After reading a few threads seems most people talk of 30-40 FPS (if FPS is the number in the top left corner), online racing with many cars a rarely go below 90, does this mean i have good spec PC or am i playing it at its lowest settings?
PC spec:
AMD athlon 3000+ 64
1gb ram
200gb HD
ATI radeon 9800 PRO
think thats all the important things?
My advice: don't trust "any human physiology handbook".
With 10fps there's absolutely nothing smooth and fluent. People also often assume that a critical value is ~25fps, simply because TV uses the same. What they do not take into account is that a video and a frame based game are two completely different things.
On a video, every "frame" is not a perfect snapshot of the current surroundings, but instead it's a photo with the exposure time of roughly 1/25th second. What does that mean? For example: if a camera is statically mounted on a tennis court and films the ball going left/right/left/right/... then if you single step through each frame, the ball will be blurred, depending on the direction of travel. Instead of a clear ball, you will see a ball line, and on the next frame, this "ball line" will be continued where it stopped on the previous frame. This greatly smoothens out the percieved motion and makes videos pleasantly viewable.
If you do the same in a PC game, you will not see a ball line, instead each frame will have a perfecly sharp ball, that does in no way connect to the ball on the previous frame (if the speed of the ball is high enough, or if the frames are too low). So in such a game, there is no smoothing blur, therefore making the ball motion look very jagged and rough, eventhough both devices are running at 25fps.
Another example for those naysayers that the human eye cannot see > 60 fps, etc: I'm not sure if ALL people experience this, but alteast people who regularely work at the PC should - can you stand a monitor refresh rate of 60Hz? Personally, I feel sick after a few seconds of watching it, and if I look a bit away from the monitor, I can very clearly see it flicker on and off. That means that you can indeed sense a frequency of 60+ Hz (= 60+ fps). For me even 75Hz feels weird although much better. 85+ is completely OK for me.
AA is AntiAliasing, that tries to smooth out pixel steps.
Imagine a black line going through the light blue sky. If that line is not perfectly horizontal but a bit inclined, then the resulting line will not be smooth but will have the shape of stairs. AA tries to counter that by smoothing the image a bit on places with sharp contrast differences.
AF is Anisotropic Filtering.
It basically makes textures that are displayed at an angle (for example the floor in FPS games) appear sharper.
I trusted one and passed an exam with it
It says (in general) that if a separate light stimuli reach eye more than 10 times a second, you see it as a continous light.
I'm not saying you are wrong, because you're not (I also find 60Hz refresh rate annoying and tiring) but on the other hand I can easily play having 12-14fps and I have nothing to complain about. A LFS Comics for most of ppl, but not for me.
How to explain that?
But on the yet another hand, maybe "if you don't have what you like, you like what you have" works here, lol
Because your brain adapts to the low information update rate and kinda interpolates the missing data so you're still able to drive "fine".
The question is, are you restricted to such low frame rates all the time or is it only occasionally? Or a bit differently: have you ever experienced LFS gameplay with high framerates?
From my experience many people who thought they manage fine on their phenomenal 15 fps were astonished how much of a difference the jump to 40+ fps makes.
You also have to consider, that at 15 fps the visual information is at the worst case delayed by 66.6... milliseconds, which is quite enormous if you think about it (at 200 km/h thats 3.7 meters).
I'm no expert at this and don't know the exact definition of 'continous light' (nor if I understood that paragraph correctly at all), but if some light source dares to blink at me with 10Hz, then this is in no way seen as continous. Continously annoying maybe, but nothing else.
Maybe it was measured in a dark room with some sort of a flashlight shining at your eyes, but that would be totally useless and unrealistic, because in such a situation your eye has no chance to recover from the extreme amount of "stress" fast enough and the dreaded "light spot" starts to occur (although only a mild form of it). And if that funny spot occours it could mask the blinking of the light.
You know, I just pulled ^ this ^ out of my a**, but that's the only way I can imagine someone seeing 10Hz blinking as continous light
I don't think I've ever had more than 16fps in S2. Neither I had a chance to play LFS on a machine better than my own.
By continous I mean one, you wouldn't cosider a blinking one, not even think about
ROTFL
I have no idea how it was measured. Your dark room theory is possible. It wouldn't represent reality with satisfying accuracy then. In general, scientific research, especially in biology, does not, because it virtually cannot, fully represent real live observations.
Nevertheless, it's a fact provided by a good book.
I use to run LFS S1 demo on a Celeron 667. I had around 10-15 FPS. At the time I thought 10 was as low as I'd want to go to be playable. I never saw more than 15. Now on my faster machine (as many of you have read is broken) I see 35-45 FPS. Occasionally I will dip down below 20 in some areas (SO Long front stretch, AS Nat. chicane) and I can tell you it is a BIG difference! If you are use to low FPS, then perhaps that's why you may think it is ok. But once you see good 35+ frames and you dip down to even 25, you will see a difference. I didn't realize how much control I was missing because of the less than 20 FPS back then on my old PC. I also notice it now in NR2003 as I have more experience with that sim on the old Celeron. I use to play at 12 FPS. Now I have 60+ and steady 30+ if I max everything. But with everything maxed, I will dip below 30 and I notice it. It's not only on the screen you notice it, but also in your controller as it will lag also. I use to be one of those guys who said, "BS, you don't need that high FPS to play, I do it all the time." Well, that was because I was use to it and your driving and times will be affected by FPS dropping into the 25 or lower realm.
Just kidding, not that it matters anyway. Fraps says 40 - maybe the ATi thing measures the render time of a frame and gives you the theoretical FPS, not taking into account that LFS limits it? Whatever...
I just read a few fps topics, and my best guess is vision doesnt work in a way that discussing how many fps we see is relevant.
android made a great example tho, the exposure time makes a huge difference in how "easy on the eyes" a movie or tv is, interlacing adds even more, and the infinitely fast exposure time of a normal 3d render on your screen is very different.
But my guess is that the "smoother" aspect of that scenario would result in less needed "processing" of what you're looking at, which would logically be more relaxing, where as the super-sharp super-bright computer monitor, when you're also trying to have depth perception in something that has no depth, is more stressfull, i mean if you could somehow relax your eyes in a tv-watching way, 25hz interlaced or 50hz progressive would'nt be so unpleasant.
I think vision is very adaptive and has very little to do with fps, but there are some scenarios that are not so suitable
?!??!! .. you must be one of those bratty kids that always has the latest greatest stuff then..
and 40 is not bad at all.. 30 .. thats getting harder, but its still easy.. before i got the gfx card i have no i was racing with an average of 45 fps all the time.. and i promise you its not bad at all.. (obviously it isnt what 60 fps and above looks like, but once you go higher than 60 or so fps, it makes no difference to a human eye)
Well, I wouldn't say it doesn't make a difference at > 60 fps for all people, but yeah, the majority couldn't tell it apart. It's just different between people, some are more sensitive to it, some less. Same with hearing, some hear the dreaded TV buzz and know from one or two rooms away when the TV is on (without any sound playing), some don't.
For me it's:
<30 AAARGH
<40 Meh, ok
>40 pretty good, everything's well
>60 perfect
>120 haha, my monitor runs at 85Hz only :rolleyes:
For me my 40-50 is alright (Absolute maximum, Vsync enabled) I cant figure out, what difference do you see between 40 and 60... Tough, human eye has limited fps to about 40.
sorrys it is a bit muddled but in the right order.
check out http://lfsbench.iron.eu.org/ to compare your speed. obviously it is dependant on your GFX settings. the charts on that site are only for MAX and MIN settings.
illepall
Less than 6 makes a problem, lol
