adillon Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 i'm a tad confused with the whole framerate thing in-game, and was wondering if someone can clarify it for me ... just a bit of miscellaneous information ... i'm pretty sure that the film industry 'standard' for framerates in movies is around 24 fps ... anything less makes things look jumpy, anything more is unnoticable by the human eye. so, in the console i type cg_drawfps 1 to display the framerate while i'm playing the game. now i notice some people (in their posted screenshots) are getting 50+ fps. i read questions regarding maps where people are getting 100+ fps and are concerned that certain things will lower that and cause the game to be less fluid. well, on the bespin_streets map, the HIGHEST framerate i've ever gotten was around 40, and i'll average around 20-25 fps. i do not notice any drop in my framerate that would cause the gameplay to be annoying. am i missing something with the framerates? is there any way to get them to be consistently higher? do i NEED them to be higher? and for your information, i'm running a GeForce 2 MX 400, and i play the game at 1024 x 768. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Fisher Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Well I'm getting between 90-120FPS with everything at just about max, execpt shadows... so you could mess around with your settings, BTW, do you have shadows at max?...that could be the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adillon Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 hmm, i dunno about the shadow thing ... can't tell you of-hand what they're set at. but i'll give that a shot. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryudom Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 heh i'd lower your settings till you get at least ~30 fps. tv's and such operate differantly then monitors or computers whatever and you kindof need a higher FPS. also, apparently we notice changes up to 60 fps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumor Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 well i usually get around 120fps and in some servers i only get 50-60 and it makes a HUGE difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 15-23 fps.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kstar__2 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 around 60 fps:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksk h2o Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 If your monitor is the of the most common 80Hz types, you cannot see any "improvement" in fps' higher than 80. TV's are classically 50Hz, but interlaced display, meaning half the frame is sent to it each cycle. 25 fps is the default lossless framing for a 50 Hz interlaced display. Your monitor is progressive scan however, so your framerate should be equal to the screen refresh frequency for optimal results... hence the option to synch it to the monitor refresh rate under display options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adillon Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by ksk h2o Your monitor is progressive scan however, so your framerate should be equal to the screen refresh frequency for optimal results... hence the option to synch it to the monitor refresh rate under display options. but if i do that there is no DISPLAYED change in fps. the numbers still fluctuate between 20 and 45 frames per second. but does it really matter? am i just making a mountain out of a molehill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeTRiTiC-iQ Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 TV/Films only need a lower framerate because they are preprocessed, along with the exposure on video cameras, the frames automatically feature a minor motion blur, this means the frames flow together much more naturally. With computer games the image is rendered on the fly, in order to have the same frame-blending both the previous and forthcoming frames need to be known. Naturally knowing the future in a game isn't possible, so this isn't exactly practical. As a result videogames rely on having a much higher framerate (60fps is the current console standard I believe) in order to maintain flow between frames. Additionally scientific studies have shown that the average person can still pick out individual frames in 160-180fps display. Military Pilots have been reported to be able to distinguish over 220fps. Oh, and on a final note, the rounding math of the Quake 3 engine works with your framerate to produce your movement. As a result, having a higher framerate (there are some optimal numbers, I think 84fps is one of them) can actually result in faster player movement by exploiting the maths. That's why many guides suggestion using a max fps of 120 (which is close to another one of the optimums). So yes, framerate in videogames does make A LOT of difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adillon Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 apparently what i've learned regarding framerates is different than what everyone else thinks about them. i create computer model animations at work, and according to the manual, the number 24 is the optimal setting for frames per second. anything less causes jerky movement. a setting of 24 or higher creates a fluid, smooth animation. and obviously the higher above 24 you set it, the more smooth it will be. but how do i get MY fps in JK2 to run closer to 100? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeTRiTiC-iQ Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 for prerendered stuff, 24fps is acceptable. But if you stuck your animations in a game they would look jerky. Some factors affecting framerate: - Video Card - Processor - Free RAM - Concurrent Processes - Hard Disk being accessed in the background Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksk h2o Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 I guess there is an intermediate stage between the FPS # displayed during the game (what det is talking about) and the images per second which are actually sent to your monitor. The video card probably takes care of this intermediary step, but I don't know much about that. What I do know is that, if your screen can only cycle through 80 images per second (your default 80Hz monitor) and you have a source feeding it higher actual FPS, there will be frames that are not displayed. I thought console FPS was set to 25 as well since they are mostly displayed at interlaced 50Hz screens, hence the low framerate of non optimized ports such as GTA3... but I don't know much about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danyael Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 thats pretty odd, i mean i have the same Geforce mx-400 card as you and I am getting between 75-90 fps. My specs are 2000 P4 1024mb Ram (1gb ram) 200 GB hdd, 64mb Geforce MX-400 3com 10/100 NIC Windows XP Home I run my own server, so after the dedicated server is launched and my normal windows operations, i have about 607mb free RAM. I have everything at MAX on my video settings etc.. I would think about getting the latest nvidia detonation drivers from nvidia and see how that helps www.nvidia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hekx Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Is a GeForce 4 MX 128 MB good? (I plan to get one tomorrow. ) I'm still puffing away on JK2 with my nVidia TNT2 M64. I used to get around 50 FPS, but now I'm back down to 30 FPS. I used loads of Q3 tweak commands. I currently have the all settings on about medium, and the only thing that kills my FPS is anything that glows. Those beams on the Duel of the Fates map are a killer. cg_shadows 0 is the best for no shadows, I think. Full shadows nearly killed my PC. The best command which is useful is r_fastsky 1 (Turns off the sky making it black, type 0 instead of 1 to get the sky back. 1024 MB RAM? Woah.. I have 2 slots, so it seems the max I can get is 512MB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adillon Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Danyael 2000 P4 1024mb Ram (1gb ram) 200 GB hdd, 64mb Geforce MX-400 3com 10/100 NIC Windows XP Home ... I would think about getting the latest nvidia detonation drivers from nvidia and see how that helps interesting ... here are my specs: P4 1.8 512 MB RAM 40 GB HDD GeForce2 MX-400 32 MB 3Com 10/100 NIC Windows XP Home pretty darn similar, and yet your fps is more than double mine, and your settings are maxxed out, while i'm being conservative. i just installed the latest nvidia drivers about a week and a half ago, so i know they are up-to-date. but according to DeTRiTiC-iQ, concurrent processes and background hard disk accessing can lower the framerate. would turning off my firewall and virus software help me out? i'd rather not turn off my firewall while i'm playing online. this just has me utterly baffled. here i am thinking i have a pretty darn good comp setup, and yet the game is showing me that i have crappy framerates. maybe i shouldn't worry about it ... i've played this long with them as they are, why change things now. i guess this COULD explain why i play so horribly ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryudom Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Is a GeForce 4 MX 128 MB good? (I plan to get one tomorrow. ) i dont' think the radeon 9000 are much more (around same price maybe) i got mine for pretty cheap, but they're alot faster, plus are fully dx 8.1 compatible, unlike the GF 4mx which is only 7.1... don't do it! get a radeon or a GF3 or such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danyael Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by adillon interesting ... here are my specs: P4 1.8 512 MB RAM 40 GB HDD GeForce2 MX-400 32 MB 3Com 10/100 NIC Windows XP Home pretty darn similar, and yet your fps is more than double mine, and your settings are maxxed out, while i'm being conservative. i just installed the latest nvidia drivers about a week and a half ago, so i know they are up-to-date. but according to DeTRiTiC-iQ, concurrent processes and background hard disk accessing can lower the framerate. would turning off my firewall and virus software help me out? i'd rather not turn off my firewall while i'm playing online. this just has me utterly baffled. here i am thinking i have a pretty darn good comp setup, and yet the game is showing me that i have crappy framerates. maybe i shouldn't worry about it ... i've played this long with them as they are, why change things now. i guess this COULD explain why i play so horribly ... I keep my norton anti virus running. I do not have a firewall though. Maybe that is the issue. I will tell you one thing though I had windows and normal windows processes running, my dedicated server rcon window running, kazaa in the background downloading smallville episdoes and x-men evoltuion episodes, AIM and ICQ open, and my FPS did not diminish. The only time my FPS goes below 70 is if i am spinning my saber in my hand with dual saber. other than that.. it is constant and very nice. maybe it has to do with ram. my hdd is 7200rpm as far as you playing bad, it is because you just dont have skill. just kidding i am sure you play ok... THe amout of FPS does make a difference I was playing Unreal Tourny with a co worker from home, and i was whomping him. I went back to work (i was on lunch break he was working) and i loaded it up on my machine with was 1/2 the resources of his work machine, and he totally annihalated me. My screen was choppy, took a while to refresh (meaning i was getting trails) and i even got shot with a rocket and i did not see it coming. we were on LAN so lag was not an issue.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 1. DeT, where did you get that info about the rounding math? Not saying it's totally false, but I don't believe having a higher framerate should actually let you move faster. I don't see why that would need to happen (compensation with framerate) on a modern engine, I'm betting it's something Q3 players cooked up in their heads. 2. The Radeon 9000 sucks, it's worse than a GeForce 3. The top GeForce 4 MX is okay, but a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 or Radeon 9500 is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hekx Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by ryudom i dont' think the radeon 9000 are much more (around same price maybe) i got mine for pretty cheap, but they're alot faster, plus are fully dx 8.1 compatible, unlike the GF 4mx which is only 7.1... don't do it! get a radeon or a GF3 or such GeForce 3 seems like a step backwards, so I'll think I'll try to get my hands on a Radeon 9000 / Radeon 9000 Pro. I found a review, which in conclusion found the Radeon 9000 and GeForce 4 MX evenly matched, apart from the DirectX part. Thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taboo Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 adillon, The geforce 2 mx 400 series of video cards do not handle 1024*800 very well. They perform much better at 640*480 or 800*600. Looking at your setup, that is the only system bottleneck that I think can be responsible for reducing your fps. I think that turning down your resolution will help significantly but you can also try : setting your video settings to fastest, turning off all the extra settings in the MORE VIDEO section and setting SIMPLE WEAPONS to on in the GAME OPTIONS menu. Good luck! Emon, Your fps does affect your rate of movement in the quake 3 engine. Ask any vereran RTCW'er and they'll recite the good fps's to you faster than a jesushugger reciting their favorite bible passage. Hèkx Nòxú, I'm pretty sure that all models of the geforce 3 are faster than any geforece 4 mx card to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeTRiTiC-iQ Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Emon 1. DeT, where did you get that info about the rounding math? Not saying it's totally false, but I don't believe having a higher framerate should actually let you move faster. I don't see why that would need to happen (compensation with framerate) on a modern engine, I'm betting it's something Q3 players cooked up in their heads. Its all very weird, but its true. There was a huge thread about it somewhere on some Quake 3 forums, i'm sure some Dsbr members will know the link. But essentially, certain framerates mean greater outcome of bunny-hopping --> higher speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[KOC]Qui-Zan Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by adillon am i missing something with the framerates? is there any way to get them to be consistently higher? do i NEED them to be higher? and for your information, i'm running a GeForce 2 MX 400, and i play the game at 1024 x 768. You don't really need them to be much higher but if you do i suggest you down your resolution to 800 x 600 or put the game on medium, the graphics are good enough anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_NinjaGaiden_ Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 AMD Athlon 2.5 ghz 3 gigabytes DDR ram ati radeon 9700 pro 128 MB DDR 2 80 gig hard drives Windows 2000 Professional 200 FPS roughly a good card to get for a good price is the Ati Radeon 9500 pro it runs around 200 bucks but you ll get about 100 fps on most levels a nice card i have one in my other computer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by Hèkx Nòxú GeForce 3 seems like a step backwards, so I'll think I'll try to get my hands on a Radeon 9000 / Radeon 9000 Pro. The Radeon 9000, Raden 9000 Pro, and all GeForce 4 MXs are all GeForce 3 level cards. The Radeon 9000s are about as fast as a GeForce 3, sometimes slower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.