Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[gl <gl...@nt...>]

> Oh yes - on monitor refreshes, 60Hz hurts immediately, <70Hz hurts after a
> while, and 85Hz is nice. And again, at 100Hz, something rather pleasing
> happens. But that's a very different effect.

Yes and no.  No because it illustrates that (many) humans can discern
differences up to around that speed and higher.  Take for example an arcade
racer - the difference in the 'speed rush' between 30 and 60 is perhaps the
best example - at 30, racing games (with close to the floor camera angles
especially) seem really sluggish and boring - at 60 and above, you start
getting the 'oh my god, this speed feels real' factor and you get a nice
rush of adrenaline.  30 just isn't very close to reality, and without motion
blur just doesn't convery high speeds very well.

> Although 60Hz in a game does indeed feel somehow "nicer", it is not (to
me)
> obviously _prettier_ than 30Hz.

I take your point, and it all depends on what you're shooting for.  However,
motion is the key - if you want a close-to-life sensation of real speed or
smooth/realistic movement, high framerates rule.  I think there's a good
reason why FPS gamers are more highly tuned to it than others - FPS' are
essentially a simple form of VR.  People experience the world as they do
normally (to some extent), and therefore strive for ever greater realism,
inluding real-life smoothness.  Anything less can cause motion sickness on
the extreme end of the scale, or simply irritation (and everything
inbetween).

> Incidentally, 24fps panning at the cinema does EVIL things to my eyes -
can
> no-one else see it? It's really really awful and stuttery and blurry and
yuk
> - ruins a good movie. Roll on digital projection....

Oh yeah.  It's a mess.  Best when your sitting really close to the screen -
enough to make you puke :).
--
gl