gdalgorithms-list

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[<Chr...@Pl...>]

I was going to keep out of this as I don't have time to do it fully
justice, but I feel I have to comment because a lot of incorrect
stuff is being passed around in this thread.

There are two concepts here that people keep getting mixed up:

1) Apparent motion
2) Flicker fusion

Apparent motion is the term used to describe the visual phenomenon where
the display of different distinct static images is perceived as continuous
motion. This phenomenon known as the 'phi phenomenon', first happens at
rather low frame rates, which is why movies are 24 fps and cartoons are
typically half of that.

Flicker fusion, however, happens at the frequency known as the critical
flicker fusion frequency (CFF) and this is where flicker disappears.
The CFF is much higher, around 60Hz, but varies from person to person,
and increases with brightness, viewing angle (the eye being more sensitive
to flicker in the peripheral), etc.

This is why movies stills are shuttered *twice* to get an effective frame
rate of 48 images per second, which works fine for a dark cinema. (If movie
images were displayed at 24 images per second, things would flicker
horribly.)

For a bright living room, around 60 Hz is more appropriate, and for a large
computer screen you want a much higher refresh rate because the viewing
angle is larger (not to mention the fact that a computer screen has a
faster decaying phosphor than a TV screen).


The link someone posted earlier is to a horribly incorrect page and should
be ignored. Instead, here are some links to a few good pages:

http://www.futuretech.vuurwerk.nl/fps.html
http://www.xabcs.demon.co.uk/ergonite/flicfaq.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/TVBROADCAST/TempRate.htm
http://www.search.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=119396&sctn=4#s_top
http://www.search.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=55424&sctn=1#160276
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,119396+3,00.html
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,117505+13,00.html

There's also this nice illustration of the phi phenomenon on this page:

http://www.eecs.tufts.edu/~kreisman/phi/index.html


Christer Ericson
SCEA, Santa Monica

RE: [Algorithms] Game Programming Gems

[Jason M. (A. Technologies) <v-j...@mi...>]

> cool ATI water demo (though the spastic wave
>    effect detracts from the nice texturing)

   Doh.  You must have a fast CPU...we didn't put a time-based "governor" on
the water simulation.  If you go into the source and slow it down, it should
look a bit better.
                     -Jason

[Algorithms] Game Programming Gems

[Charles B. <cb...@cb...>]

I got a copy of this book at Siggraph.  It's worth glancing
at, not worth buying unless you are a novice in the field.

Articles of note (IMHO) :

Thatcher Ulrich on Loose Oct-Trees
Jan Svarovsky on VIPM (pretty basic introduction)
Miguel Gomez on physics miscellany
various guys on Quaternions
cool ATI water demo (though the spastic wave
   effect detracts from the nice texturing)

--------------------------------------
Charles Bloom           www.cbloom.com

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Chris S. <th...@xn...>]

Multiplayer racing games, especially simulations, actually are very much
like multiplayer FPS games for most of the same reasons, but also more
importantly that the physics are usually updated at a higher rate than in
most FPS games.  Its been proven in Grand Prix Legends (by Papyrus) online
competition that you MUST have 36fps (the max. framerate in GPL) or you are
at a serious disadvantage.  Most folks in the GPL community would perfer
more fps than 36, so I'd say 60 is a definete target, if the the software
would allow for it.  GPL isn't the only racing simulation that this effect
has been noticed in; TEN's NROS also experienced this.

> Most of the quake players I know ( at work and on the net ) like to get at
> least 100fps and many like 120 or above. They turn all their settings down
> *really* low so quake3 looks worse than quake1 to achieve this rate. Im
> lucky since I have a fast machine with a GF2 board which allows me to
pretty
> much leave it cranked and still get over 100fps. I dont think 100fps is a
> reasonable requirement for most games, especially single player ones - I
> think that for a single player FPS, racing game or 3PS,  30fps is adequate
> for fun gameplay, but 60 is always worth shooting for.

RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Ignacio C. <i6...@ho...>]

I think that constant frame rate is more important than the peak or the minimum rate. If your game
runs at 60 fps but drops sometimes to 30, you will notice an unpleasant difference, but if it's
allways at 30 it would look just smooth. I think the eye gets used to a given frame rate and what
hurts it is the its change. I think a good example for that is mdk2, on my platform it runs allways
at 20 fps, but i didn't notice it unless i turned on the benchmark.


Ignacio Castano
ca...@cr...

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

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

> The old "fact" that 25-30 fps is enough for animation that appears
> continuous to the human eye was discovered when viewing movies of fairly
> slow moving objects.

Also, consider motion blur.  Without being too technically accurate about
how cameras work, lets simplify and state that a camera is actually
recording all the information available.  Whilst it does chop up the 'real
stream' into (eg.) 24 fps, during each interval it is capturing the
remaining information by allowing light into its sensor (film etc) for the
full timeslice, resulting in motion blur.

ie. motion blur actually represents all the 'missing' information in slow
fps media.  That's why without it, computer graphics need a much higher fps
to get a similar feeling of smoothness.
--
gl

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Steven C. <sc...@ti...>]

Kent Quirk wrote:
> And does anyone else notice when they use the high-speed digital camera
> on the pitcher in baseball? I can always tell when they switch to that
> camera, because the motion blur is gone. It looks WRONG.

What I really hate is when you see, for example, lamp posts flashing
past. They just jump from one location to the next. This is really
obvious on many sporting events where the camera tracks the competitors,
such as running etc...

It is so obvious that digital video cameras are being used with very
high shutter speeds. There is a lot to be said for old technology :)

I hate it.

Anyhow, just thought I'd chip in :)

Regards,
Steve

-- 
Steve Clynes
sc...@ti...
"Vital papers demonstrate their vitality by moving from where you left
them to where you can't find them."

Re: [Algorithms] Maximum Distance Point To AABB

[Gil G. <gg...@ma...>]

I don't see why you would need the maximum distance for a texture
synthesizer. You will always need mip levels down to 1x1, since the slope of
the polygon has an effect on the mip level used. Edge-on polygons will
always use the 1x1 mip-level.

Anyway, an overestimate of the maximum distance is just the minimum distance
plus the length of a "diagonal" of the bbox. By diagonal I mean a line
segment joining opposite corners of the bbox.
-Gil



> Hi,
>
> For my terrain engine texture synthesizer, I want to dynamically load the
> mipmap levels only when they are needed and delete them when they are not
> needed anymore.
> The terrain is subdivided into little chunks which all have their own
> texture. So I would like to find out the minimum and maximum Distance from
a
> point to the AABB enclosing the terrain chunk.
>
> The minimum distance was easy, but how do I get the maximum distance to
the
> AABB?
>
> Thanks in advance.
> bye joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

[Algorithms] Smooth movement of camera along a path

[Mark W. <mwi...@cy...>]

I'm trying to write a fly-by sequence (similar to the Unreal
intro) for my 3d engine.  Can anyone tell me how to smoothly
move the camera along a set of predefined 3d points?
Ideally,  I would like a system where I manually move the
camera around the environment and record keyframes at
certain positions/orientations.  Then I would like the
system to automatically move the camera along a path
interpolated from these keyframes.  I'm guessing I need some
sort of spline or other curve to do the job?

-Mark

RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Graham S. R. <gr...@se...>]

I like Jason's post. It is fairly consistent with my own observations, which
I describe here. He may not agree with my whole discussion, though.

The old "fact" that 25-30 fps is enough for animation that appears
continuous to the human eye was discovered when viewing movies of fairly
slow moving objects. Slow compared to FPS games during attack sequences, for
example. It just happens that 60 fps or 100 fps or 25 or 30 fps just works
out nicely for most current games.

Does anyone have any reference that states that the human eye *cannot*
resolve *much* better than, say, 100 fps? I would bet that it *can*. My
monitor is running at a refresh rate of 75Hz now. Not 100Hz, but close
enough. If I just move a pencil across the screen at at speed that is
consistent with the speed of some computer game actors, I see the distinct
strobe effect that indicates when the screen is refreshing. I have to slow
the pencil down significantly before it appears to move smoothly with no
strobing. (This seems move obvious when you move the pencil diagonally
across the screen. Also, you when the pencil is moving slowly, you will
detect the strobing more effectively in your peripheral vision----so keep
your eyes focused at one point while moving the pencil.)

We can think about this without getting too theoretical, in my view. It
seems to me that the target frame rate will generally be a function of how
fast the fastest actor/game element is moving on the screen, in, say, pixels
per second. Count how fast the thing or character is moving in pixels per
second, and the number of pixels is the number of frames you need to get the
SMOOTHEST possible animation. Think about the pencil example. When I slow
the pencil down, I am really reducing its speed, in pixels/second, down so
that it moves roughly one pixel per frame. That gives the smoothest possible
motion of the pencil, given the strobing screen behind.

For example, if a bot is moving at 250 pixels per second (roughly 4 seconds
to cross a 1024 pixel screen), then you need 250 frames per second to
represent the position of that bot at every pixel location it would
potentially occupy in a second. If its moving 60 pixels/second then you need
60 fps. 25 pixels/sec needs 25 fps, etc.

Imagine a very fast moving element in a game, one that moves across the
entire screen in one second---this doesn't seem too fast if you think about
it. If you just move that pencil across in one second it looks fairly slow.
To get the smoothest possible animation (in terms of pixel jumping), you
would need to have a frame rate equal to the pixel resolution of the screen.
For a 1024 pixel screen, you'd want 1024 fps. At some point, pixels are very
small and we can think about something other than pixels/second. Perhaps
tens of pixels per second is close to ideal----this would be consistent with
the current trend of looking for 100fps. (At some point, we may need to look
at the ability of the eye to resolve individual pixels, and the angular
displacement of objects relative to the eye----these being functions of
distance from the screen...)

So, in summary, I believe the target frame rate should be a function of the
rate of movement in screen space of the fastest moving game element. Some
games will continue to need 25-30, some 60, some 100, and, perhaps, 300fps
will be best for some games.

Beyond monitor synchronization and frame drop issues, there will probably be
a *requirement* for motion blur and some other kinds of temporal
antialiasing if we get too fast, I suppose. Can we even make a monitor that
runs at extraordinary refresh rates?

What happens in 5 years when we all have monitors running at 2000 pixels
horizontally? Large immersive displays such as CAVE's already run at 96
frames per second at that resolution... What happens when we are all using
stereoscopic hardware all the time, so that each eye sees have the total
frame rate. 100fps becomes 50fps. We will then need 200fps to match today's
100fps..... Food for thought.

Graham Rhodes

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Kent Q. <ken...@co...>]

Tom Forsyth wrote:
> 
> Oh yes - on monitor refreshes, 60Hz hurts immediately, <70Hz hurts after a
> while, and 85Hz is nice. 

Ditto.

> 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....

I'm OK if I sit fairly far from the screen, mostly because of motion
blur.

But put me in an Omni theater (the hemispherical movie theatres), and I
have a really hard time with the flickering on the periphery. It's
painful.

And does anyone else notice when they use the high-speed digital camera
on the pitcher in baseball? I can always tell when they switch to that
camera, because the motion blur is gone. It looks WRONG.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Quirk                   | CogniToy: Intelligent toys...
Game Designer                |           for intelligent minds.
ken...@co...      | http://www.cognitoy.com/     
_____________________________|_________________________________________

[Algorithms] Maximum Distance Point To AABB

[Joe A. <jo...@ti...>]

Hi,

For my terrain engine texture synthesizer, I want to dynamically load the
mipmap levels only when they are needed and delete them when they are not
needed anymore.
The terrain is subdivided into little chunks which all have their own
texture. So I would like to find out the minimum and maximum Distance from a
point to the AABB enclosing the terrain chunk.

The minimum distance was easy, but how do I get the maximum distance to the
AABB?

Thanks in advance.
bye joe

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Doug C. <dc...@d-...>]

Well Im am what you might call a big quake player and the extra FPS really
helps when trying to dodge projectiles and predict where to aim projectiles.
Its hard to explain why it helps exactly but there is something about the
visual fluidity and natural human aiming instincts I suspect. Thats probably
why most quake players use USB mice for their smoother mouse response.

Most of the quake players I know ( at work and on the net ) like to get at
least 100fps and many like 120 or above. They turn all their settings down
*really* low so quake3 looks worse than quake1 to achieve this rate. Im
lucky since I have a fast machine with a GF2 board which allows me to pretty
much leave it cranked and still get over 100fps. I dont think 100fps is a
reasonable requirement for most games, especially single player ones - I
think that for a single player FPS, racing game or 3PS,  30fps is adequate
for fun gameplay, but 60 is always worth shooting for.

Doug Chism

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Forsyth" <to...@mu...>
To: <gda...@li...>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 4:01 PM
Subject: RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions


> Lower latency - that's what FPS players from higher fps (excuse the pun).
> They also say that you can spin faster and not have any gaps in your
visual
> coverage of a room. I'll have to trust them on that - I have no problems
> scanning a room quickly on my fairly average setup, which is probably
going
> at around 25-30Hz. If you spin too fast, your optical shutters kick in (I
> used to know what they were called - anyone? - they stop you getting
> confused by rapid head movements).
>
> But I'm sure 99% of the effect is just lower latency.
>
> Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
> Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Offerman [mailto:j.o...@in...]
> > Sent: 31 July 2000 20:31
> > To: gda...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
> >
> >
> > > 60fps is the ideal target.
> >
> > I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering
> > why... Anything
> > above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 fps
> > animations look
> > _really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? Shouldn't we
> > rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps?
> > What makes a 60
> > fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
> >
> > Jim Offerman
> >
> > Innovade
> > - designing the designer
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > GDA...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[jason w. <jas...@po...>]

the sort answer:

yes, anothing above 24fps will, due to persistance of vision, have the
appearence of being continous, not flashing frames.

this does _not_ mean the human eye is unable to tell the difference between
30 and 60 fps.

longer answer:

the vast majority of games will set their systems and settings such that
they get around 60fps.. whatever resolution this requires.. another
interesting bit.. people with Geforce2 GTS's could run at 1600x1200 and get
~60fps in many games.. but they don't... they almost always like 1280x1024
and the ~100fps better.

personally, I even perfer getting above 85 hz, which is what my monitor
refresh typically runs at.

there's also the isssue of aliasing if you're syncing to vsync. When you're
running say 72hz refresh.. if you don't have every frame ready in time, then
that frame has to wait an entire refresh. suddenly you've dropped a frame..
if you're in the middle of an intense fire fight, it's concievable that you
may even go past 2 72hz periods, drop 2 frames, and end up with 18hz for a
frame or 2.

let me tell you, consistance is a wonderful thing.. I would *definately*
like it better if q3a degraded some of the effects as nessisary to keep from
dropping frames.

another thing I've noticed in counterstrike.. in counterstrike, there's lag
compensation.. effectively this means that if you have your crosshair on the
image of the enemy on your screen, and click fire, then you'll hit. This is
unlike other games, where you have to lead some small or large amount to
compensate for network lag. So, usually my goal in each frame is to get my
crosshair on target by the next frame or 2.. when my display is rendering at
80fps, this is easy.. the motions are so smooth... at 30fps, it's much
harder.. I'm quite sure that at 80fps, my brain is getting more information.

there is really no framerate to the human eye.. everything is fuzzy.. so
don't count on arbitrary rules like "24 fps".. instead, test it, see how if
feels, see what people say. give gamer the choice.

this reminds me a lot of the audio world.. people commonly believe human
hearing extends between 20hz and 20khz.. while this is roughly true when
using a spectrum analysys model of the human ear, it's not true when using
an impulse or other model.

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

RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[<sro...@te...>]

your right, just with quake3 go in front of a mirror
you will see your fps like drop (1024x768x32) from 90 to 60 and just
turn see the wall and the fps go 90 fps

so getting the more fps as you can can only help your performance

Corrosif,
"Ignore demands from the marketing department to release premature shots.
These people are for the most part clueless, and are only trying to justify
their job." George Broussard, President of 3DRealms.


-----Original Message-----
From: gda...@li...
[mailto:gda...@li...]On Behalf Of Mats
Lundberg
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 4:24 PM
To: gda...@li...
Subject: Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions


Ever played Classic Quake with 30 fps? I have, and you really Feel the
difference between 30 and 60 fps, or 30 and 100 fps...It's so much
smooother...
You also have to remember that fps-number is just the __Average__ number of
frames. There's alot more work involved in rendering when you see a whole
room with furniture, plants etc. than just a single wall. So if you're
average is 30 fps, you get 30+ when see a wall and 30- when you see a more
complex scene. (Hope ye get the idea...I'm no good story teller...)

>> 60fps is the ideal target.
>
>I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering why...
Anything
>above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 fps animations
look
>_really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? Shouldn't we
>rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps? What makes a 60
>fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
>
>Jim Offerman
>
>Innovade
>- designing the designer
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
>GDA...@li...
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>


_______________________________________________
GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
GDA...@li...
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Tom F. <to...@mu...>]

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.

Although 60Hz in a game does indeed feel somehow "nicer", it is not (to me)
obviously _prettier_ than 30Hz. Certainly, I would much prefer twice as many
tris on the screen and running at 30Hz - seeing triangles is much more
offensive to my eye than the (perceptually, to me) slightly lower update
rate.

So I can definately see the difference, I just don't care enough about it to
more than halve my poly count. This is another reason that extreme
scalability is cool - those that want to play at 20Hz can, and those that
want to play at 100Hz can.

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....

Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gl [mailto:gl...@nt...]
> Sent: 31 July 2000 21:18
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
> 
> 
> 
> Not only can I see the difference between 30 and 60 (they're 
> a world apart),
> I also find < 85Hz monitor refresh rate tiring.  At a 100, 
> something very
> interesting happens that's hard to put into words.  As with 
> all things, once
> you exceed the obvious limitations of something you find that 
> there is still
> a world of sublety to explore, so don't write off >60 fps 
> just yet (Quake2
> for example is especially 'liquid' at 100+).
> 
> The reason this comes up time and time again is precisely 
> because I think
> many people really can't tell the difference.  However, 
> those'll just have
> to accept that many of us can.
> --
> gl
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <sro...@te...>
> To: <gda...@li...>
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 9:05 PM
> Subject: RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
> 
> 
> > well, i dont know for you but i can see the difference 
> beetween 30 and 60
> > fps
> >
> > Corrosif,
> > Ignore demands from the marketing department to release 
> premature shots.
> > These people are for the  most part clueless, and are only trying to
> justify
> > their job." George Broussard, President of 3DRealms.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gda...@li...
> > [mailto:gda...@li...]On 
> Behalf Of Jim
> > Offerman
> > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:31 PM
> > To: gda...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
> >
> >
> > > 60fps is the ideal target.
> >
> > I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering why...
> Anything
> > above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 
> fps animations
> look
> > _really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? 
> Shouldn't we
> > rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps? 
> What makes a
> 60
> > fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
> >
> > Jim Offerman
> >
> > Innovade
> > - designing the designer
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > GDA...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > GDA...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> 

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Keith Z.L. <ke...@dr...>]

also for me, I like it 60 fps at 1024x768x32.
That's just my pet resolution.

though 640x480x32@60hz anti-aliased is good too.

:-)

Keith

"Keith Z.Leonard" wrote:

> All good points brought up.
>
> On average (the average 3D game), you want to shoot for 60 fps.
> But there are 3D games that don't require that level of performance,
> for instance an adventure game, or turn based stradegy game, or
> 3D solitare.  :-)
>
> And 60 fields per second on TV is better than 30 any day.
>
> Keith
>
> gl wrote:
>
> > Not only can I see the difference between 30 and 60 (they're a world apart),
> > I also find < 85Hz monitor refresh rate tiring.  At a 100, something very
> > interesting happens that's hard to put into words.  As with all things, once
> > you exceed the obvious limitations of something you find that there is still
> > a world of sublety to explore, so don't write off >60 fps just yet (Quake2
> > for example is especially 'liquid' at 100+).
> >
> > The reason this comes up time and time again is precisely because I think
> > many people really can't tell the difference.  However, those'll just have
> > to accept that many of us can.
> > --
> > gl
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <sro...@te...>
> > To: <gda...@li...>
> > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 9:05 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
> >
> > > well, i dont know for you but i can see the difference beetween 30 and 60
> > > fps
> > >
> > > Corrosif,
> > > Ignore demands from the marketing department to release premature shots.
> > > These people are for the  most part clueless, and are only trying to
> > justify
> > > their job." George Broussard, President of 3DRealms.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gda...@li...
> > > [mailto:gda...@li...]On Behalf Of Jim
> > > Offerman
> > > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:31 PM
> > > To: gda...@li...
> > > Subject: Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
> > >
> > >
> > > > 60fps is the ideal target.
> > >
> > > I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering why...
> > Anything
> > > above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 fps animations
> > look
> > > _really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? Shouldn't we
> > > rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps? What makes a
> > 60
> > > fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
> > >
> > > Jim Offerman
> > >
> > > Innovade
> > > - designing the designer
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > > GDA...@li...
> > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > > GDA...@li...
> > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > GDA...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Steve W. <Ste...@im...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Offerman [mailto:j.o...@in...]
> 
> > 60fps is the ideal target.
> 
> I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering 
> why... Anything
> above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 fps 
> animations look
> _really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? Shouldn't we
> rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps? 
> What makes a 60
> fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
> 

I think the ideal target fps needs to detailed further since fps is relative
to the bits per pixel and window or screen size.  I'm assuming that Keith's
ideal 60fps is at 640x480x32 fullscreen...so that someone can play it at
800x600x32 and get about 30fps, or 1024x768 and get the 24-25fps.

R&R

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Mats L. <ma...@al...>]

Ever played Classic Quake with 30 fps? I have, and you really Feel the
difference between 30 and 60 fps, or 30 and 100 fps...It's so much
smooother...
You also have to remember that fps-number is just the __Average__ number of
frames. There's alot more work involved in rendering when you see a whole
room with furniture, plants etc. than just a single wall. So if you're
average is 30 fps, you get 30+ when see a wall and 30- when you see a more
complex scene. (Hope ye get the idea...I'm no good story teller...)

>> 60fps is the ideal target.
>
>I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering why... Anything
>above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 fps animations look
>_really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? Shouldn't we
>rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps? What makes a 60
>fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
>
>Jim Offerman
>
>Innovade
>- designing the designer
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
>GDA...@li...
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Keith Z.L. <ke...@dr...>]

All good points brought up.

On average (the average 3D game), you want to shoot for 60 fps.
But there are 3D games that don't require that level of performance,
for instance an adventure game, or turn based stradegy game, or
3D solitare.  :-)

And 60 fields per second on TV is better than 30 any day.

Keith

gl wrote:

> Not only can I see the difference between 30 and 60 (they're a world apart),
> I also find < 85Hz monitor refresh rate tiring.  At a 100, something very
> interesting happens that's hard to put into words.  As with all things, once
> you exceed the obvious limitations of something you find that there is still
> a world of sublety to explore, so don't write off >60 fps just yet (Quake2
> for example is especially 'liquid' at 100+).
>
> The reason this comes up time and time again is precisely because I think
> many people really can't tell the difference.  However, those'll just have
> to accept that many of us can.
> --
> gl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <sro...@te...>
> To: <gda...@li...>
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 9:05 PM
> Subject: RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
>
> > well, i dont know for you but i can see the difference beetween 30 and 60
> > fps
> >
> > Corrosif,
> > Ignore demands from the marketing department to release premature shots.
> > These people are for the  most part clueless, and are only trying to
> justify
> > their job." George Broussard, President of 3DRealms.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gda...@li...
> > [mailto:gda...@li...]On Behalf Of Jim
> > Offerman
> > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:31 PM
> > To: gda...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
> >
> >
> > > 60fps is the ideal target.
> >
> > I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering why...
> Anything
> > above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 fps animations
> look
> > _really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? Shouldn't we
> > rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps? What makes a
> 60
> > fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
> >
> > Jim Offerman
> >
> > Innovade
> > - designing the designer
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > GDA...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > GDA...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

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

Not so.  The 'liquidity' (for want of a better term) from the high fps is
really quite startling - if you can see it that is.  As I said, I think a
lot of people can't, so they are very eager to disbelieve anyone that can.
Most FPS gamers I know can tell the difference.
--
gl


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Forsyth" <to...@mu...>
To: <gda...@li...>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 9:01 PM
Subject: RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions


> Lower latency - that's what FPS players from higher fps (excuse the pun).
> They also say that you can spin faster and not have any gaps in your
visual
> coverage of a room. I'll have to trust them on that - I have no problems
> scanning a room quickly on my fairly average setup, which is probably
going
> at around 25-30Hz. If you spin too fast, your optical shutters kick in (I
> used to know what they were called - anyone? - they stop you getting
> confused by rapid head movements).
>
> But I'm sure 99% of the effect is just lower latency.
>
> Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
> Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Offerman [mailto:j.o...@in...]
> > Sent: 31 July 2000 20:31
> > To: gda...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
> >
> >
> > > 60fps is the ideal target.
> >
> > I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering
> > why... Anything
> > above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 fps
> > animations look
> > _really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? Shouldn't we
> > rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps?
> > What makes a 60
> > fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
> >
> > Jim Offerman
> >
> > Innovade
> > - designing the designer
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > GDA...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

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

Not only can I see the difference between 30 and 60 (they're a world apart),
I also find < 85Hz monitor refresh rate tiring.  At a 100, something very
interesting happens that's hard to put into words.  As with all things, once
you exceed the obvious limitations of something you find that there is still
a world of sublety to explore, so don't write off >60 fps just yet (Quake2
for example is especially 'liquid' at 100+).

The reason this comes up time and time again is precisely because I think
many people really can't tell the difference.  However, those'll just have
to accept that many of us can.
--
gl


----- Original Message -----
From: <sro...@te...>
To: <gda...@li...>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 9:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions


> well, i dont know for you but i can see the difference beetween 30 and 60
> fps
>
> Corrosif,
> Ignore demands from the marketing department to release premature shots.
> These people are for the  most part clueless, and are only trying to
justify
> their job." George Broussard, President of 3DRealms.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gda...@li...
> [mailto:gda...@li...]On Behalf Of Jim
> Offerman
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:31 PM
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
>
>
> > 60fps is the ideal target.
>
> I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering why...
Anything
> above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 fps animations
look
> _really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? Shouldn't we
> rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps? What makes a
60
> fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
>
> Jim Offerman
>
> Innovade
> - designing the designer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>

Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Leigh M. <lei...@ro...>]

Spot the PC guy :)  When your working with NTSC 30fps is a min and your next
step without tearing is 60fps. You can totally feel the difference between a
60fps and a 30fps game.  Also depends on the type of game your writing.
What if your artist are doing some crazy animations runnning at 60Hz?

Leigh McRae

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Offerman <j.o...@in...>
To: <gda...@li...>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions


> > 60fps is the ideal target.
>
> I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering why...
Anything
> above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 fps animations
look
> _really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? Shouldn't we
> rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps? What makes a
60
> fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
>
> Jim Offerman
>
> Innovade
> - designing the designer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>

RE: [Algorithms] FPS Questions

[Tom F. <to...@mu...>]

Lower latency - that's what FPS players from higher fps (excuse the pun).
They also say that you can spin faster and not have any gaps in your visual
coverage of a room. I'll have to trust them on that - I have no problems
scanning a room quickly on my fairly average setup, which is probably going
at around 25-30Hz. If you spin too fast, your optical shutters kick in (I
used to know what they were called - anyone? - they stop you getting
confused by rapid head movements).

But I'm sure 99% of the effect is just lower latency.

Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Offerman [mailto:j.o...@in...]
> Sent: 31 July 2000 20:31
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Algorithms] FPS Questions
> 
> 
> > 60fps is the ideal target.
> 
> I blindly follow the masses here, but I can't help wondering 
> why... Anything
> above 24-25 fps will not be noticed by the human eye, 30 fps 
> animations look
> _really_ smooth. So why are we all targetting for 60 fps? Shouldn't we
> rather crank up the detail some more and all target 30 fps? 
> What makes a 60
> fps game more playable than a 30 fps game?
> 
> Jim Offerman
> 
> Innovade
> - designing the designer
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>