runs at 300fps as you turn down the size of the window (with - +).

Once again dude are you not getting the picture on what im saying. its obviously running faster and smoother but is it actually affecting the game? not really. Your ping has a bigger effect on online play than even your framerate ever could. Are you positive your not looking at crap like that instead? I can tell there is a difference with viewing the game at 30 and 60 and so on Fps but it wont *Adversely affect the game to have it capped at 60 frames anyway.

Dajuice: Things tend to look a little smoother in a smaller window anyway. Secondly, you may be experiencing frameloss with your graphics card due to drivers (there may be other causes, I dunno). Finally, it could be something to do with v-sync or triple buffering....

I don't really see the big problem with this unless your a framerate junky just for the sake of it.

Teh Macvileness said:

I don't really see the big problem with this unless your a framerate junky just for the sake of it.

Its just one of those constant arguments that never goes away and i tend to get defensive about it I think. ITs like some kid whos mom just bought him a compaq for christmas and he warezed the alpha for doom3. You gotta flame him ;0

sniperfrommars1 said:

Once again dude are you not getting the picture on what im saying. its obviously running faster and smoother but is it actually affecting the game? not really. Your ping has a bigger effect on online play than even your framerate ever could. Are you positive your not looking at crap like that instead? I can tell there is a difference with viewing the game at 30 and 60 and so on Fps but it wont *Adversely affect the game to have it capped at 60 frames anyway.

I didn't say that 60fps is too slow for Doom3. Seems fine for the pacing that the game will have. And I agree, at least for Doom3 the cap won't adversely affect gameplay. I'm just saying if you can't tell the difference between 30fps and 300fps you might wanna get your eyes checked:)
And toxic, it didn't just seem faster, it was faster. I had the fps counter on. The card wasn't dropping frames at fullscreen, it just wasn't performing as good (which makes sense, no?).

DaJuice said:

And toxic, it didn't just seem faster, it was faster. I had the fps counter on. The card wasn't dropping frames at fullscreen, it just wasn't performing as good (which makes sense, no?).

What I meant was that things look smoother in a smaller screensize, and that maybe it wasn't the extra FPS that were making the difference. Because without frameloss/asynchronized frames, anything over 100fps should be as smooth as butter.

Unless you have VSync turned off, in which case 100+ frame rates will likely result in ugly horizontal line fluttering, or image-tearing.

Ahh, I see what you mean Toxic, I suppose you could be right. I believe I keep V-sync off by default, I don't recall image tearing with GLQuake, but I know what you mean, it's very obvious in the some of the old 3d mark demos.

ALWAYS enable VSync. It makes a difference.

Funny, anything above roughly 37 frames seems solid to me. 24 fps is what the eye can see but the feel of it (controlling it) is definitely noticeably slower. The feel you get with your mouse/keyboard is the smoothest it can get somewhere around 40 fps. I don't mind 60fps at all :D

I wouldn't mind a framecap, but 35fps seems to be a bit slow.

Maybe 40fps.

Look - the main issue is this.

In Quake III, you could set the max fps in the game. Certain fps' would increase the hight of the player's jump, hence, causing not only the ability to get to some places other players just COULDN'T (unless they had a strong enough computer), but also adding a good deal of speed to strafe jumping.

Not to mention trick jumping.

It think 60 FPS looks fine to me as long as the refresh rate is 60hz, 120hz, 180hz etc with vsync on. If you have like 85hz or something else it might look stuttery or slower (it might even look like what 30 fps looks like at 60Hz depending on your refresh rate). 60 FPS looks very silky smooth (I think it looks just as nice as 100 fps as long as the refresh rate is 60, but again if it's at 100hz, 50 or 100 fps is oubviously gonna look alot better-smoother). All those ntsc console games (sonic adventure 2, crazi taxi, soul caliber, radiant silvergun, super smash bros melee, etc) all have there framerate at 60 fps and it looks extremely silky-smooth and again ntsc tv's are at 60hz and it looks very nice playing games at 60 fps (but when you play pal games which are at 50 fps with a border on an ntsc tv it looks stuttery and it just hurts looking at the game).

Why everyone's talking about rendering engine cap? Carmack crearly stated that it affects ingame movement. This is not rendering engine!

Or have you gone too offtopic?

There was a study done awhile back, and it said that the human-eye can't detect anything over 75 FPS. So whether it's 75 all the time or 1000 all the time, you wouldn't know the difference. Atleast thats what the results of the study said.

There was a study done awhile back, and it said that the human-eye can't detect what's been posted earlier in a thread.

LOL, sorry. That's a good one though. I skimmed thru it, didn't fully read it...

Laguna said:
I really don't think the Physics has a "cap" per se, as it is constantly dynamic (like Max Payne 2's physics are) so thus there are an infinite number of interactions with CSG Geometry available, and an infinite amount of light interactions with the physics models (boxes, character models, etc...). There is no "cap" on the physics system.

i think this is the entire point of the fps cap, the physics system DOES use a fixed rate of interpolation. it may well be that it doesnt use the infinite division method you suggest as that can really be tediously slow, i've ventured into physics coding myself and i reckon they're just using 60hz as a fixed divide (though there may well be a subdivision), but once you start interpolating physics at a rate of around 50hz it looks essentially the same as if you'd done it infintesimally. obviously it wont be infintesimally accurate but no one's ever going to say "that barrel only moved 10 units due to the force of the blast and it should have moved 12 when you take into account the deceleration in friction due to the slight lift caused by the upward vector of the explosion trajectory" are they?

I doubt Doom 3 will run perfectly on my system anyway so I can't say as I care. I always thought that the human eye could only detect 30-60 frames per second, but then someone poiting out in an old thread about this that there was a study done were a light bulb was turned every hundread FPS or something and the human eye could still detect it or something. Still doesn't seem like that big of a deal though.

Off the subject, but not important enough to start a new thread about: Will Doom 3 have anti-aliasing?

Scabbed Angel said:

Off the subject, but not important enough to start a new thread about: Will Doom 3 have anti-aliasing?

hmm...not sure about opengl, but in d3d 8, if the game does post-filtering/post-processing effects then FSAA is not supported.

Doom 3 supports FSAA.

WTF kinda question is that? It's not if the game supports anti aliasing. It's if your video card supports it. (me crossing my fingers they'll support left handers like on Quake 2)

Holering said:

WTF kinda question is that? It's not if the game supports anti aliasing. It's if your video card supports it. (me crossing my fingers they'll support left handers like on Quake 2)

I never knew games had that. I just saw a Mac copy of Halo that had the option (although it didn't run well with the textues for some reason) and assumed it was some new feature it games. Its not I assume then?