Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

From console to PC - Frame-rates rant

122 replies to this topic
Yogensia
  • Yogensia

    Hobbyist Digital Artist

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2014
  • None

#31

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:15 AM

The most common problem i see when people talk about frame rates is almost no one talks about input response times. You can have 60+ fps and have a sh*tty experience if the controls feel laggy because of some additional issue or bug in a game, or for example if the frame rate is high but unstable. Sadly this sometimes can happen. On consoles games are normally conceived to be played at the frame rate the console can achieve and this is the the biggest point they have in their favor. People tend to turn it into a number contest but things are not always that simple. That's why some games feel terrible at 30 or even 50 fps while in consoles they might have lower fps and still feel more responsive.

 

All that said, if there's no input lag at all, having more fps is always, objectively better, preferably synced to the monitor refresh rate to avoid tearing or dropped frames. Anyone who refuses to admit that is either misinformed or just kidding himself. And don't even get me started on "cinematic feels", "human eye can only see n frames per second", and similar delusions.

 

(How's that for a rant? :p)

  • utack likes this

FANTOMTRON
  • FANTOMTRON

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2013

#32

Posted 21 August 2014 - 05:10 AM

All I want is constant stable framerates. There's no point in playing at 60fps then it drops to  40fps then 30 then back up to 70 fps then down to 50 lol. I want a stape 30 fps lol. Of course a stable 60 fps would be good too.


Coolstream
  • Coolstream

    Superfly

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2011
  • Norway

#33

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:26 AM

The most common problem i see when people talk about frame rates is almost no one talks about input response times. You can have 60+ fps and have a sh*tty experience if the controls feel laggy because of some additional issue or bug in a game, or for example if the frame rate is high but unstable. Sadly this sometimes can happen. On consoles games are normally conceived to be played at the frame rate the console can achieve and this is the the biggest point they have in their favor. People tend to turn it into a number contest but things are not always that simple. That's why some games feel terrible at 30 or even 50 fps while in consoles they might have lower fps and still feel more responsive.

 

All that said, if there's no input lag at all, having more fps is always, objectively better, preferably synced to the monitor refresh rate to avoid tearing or dropped frames. Anyone who refuses to admit that is either misinformed or just kidding himself. And don't even get me started on "cinematic feels", "human eye can only see n frames per second", and similar delusions.

 

(How's that for a rant? :p)

 

Input lag usually (In my experience) happens when you turn on Vsync on a 60Hz monitor. It does not happen on a 120Hz og 144Hz monitor. This is not relevant if the FPS is under 60.

 

Also, mouse acceleration does this, only a handful of games doesn't allow it to be turned off.


utack
  • utack

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2014
  • None

#34

Posted 21 August 2014 - 10:17 AM Edited by utack, 21 August 2014 - 10:18 AM.

All that said, if there's no input lag at all, having more fps is always, objectively better, preferably synced to the monitor refresh rate to avoid tearing or dropped frames.

All I want is constant stable framerates. There's no point in playing at 60fps then it drops to  40fps then 30 then back up to 70 fps then down to 50 lol. I want a stape 30 fps lol. Of course a stable 60 fps would be good too.

 

I am really looking forward to adaptive sync displays.

Nvidia and AMD are working on it, while it seems the display tech itself is not quite ready yet.

It is one of the best inventions in display tech in a really long time.


Antaxi
  • Antaxi

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2014
  • Sweden

#35

Posted 21 August 2014 - 01:48 PM Edited by Antaxi, 21 August 2014 - 01:50 PM.

mmm... high frame rate sound fetishes :lol:

stable 25-30 its okay for me

and it will looks too fast on 60 imo


Kampret
  • Kampret

    GabeN is fat.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 23 May 2014
  • Indonesia

#36

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:00 PM

I don't mind about 30 FPS. I mind about how inconsistent it is. But oddly enough my super-slim PS3 can run this game quite smoothly actually, after the cache and defrag treatment.

 

Why we went from 60 FPS gameplay on PS2 to 30 FPS gameplay on PS3? Increasing prevalence of HDTV, thus increasing the demands for an HD game.

I gotta remind all of you that PS2's version of SA ran at 16-22 FPS. Anyone complaining? I don't think so.


The Algerian
  • The Algerian

    Professional

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2012
  • None

#37

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:07 PM Edited by The Algerian, 21 August 2014 - 02:08 PM.

I don't mind about 30 FPS. I mind about how inconsistent it is. But oddly enough my super-slim PS3 can run this game quite smoothly actually, after the cache and defrag treatment.

 

Why we went from 60 FPS gameplay on PS2 to 30 FPS gameplay on PS3? Increasing prevalence of HDTV, thus increasing the demands for an HD game.

I gotta remind all of you that PS2's version of SA ran at 16-22 FPS. Anyone complaining? I don't think so.

 

 

Nobody was complaining about black & white and silent movies either. Nobody was complaining about travelling on horses.

Hell to stay on topic, nobody was complaining about 8 bits game. Would that be excuse enough for you to be okay with current games all being 8 bits?


Coolstream
  • Coolstream

    Superfly

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2011
  • Norway

#38

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:35 PM

mmm... high frame rate sound fetishes :lol:

stable 25-30 its okay for me

and it will looks too fast on 60 imo

 

I take it you're not a primary PC gamer? Everyone has their preferences, it just seemed weird if you prefer PC.


Kampret
  • Kampret

    GabeN is fat.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 23 May 2014
  • Indonesia

#39

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:39 PM

 

I don't mind about 30 FPS. I mind about how inconsistent it is. But oddly enough my super-slim PS3 can run this game quite smoothly actually, after the cache and defrag treatment.

 

Why we went from 60 FPS gameplay on PS2 to 30 FPS gameplay on PS3? Increasing prevalence of HDTV, thus increasing the demands for an HD game.

I gotta remind all of you that PS2's version of SA ran at 16-22 FPS. Anyone complaining? I don't think so.

 

 

Nobody was complaining about black & white and silent movies either. Nobody was complaining about travelling on horses.

Hell to stay on topic, nobody was complaining about 8 bits game. Would that be excuse enough for you to be okay with current games all being 8 bits?

 

 

Why not? As long as it's fun I'd play it anyways.

 

Stop being so thirsty for graphics.


Coolstream
  • Coolstream

    Superfly

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2011
  • Norway

#40

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:43 PM

 

 

I don't mind about 30 FPS. I mind about how inconsistent it is. But oddly enough my super-slim PS3 can run this game quite smoothly actually, after the cache and defrag treatment.

 

Why we went from 60 FPS gameplay on PS2 to 30 FPS gameplay on PS3? Increasing prevalence of HDTV, thus increasing the demands for an HD game.

I gotta remind all of you that PS2's version of SA ran at 16-22 FPS. Anyone complaining? I don't think so.

 

 

Nobody was complaining about black & white and silent movies either. Nobody was complaining about travelling on horses.

Hell to stay on topic, nobody was complaining about 8 bits game. Would that be excuse enough for you to be okay with current games all being 8 bits?

 

 

Why not? As long as it's fun I'd play it anyways.

 

Stop being so thirsty for graphics.

 

 

Graphics =/= FPS

 

Graphics, not important

FPS, important, fluctuating FPS causes motion sickness for many.


The Algerian
  • The Algerian

    Professional

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2012
  • None

#41

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:52 PM

 

 

I don't mind about 30 FPS. I mind about how inconsistent it is. But oddly enough my super-slim PS3 can run this game quite smoothly actually, after the cache and defrag treatment.

 

Why we went from 60 FPS gameplay on PS2 to 30 FPS gameplay on PS3? Increasing prevalence of HDTV, thus increasing the demands for an HD game.

I gotta remind all of you that PS2's version of SA ran at 16-22 FPS. Anyone complaining? I don't think so.

 

 

Nobody was complaining about black & white and silent movies either. Nobody was complaining about travelling on horses.

Hell to stay on topic, nobody was complaining about 8 bits game. Would that be excuse enough for you to be okay with current games all being 8 bits?

 

 

Why not? As long as it's fun I'd play it anyways.

 

Stop being so thirsty for graphics.

 

 

 

You're actually going to pretend you'd be more than okay if all games that were released from now on were 10 fps 8 bits games? Seriously?

Okay.


Kampret
  • Kampret

    GabeN is fat.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 23 May 2014
  • Indonesia

#42

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:56 PM Edited by Andreas, 21 August 2014 - 09:14 PM. Removed quote-train.

Graphics =/= FPS

 
Graphics, not important
FPS, important, fluctuating FPS causes motion sickness for many.

I've never seen any complain about how low FPS the PS2 gets when playing SA, ever in my entire life.
 
Read my original post. I don't mind about 30 FPS, as long as it's stable and smooth. 60 FPS are simply an extra (a must for FPS).

@The Algerian
 
I don't get you. Here's what I said:
 
 

I don't mind about 30 FPS. I mind about how inconsistent it is. But oddly enough my super-slim PS3 can run this game quite smoothly actually, after the cache and defrag treatment.
 
Why we went from 60 FPS gameplay on PS2 to 30 FPS gameplay on PS3? Increasing prevalence of HDTV, thus increasing the demands for an HD game.
I gotta remind all of you that PS2's version of SA ran at 16-22 FPS. Anyone complaining? I don't think so.

You're talking about the part I've bolded?
 
Dude. I've never seen any FPS-related complaint about SA in PS2. Ever.

  • Choteron likes this

Aleph-Zero
  • Aleph-Zero

    ...

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014
  • None

#43

Posted 21 August 2014 - 03:03 PM

mmm... high frame rate sound fetishes :lol:

stable 25-30 its okay for me

and it will looks too fast on 60 imo

 

too fast? lol. You clearly don't know what FPS is. Adding more frames doesn't make it faster.


Coolstream
  • Coolstream

    Superfly

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2011
  • Norway

#44

Posted 21 August 2014 - 03:03 PM Edited by Andreas, 21 August 2014 - 09:13 PM. Removed quote-train.

Dude. I've never seen any FPS-related complaint about SA in PS2. Ever.

And you won't see any now either, the FPS argument only started big-time recently and SA is on PC.
 
I'm not disagreeing, it was just things like these were more widely accepted back in the PS2 era, now there's no longer any reason why games should be limited as much as they are on the consoles. (Or why Microsoft and Sony went with only decent hardware instead of bumping the price up a bit)

mmm... high frame rate sound fetishes  :lol:
stable 25-30 its okay for me
and it will looks too fast on 60 imo

too fast? lol. You clearly don't know what FPS is. Adding more frames doesn't make it faster.

Weeeeeell, it depends on how slow the game is actually playing, it seems (Don't know if it actually is, haven't paid much attention) slower the lower the FPS goes. (Antaxi is more likely used to sub-20FPS and not 30)

Kampret
  • Kampret

    GabeN is fat.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 23 May 2014
  • Indonesia

#45

Posted 21 August 2014 - 03:17 PM

@Coolstream

 

PS3 uses CBE, which is pretty hard to work with. That's why not every game is 60 FPS on last-gen.

Besides, GTA doesn't need 60 FPS at all. Most of the animations are created with 30 FPS target in mind. That's why some people dislike playing IV on 60 FPS on their rigs.


Coolstream
  • Coolstream

    Superfly

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2011
  • Norway

#46

Posted 21 August 2014 - 03:27 PM Edited by Coolstream, 21 August 2014 - 03:31 PM.

@Coolstream

 

PS3 uses CBE, which is pretty hard to work with. That's why not every game is 60 FPS on last-gen.

Besides, GTA doesn't need 60 FPS at all. Most of the animations are created with 30 FPS target in mind. That's why some people dislike playing IV on 60 FPS on their rigs.

 

I've realized that a long time ago and it's not the case with the new consoles, they can be optimized a bit better, but it's way more subtle than with the PS3 (Which is why we won't see the same cycle as with the PS3, pretty rough games at the beginning and games like The Last of Us and GTA V at the end)

 

No, it doesn't need to be 60FPS, that's true. But if they up the graphics a lot and put a heavy strain on the systems it will be the same all over again with 22-30FPS. What Rockstar needs to do is find the sweet spot where the game runs everything at a minimum of 35FPS and limit it to 30, that way it would never dip under unless you explode 20 cars in a row.

 

Edit: Clarification, I don't expect the old gen to manage 60FPS, I do expect the current gen to manage it.


Choteron
  • Choteron

    Cockstar

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014
  • None

#47

Posted 21 August 2014 - 03:29 PM

Well hardware is 8 years old or is it even 9?

100 % agreed.

You cant pretend play a game of the insane scope of V at 60 frame in an 8 year old hardware. Is impossible


lol232
  • lol232

    Got room for one more?

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2010
  • Serbia

#48

Posted 21 August 2014 - 04:17 PM

I don't mind about 30 FPS. I mind about how inconsistent it is. But oddly enough my super-slim PS3 can run this game quite smoothly actually, after the cache and defrag treatment.
 
Why we went from 60 FPS gameplay on PS2 to 30 FPS gameplay on PS3? Increasing prevalence of HDTV, thus increasing the demands for an HD game.
I gotta remind all of you that PS2's version of SA ran at 16-22 FPS. Anyone complaining? I don't think so.

This. GTA SA was really killing PS2's hardware, although there is a way to solve that (I.E. modding the PS2 to run GTA SA on the HDD (fat version only)).

There's also a way to solve it with V, at least on PS3, simply get an SSD.

Coolstream
  • Coolstream

    Superfly

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2011
  • Norway

#49

Posted 21 August 2014 - 04:48 PM

 

I don't mind about 30 FPS. I mind about how inconsistent it is. But oddly enough my super-slim PS3 can run this game quite smoothly actually, after the cache and defrag treatment.
 
Why we went from 60 FPS gameplay on PS2 to 30 FPS gameplay on PS3? Increasing prevalence of HDTV, thus increasing the demands for an HD game.
I gotta remind all of you that PS2's version of SA ran at 16-22 FPS. Anyone complaining? I don't think so.

This. GTA SA was really killing PS2's hardware, although there is a way to solve that (I.E. modding the PS2 to run GTA SA on the HDD (fat version only)).

There's also a way to solve it with V, at least on PS3, simply get an SSD.

 

 

Does it actually make a noticeable difference? Both the old and current gen runs Sata2 (Yeah..)


Nick930930
  • Nick930930

    the Godfather

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2014
  • United-States

#50

Posted 21 August 2014 - 05:16 PM Edited by Nick930930, 21 August 2014 - 05:18 PM.

Is this thread even necessary? Why are we all getting mad at eachother over framerates. Obviously 60fps is better than 24 fps... It's smoother and results in smoother gameplay. 

 

If you're used to low framerates, then that's your preference, but a higher frame-rate is generally preferred and makes the game look nicer. And when I say "look" nicer, a smoother framerate makes all the ambient lighting and movement feel more believable. The actual quality of the textures and such aren't affected, but they are nicer to look at when they are going the correct "speed" 

  • Coolstream and Choteron like this

Yogensia
  • Yogensia

    Hobbyist Digital Artist

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2014
  • None

#51

Posted 21 August 2014 - 08:47 PM

Input lag usually (In my experience) happens when you turn on Vsync on a 60Hz monitor. It does not happen on a 120Hz og 144Hz monitor. This is not relevant if the FPS is under 60.
 
Also, mouse acceleration does this, only a handful of games doesn't allow it to be turned off.


With VSync enabled, input lag can happen if your frame rate drops below your monitor refresh rate: the actual framerate gets locked to the closest factor of the monitor's refresh rate, so if you have a 120hz monitor, and your gpu can draw only 119 fps, your monitor is only going to display 60 fps; if actual fps drop to 59, the monitor will sync to 30fps, and so on. That's why nvidia and other vendors are working on GSync and similar technologies, so that the monitor auto syncs to the game's frame rate and all these problems disappear.

 

As for mouse acceleration, it's not exactly lag, it's just changing how the mouse movements relate to the screen. Without acceleration, X milimeters will always equal the same amount of pixels, while with acceleration it also takes into account how fast you move the mouse. Personally I prefer to disable acceleration, both in windows and in all games.

 

In my previous post i was referring more input lag due to bad controls programming/port, like in the first Dead Space, where the mouse controls are just poorly programmed and input lag is introduced at higher fps almost to the point of being unbearable.

 

These issues are sometimes linked to the frame rate, but not always. In Assassin's Creed games for example you usually have very strong mouse acceleration that cannot be disabled and has no relation to the framerate. It's just a different example of a poor port where the controls for the mouse seem to use similar curves to those programmed for analog sticks in the consoles gamepad.


lol232
  • lol232

    Got room for one more?

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2010
  • Serbia

#52

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:39 PM

I don't mind about 30 FPS. I mind about how inconsistent it is. But oddly enough my super-slim PS3 can run this game quite smoothly actually, after the cache and defrag treatment.
 
Why we went from 60 FPS gameplay on PS2 to 30 FPS gameplay on PS3? Increasing prevalence of HDTV, thus increasing the demands for an HD game.
I gotta remind all of you that PS2's version of SA ran at 16-22 FPS. Anyone complaining? I don't think so.

This. GTA SA was really killing PS2's hardware, although there is a way to solve that (I.E. modding the PS2 to run GTA SA on the HDD (fat version only)).

There's also a way to solve it with V, at least on PS3, simply get an SSD.

 
Does it actually make a noticeable difference? Both the old and current gen runs Sata2 (Yeah..)

For SSD on PS3, the game loads a lot faster, I don't see LODs when flying or driving very quickly anymore, not a huge difference with the frames (probably 1 or 2 frames better), and the PS3 runs cooler.

SATA 2 doesn't really mean it'll be limited no matter how much you upgrade.
PS3 uses SATA 1.5, by the way.
  • Kampret likes this

Ss4gogeta0
  • Ss4gogeta0

    Modding again

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 May 2011
  • United-States

#53

Posted 22 August 2014 - 04:08 AM Edited by Ss4gogeta0, 22 August 2014 - 04:08 AM.

Im sorry, but high FPS does not matter as long as the game is tailored to compliment a specific framerate... like a game that was went to be played in 30 FPS has no real reason to be bumped up to 60 FPS... except to show off, but only douches do that...

 

anyway back to my PS3

 

*Dreamcast Master Race*


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#54

Posted 22 August 2014 - 04:49 AM

High FPS does matter, though. Not so much visually as it does gameplay-wise. The game feels better and more responsive. That's the thing. It's not just the smoothness. 


Ss4gogeta0
  • Ss4gogeta0

    Modding again

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 May 2011
  • United-States

#55

Posted 22 August 2014 - 05:20 AM

High FPS does matter, though. Not so much visually as it does gameplay-wise. The game feels better and more responsive. That's the thing. It's not just the smoothness. 

as I said, a game that is specifically tuned for a specific Framerate would not really benefit from a High FPS, it makes things go out of sync... thus is why there is a such thing as a Frame Limiter


Aleph-Zero
  • Aleph-Zero

    ...

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014
  • None

#56

Posted 22 August 2014 - 06:55 AM

 

High FPS does matter, though. Not so much visually as it does gameplay-wise. The game feels better and more responsive. That's the thing. It's not just the smoothness. 

as I said, a game that is specifically tuned for a specific Framerate would not really benefit from a High FPS, it makes things go out of sync... thus is why there is a such thing as a Frame Limiter

 

 

Games aren't being "tuned" to fps for a long time. That practice died in the 90's. Animations these days are interpolated and game logic is tied to time instead of frames. No sane company is gonna "tune" their game for 30fps. Please refrain from spreading false information.


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#57

Posted 22 August 2014 - 07:04 AM

 

 

High FPS does matter, though. Not so much visually as it does gameplay-wise. The game feels better and more responsive. That's the thing. It's not just the smoothness. 

as I said, a game that is specifically tuned for a specific Framerate would not really benefit from a High FPS, it makes things go out of sync... thus is why there is a such thing as a Frame Limiter

 

 

Games aren't being "tuned" to fps for a long time. That practice died in the 90's. Animations these days are interpolated and game logic is tied to time instead of frames. No sane company is gonna "tune" their game for 30fps. Please refrain from spreading false information.

 

http://www.lazygamer...-runs-at-30fps/

 

Stupid, I know.

 

Also, Dark Souls II has an issue where certain game mechanics are f*cked up when above 30 FPS. Like faster animations or limited time windows for certain actions. Though really, i think that's because of the engine, not necessarily on purpose and "proud" of it, like The Order...


Aleph-Zero
  • Aleph-Zero

    ...

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014
  • None

#58

Posted 22 August 2014 - 07:37 AM

Yes. There are some few sad exceptions, but it stopped being an acceptable practice long ago and last time Rockstar did it on a GTA was in San Andreas. Fire and Chainsaw damage were calculated per frame. I mean, how dumb is that?


NTAuthority
  • NTAuthority

    hell, no, tunnel, no

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2008
  • European-Union
  • Best Conversion 2014 [ViIV for GTANY]
    Most Knowledgeable [Tech] 2013
    Best Map 2013 [ViceCityStories PC Edition]
    Contribution Award [Mods]

#59

Posted 22 August 2014 - 11:28 AM

Games aren't being "tuned" to fps for a long time. That practice died in the 90's. Animations these days are interpolated and game logic is tied to time instead of frames. No sane company is gonna "tune" their game for 30fps. Please refrain from spreading false information.

GTA III, VC and SA had various glitches above 30 FPS, and even IV makes the 'saving game' spinner appear way faster with >30 FPS.
  • Ss4gogeta0 and Kampret like this

Choteron
  • Choteron

    Cockstar

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014
  • None

#60

Posted 22 August 2014 - 04:11 PM

V for sure will be 60 fps on consoles and PC





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users