Acceptable Frame Rate

[EAP3D]

(poll) What is the minimum acceptable framerate for playing racer , in your opinion (or other driving sims/arcades)?

Similar to the "What is your GPU?" thread, these results will help me (and others?) determine how detailed of models to offer when creating scratch made cars or tracks.

 

[Dustin Withers]

gotta have 50+ fps in racing games. same applies to FPS for me.

 

[Mr Whippy]

The only real way to do this is to use motion blur, like crysis does.

Making a lower frame rate appear smoother really nicely might actually cost more fps than the fps saving not just rendering more frames in the first place

Personally I wasn't so keen on the Racer motion blur in some situations. It needs to be less obvious with more fps. Was great for wheels though, no need for spinning LOD models

Dave

 

[EAP3D]

Making a lower frame rate appear smoother really nicely might actually cost more fps than the fps saving not just rendering more frames in the first place

Personally I wasn't so keen on the Racer motion blur in some situations. It needs to be less obvious with more fps. Was great for wheels though, no need for spinning LOD models

Dave

I agree, I always prefer higher fps with no motion blur.

 

[Ian Strom]

I agree, I always prefer higher fps with no motion blur.

:good:

 

[Some1]

Making a lower frame rate appear smoother really nicely might actually cost more fps than the fps saving not just rendering more frames in the first place

Personally I wasn't so keen on the Racer motion blur in some situations. It needs to be less obvious with more fps. Was great for wheels though, no need for spinning LOD models

Dave

NFS Shift had quite nice motion blur really and the FPS wasn't sky high either. But the motion blur made the game much smoother. Still, they had separate models for blurred wheels.

 

[AMGfan(BPM)]

Why cg of racer is too heavy? I say it cause using any NFS game here, you have cg, good lights, nice shaders, high poly models and acceptable FPS.

 

[QuadCoreMax]

Camsinny/krs are right, the fact is the human eye can't make any difference above 60 fps, so playing games at 100fps is non-sense. If so, the best is to tweak GPU features to lower FPS.

As EAP3D evoked, the solution to frame loss when cams are rotating fast are the new "High Speed Cameras", which will render 5.000 frames in 1 second. Maybe that could be somehow integrated in Racer, when static cams are replaying. In Shift, you'll see the frame drop once the static cam is rendering the scene.

Actually, I'm playing Racer in widescreen mode (3840x1024) with HDR off, everything else on & for debugging, I'm using 1 screen at full details, leaving my 2 other side screens available for other apps. Both configs are running approx. at 30-35 fps. Using SoftTH created by Kegetys for Shift/Dirt2/Grid..etc...Happy to see Racer is natively a multiscreen game.

More details :

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/
http://www.kegetys.net/SoftTH/

 

[EAP3D]

Camsinny/krs are right, the fact is the human eye can't make any difference above 60 fps, so playing games at 100fps is non-sense. If so, the best is to tweak GPU features to lower FPS.

Unproven, and from my personal experience I can say otherwise. The catch is you have to have a monitor that supports the ability to refresh at over 60 hz, otherwise no, 60 fps and 120 fps will not look any different, but it's a limitation of the monitor, not the human eye. The eye doesn't sample a "still image" x times per second like a machine does

here's a good site on it:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

[QuadCoreMax]

I'm not inventing here, those statements come from physicians & experts, more exactly, this come from DMAX.de, "Schneller Als das Auge".

Those experts were demonstrating what I'm saying here, with those million dollars HSC. Like a fast car, if someone shoots a bullet from a gun, for sure you'll basically see nothing & really you can do nothing against it, it's our nature.

If you're using those cams, you'll understand how much, we're really loosing in framerate/detail. That has nothing to do with monitor frequency...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneller_als_das_Auge

 

[camsinny]

I actually retract my last statement.

And I need to refine my answer a bit, especially after playing a bit more.

So, I was in a Hi-Fi shop the other day and Avatar was playing on one of those new Sony TVs. With that stupid 400hz supermotion or whatever they call it...
That looks stupid. Movies are meant to be played at 24/25fps, that's what I like to see replays as, when driving though I'd prefer around 60fps.
It's hard to tell the difference above 60fps, at least to me, it doesn't make much difference at all, that's why I say you can't tell the difference between it.
When a video of source 25fps is playing at 400hz you can really tell the difference though, and it looks stupid.

tl;dr
Monitor refresh rates matter and make a difference. I prefer 24/25fps in replays but >40fps while playing.

 

[EAP3D]

I'm not inventing here, those statements come from physicians & experts, more exactly, this come from DMAX.de, "Schneller Als das Auge".

Those experts were demonstrating what I'm saying here, with those million dollars HSC. Like a fast car, if someone shoots a bullet from a gun, for sure you'll basically see nothing & really you can do nothing against it, it's our nature.

If you're using those cams, you'll understand how much, we're really loosing in framerate/detail. That has nothing to do with monitor frequency...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneller_als_das_Auge

Are we talking about the same thing? Our eyes sort of blend the input together. If you move your cursor fast, you start to see multiple copies from the last 1/2 second or so, and then you can see that it's not real motion. The monitor is only displaying one frame at a time, but we see residual images from the last few.

You'll notice that the further you move your cursor, the more choppy it looks because there are less frames for the natural blending to see. Compare this to shaking your hand back and forth. In a real situation, of course light is constantly being reflected, and your eye is constantly light, it just gets blended with what was previously there. I'm no optical scientist though, so I can't explain exactly why this happens.

The "frame rate" at which things look real scales with the velocity of the object/camera, until the point where the object would be so blended that you would have great difficulty seeing it, such as in the case of the bullet, because instead of seeing a blended scene, you see 5-10 frames at once.

 

[luthobu]

It does say Acceptable minimum fps, and I can accept even 18fps
as long as it is not constant. The FPS counter is not static, since framerate
is dynamic. Ergo I could accept 18fps at parts of a track, but not all the time.

Or have I misunderstood the whole poll troll?

 

[CelicaGT]

on my new PC I very rarely get below 80.. altho on my old 25 - 30 fps was acceptable, below 15 was crap

 

[KS95]

LOL.. it's a draw between the 2 opposite ends, how do you draw a conclusion from that? xD

 

[Harey]

LOL.. it's a draw between the 2 opposite ends, how do you draw a conclusion from that? xD

Well the people that put in 60+ I think don't really get the point of the thread i think (which is what is the minimum FPS you find Racer to be playable at)
the people that said 20-30, I think either knew what the question really was. or since their version played at that fps range they put that in lol

 

[Mingus]

Haha I think you are right there

 

[gtpdzbiz]

Racer engine needs more optimization...I just couldn't understand why a simple scene like carlswood only runs @ 30~40 fps on a mid-spec machine, without even turning on full live envmapping...

 

[FiftyOrange]

I'm getting around 70FPS with a fresh unpack of v0.8.18. it gets too jiggery and stuttery to play once I fill a track with cars and drag the framerate down to less than 15FPS or so.

 

[mdbobbo]

I hate to be an ass but I'd go for 25-35 as like your eyes see things smoothly at 24 lol.

me too so I've gone for 30 -40 to keep it as low as possible, but as the frame rate fluctuates over the course of a track, car and scenery we drive by I'd really want to hand the simulator over to a test driver at 60 fps with small variances from there as the bulk of scenery changes from light to heavy.
I must confess though if I got 60fps on my machine running the new CG sim I'd take it back to the shop and get them to make me a dozen more as that's totally unrealistic, I usually can scrape through with 20 -30fps most of the time and I'm happy especially with the new CG running.
with non-CG operating I get up to 150fps it's good enough to take the learjet out for a spin around "Bourneville high resolution" with the magpie's singing and squarking in the trees.. oops we haven't got a learjet yet or air density to carry it off the ground ((airplane: only the boeing 707
:damnit: well back to the grindstone so I can afford to get me a faster, bigger & better graphics card ... P.S heres a photo I took recently at 100km/h note how the lamp post came out double, there actually only one there, and that's real life photography

 

[fsr]

Well, with my new GFX card I get 500+, so it's a very hard question to answer

I guess anything above 30fps is ok, but I like to get at least 40+