ineluki Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Originally posted by obijonkenobi The human eye can only pick up around 30-35 fps on a computer screen so any more fps is not really needed. Not sure where you got that figure but its not right, for two reasons. Firstly the optic nerves can send information at around 500+ fps to the brain. It is the Visual Cortex that sorts through this and ignores anything above 50fps on average. This figure can go higher if the brain recognises the visual data as dangerous, such as a thrown rock, so in some cases a game can stimulate the visual cortex to output quite a bit over 50fps. This has been proven in countless tests. The figure of 30fps is the rate at which still shots have a realistic effect of movement. Which is why TV is set to 24 and 29.7fps (depending on the country) 10-40 fps seems VERY slow for that system. My AXP 1800+ with ti200 gets around 60-90fps in 1280x1024x32 with AA.. the card is OC'd to ti500 speeds, but I do not have volumetric shadows on as it slows everything down and looks crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ineluki Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Originally posted by Alfyboy It is not an internet myth. I am a film production student. The human eye can not see more than 30 frames per second. That is why films are between 25 and 30 fps and animation is usualy 24/25 fps. It is a fact people. Deal with it. We'll you will have to deal with the fact that you are wrong. You should know, from your study that films are set at that rate because it is a level which simulates realistic movement. You ppl are confusing the eye, with the visual cortex. If you think the eye can only recieve 30fps then you are a fool. Even with an electrical to chemical transfer through the synapses the cortex still recieves over 500fps of data, then sorts and discards what it deems to be useless. Boxers, tennis players, and skeet shooters among others have been tested at having up to 80+fps response. I should know this because I have a masters in Neurological Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Massacator Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 "Boxers, tennis players, and skeet shooters among others have been tested at having up to 80+fps response." - ineluki Yes yes, that's all fine and dandy ...but what about Jedi Knights??? Ok, I did read a few posts about how some systems are getting mega fps', then it will dip down to a low rating. I know of a website that is very resourceful to any Q3 engine-related game. I've used their tips on RTCW, MOHAA, and this game as well. Anyway, my point is, if your system if fluxuating that much, I'd probably add a "max_fps" command in your autoexec file to smooth it out. And there are other factors to keep in mind when playing a game based off the Q3 engine. Did you know that the game out of the box is only optimized for 64 meg of ram? Yeesh, I have 512 ram, whatta waste! Wanna make it more efficient? Make an autoexec and start adding lines to it. Here's an example of mine that I'm currently using for JO: set devdll 1 seta com_hunkMegs "192" seta com_zoneMegs "32" seta com_soundMegs "32" seta cl_maxpackets "30" seta cl_packetdup "1" seta cl_snaps "20" seta cl_rate "5000" seta name "^1Mr. Scary" Bear in mind, that autoexec is optimized for my system and the numbers will be much different in comparision to many others. I owe it all to Upset Chaps, over at: http://ucguides.savagehelp.com/Quake3/AquaQuake3Guide.html I'd highly recommend that site for anyone interested in tweaking the game out a little bit better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlitherSly Posted April 16, 2002 Share Posted April 16, 2002 Dealing with the drop in fps after a quickload was solved for me by setting the details to High rather than Very High. Now a fresh load is reduced to about 25 seconds as opposed to 2 minutes, plus the horrid frame rate drop, which seems to be operating on some terrible negative exponential equation, is solved. There isn't really that much of a difference between the two detail settings, especially when you're having a great time chopping off limbs and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlitherSly Posted April 16, 2002 Share Posted April 16, 2002 Oh and I forgot to add that I really dislike people who continue to support that idiotic myth that the human eye cannot detect greater than 30 fps. If you have two eyes and play computer games then you know this isn't a fact. Why you would continue to support this ridiculous argument after you've seen actual proof is beyond reason and should be punishable by saber dismemberment of your penis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poopystuff Posted April 17, 2002 Share Posted April 17, 2002 You bought a GeForce 4, 4600 ? Haha.. nice waste of money retard. could have taken that money and bought a whole computer minus the hard drive for that money. Oh, and for the guy with the 10fps.. you've got a P4.. That's probably your problem.. paid all that money for that chip, and you get 10 fps... Smart Choice there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.