Fps Capped?!!! WHY!

[Huambo81a]

Hi there,

 

Just brought this game today, and it seems pretty good in single player, runs very fast!

 

In Multiplayer though it seems jerky, i have read somewhere that the framerate has been capped at 30, is this true?! If so thats a real shame as i feel it hinders gameplay alot (for me i find it hard to play) Is there a reason for this framerate capping? is it to decrease server load?

 

I hope its something that can be addressed in a patch or something, i mean, i`m playing at over a hundred fps in single player, and then to drop 70 frames when i play online (which is the primary role of this game) is incredibly bad! Its like being on a console again.

 

What do you guys think, does this bother you at all?

[MandalorianRage]

Doesn't bother me at all. The human eye can only see so much, and after about 40-50 FPS, it doesn't matter how much higher you go. 30 FPS isn't bad at all. Try playing games with 10 FPS, and then I'll agree with your complaints (I've done it before), but for me, SWBF is fine.

[Stingray]

You can certainly notice a difference between the fps of singleplayer and multiplayer. Especially if you have a high-end computer.

 

I agree you can't say that the MP get's unplayable with 30 fps. I'm having fun online as well. But IMO it's also true that the increase of FPS (and of course no increase of lag) would improve the gameplay experience for me, because it just goes smoother.

[MandalorianRage]

Well I will agree that the FPS is lower in multiplayer, but like I said, it doesn't bother me.

[Prime]

But why should there be a cap when the vast majority of MP games can run smoothly at 60+ FPS?

[Huambo81a]

Originally posted by Prime

But why should there be a cap when the vast majority of MP games can run smoothly at 60+ FPS?

 

Yes, this is exactly my point. All other games that i play have no limit on Frames per second. I have a very powerful computer which i just paid far too much for (nooo!) and i want to see it pushed to the limit.

 

If 30 fps doesnt bother you then thats cool, maybe i`m being fussy, but for me i find it hard to play, especially when i`m playing CS:Source (a much more complex game engine) at over 100fps, trust me the speed loss is very noticable!! I agree that its hard to tell the difference between 60 and 100 fps, but trust me its very easy to see the difference between 30 and 100.

 

I guess what i`m asking is, what IS the reason for the cap? i cant think of a possible reason at all. Joint ops supports servers of up to 150 people all shooting missiles and flying choppers at the same time over 60km3 environments and that has no cap.

 

I`m not looking for a flame here, just being honest. I think the game has the potential to be excellent, but for a few of us the framerate issue is a major one.

[wmarino]

There is a good and simple reason for the framerate capping Huambo81a. It's because Battlefront is a direct port of a lowly console game. Honestly, that is basically the answer to almost all the complaints waged on this game. Had Lucasarts made this game strictly for the far more powerful and more capable PC of today, we might have ended up with one of the greatest games of all time. Instead, us PC users are left with a watered down game that's meant to work with the inferior consoles like PS2 and XBox. That's basically why this game sucks in general.

[Whoopknacker]

Ill agree it was for the console. Now if they fix the MP issues and redid the textures then I think youve got something, Im not holding my breath. I shouldve held out on this game. Now I see why they didnt have a demo. But two of my favorite frachises met BF42 and StarWars I couldnt pass it up. There is hope for PC users

 

http://www.jeditimeline.com

 

Made from the HL2 source engine. Lotta cool stuff.

[Rumor]

Originally posted by MandalorianRage

Well I will agree that the FPS is lower in multiplayer, but like I said, it doesn't bother me.

 

I really hate how people are stuck in this archaic state of mind.

 

The human brain can process far more than 250 frames per second. Why do you think everything is absolutely smooth 100% of the time? its because the eye sees in a continuous stream. The theory that a certain scientist (can't remember his name) had about the world moving in certain frames is NOT true, and was proven so many decades ago (over a century?).

 

Again, for visual stimuli that do operate in "frames," the eye/brain can process far beyond 250 frames per second.

[MaximumMayhem]

I for one have never tried Battlefront online. We tried it out at a mass LAN and it was spectacular. Single Player is enjoyable, but playing against bots gets tedious after a while.

 

Its a damn shame that after all the hoo-haa that preceded this game, we're ultimately left with a genre that is low quality when played online. Ironic seeing as that's the whole point behind this game to begin with.

 

A hex on whoever caused the title to end up as such an online flop. Such potential, it did have!

[Huambo81a]

The potential really is there. In fact i can honestly say the ONLY reason i don`t play online is cause i cannot stand the fps capped at 30. Remove the cap and it would be as enjoyable as single player.

[MandalorianRage]

Originally posted by Rumor

I really hate how people are stuck in this archaic state of mind.

 

The human brain can process far more than 250 frames per second. Why do you think everything is absolutely smooth 100% of the time? its because the eye sees in a continuous stream. The theory that a certain scientist (can't remember his name) had about the world moving in certain frames is NOT true, and was proven so many decades ago (over a century?).

 

Again, for visual stimuli that do operate in "frames," the eye/brain can process far beyond 250 frames per second.

 

 

Of course you can see it, but once you get to a certain FPS, it doesn't matter how much higher you get it, because it's all going to look the same. I never gave ANY specific numbers talking about how many FPS the human eye could see. I said "The human eye can only see so much, and after about 40-50 FPS it doesn't matter.". I wasn't saying that's all you could see, I was saying that after a certain amount of FPS, you won't be able to see much of a difference, if you see one at all, if you go any higher.

[Rumor]

Originally posted by MandalorianRage

Of course you can see it, but once you get to a certain FPS, it doesn't matter how much higher you get it, because it's all going to look the same. I never gave ANY specific numbers talking about how many FPS the human eye could see. I said "The human eye can only see so much, and after about 40-50 FPS it doesn't matter.". I wasn't saying that's all you could see, I was saying that after a certain amount of FPS, you won't be able to see much of a difference, if you see one at all, if you go any higher.

 

That is exactly what i'm talking about. Some people can see a difference. I can tell a difference between 300 and 333 fps. Some people are a bit slower (reflexes, etc.) so they may not notice or may not think they notice, but there is a difference.

[MandalorianRage]

I just laugh at the 333 and 300 FPS comment... But whatever you say.

[Rumor]

Originally posted by MandalorianRage

I just laugh at the 333 and 300 FPS comment... But whatever you say.

 

Surprisingly enough, I just laugh at the "whatever you say" comment.

 

Seriously though, just because you cannot do something you shouldn't doubt someone based upon your shortcoming (granted its not a bad one).

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The human brain can process far more than 250 frames per second. Why do you think everything is absolutely smooth 100% of the time?

You're the one misunderstanding here. Of course the human eye can process and register more than fourty images (frames) per second. Nobody here has said anything else! What we're saying is that when a film (which is a series of frames) at fourty frames per second, you stop seeing it as a series of images and start seeing it as fluid motion.

 

Frames per second = Number of still images per second. In other words, if you watch a movie that moves at 40 FPS, that means that it's made up of still images which each lasts 1/40th of a second.

 

What you and your ignorant buddy linked to at the Wikipedia is reffering to as "more smooth" can't be proven wrong. After all, things do go by faster when you squeeze more frames into each second (try hitting the Fast Forward key on your DVD/VCR player and see what happens:D). But that's got nothing to do with how many images the eye can see a second before turning it into motion, as opposed to a series of still images!

 

Rate of FPS: Speed of playback. Not smoothness. Smoothness is how constant the rate is. Choppy game play results when FPS drops far beneath 40 FPS, for example. You've got smooth-ness and FPS mixed up, plain and simple.

 

Oh, and as for "real life going at more than 250 frames a second"... look, real life isn't a ****ing movie. It's not a series of still images (frames), but light continuerly bouncing off of things, thus rendering them visible for us to pick them up with our eyes and use our brains to register them. Duh.

 

its because the eye sees in a continuous stream. The theory that a certain scientist (can't remember his name) had about the world moving in certain frames is NOT true, and was proven so many decades ago (over a century?).

Huh? Whoever said that "the world moves in frames"? The world isn't a movie projector, friend. To be frank, no one here said anything else (except maybe you).