What FPS would you say is playable?

[macky]

I have the graphics where I want them, but only achieve 20fps (40 inside).

It seems ok to me, but I just wondered would I lose too much fps when the action is blazing away? I dunno, but got to thinking about what you guys with medium/low systems what sort of fps do you get.

Also, my specs are P4 intel 2.8G; 1.5gb RAM (corsair); nvidea geoforce 7600GS 512mb ram...would my fps increase do you think if I added more ram?

[AVGWarhawk]

I believe 15FPS or less and your brain starts to notice issues. I get the same rates you are getting. My system simular to yours. Very playable. They just need to work on the mouse lag I get sometimes. Other than that, all is well.

[U-Bones]

I have the graphics where I want them, but only achieve 20fps (40 inside).

It seems ok to me, but I just wondered would I lose too much fps when the action is blazing away? I dunno, but got to thinking about what you guys with medium/low systems what sort of fps do you get.

Also, my specs are P4 intel 2.8G; 1.5gb RAM (corsair); nvidea geoforce 7600GS 512mb ram...would my fps increase do you think if I added more ram?

I would say no. Even a slight effort to not run other apps should keep you from swapping your 1.5 to disk. Typical memory footprint for me to run the game on XP Pro is 1.2G. I have 7600 GT and slightly slower AMD CPU, 2GB ram, very similar FPS.

[TDK1044]

I think it's very subjective. People sometimes get fixated with what fps they're getting rather than how the game looks and plays.

I have a P4 3.0 processor, 2Gigs of RAM and a GeForece 7600GT video card. I get 50 plus fps inside the sub and 27 to 40 fps external, depending on how visually active the environment is. This is with graphics set at high including the post processing filter, but with volumeric fog disabled.

The game looks great and plays really well on my system.

[Iron Budokan]

I liked Castle Wolfenstein the best.

Oh, wait, you meant....

[ReallyDedPoet]

I think it's very subjective. People sometimes get fixated with what fps they're getting rather than how the game looks and plays.

I have a P4 3.0 processor, 2Gigs of RAM and a GeForece 7600GT video card. I get 50 plus fps inside the sub and 27 to 40 fps external, depending on how visually active the environment is. This is with graphics set at high including the post processing filter, but with volumeric fog disabled.

The game looks great and plays really well on my system.

Similar to me, very playable:up:

[CCIP]

I believe 15FPS or less and your brain starts to notice issues. I get the same rates you are getting. My system simular to yours. Very playable. They just need to work on the mouse lag I get sometimes. Other than that, all is well.

Yep. That'd be my guess.

15fps outside is acceptable for me if there's a good reason for it, e.g. I'm around huge task forces or in harbor. Under most other conditions, I would say 20 would be my own minimum.

[Hartmann]

15-20 or more .

i only get 10 fps outside in the single missions, where there are a huge task forces ,15-17 in training missions.
I suspect about submarine and ships and not the enviroment as a major Fps factor
curiosly the museum is smooth as silk :doh: , the place in sh4 with more fps.:nope:

Now with 1.2 the graphic quality has improved a lot, but not the fps,
sometimes the difference in using enviroment on/off is too small.

(2400+, 6600 gt , 1 gb ddr400, 1.2 path 1024x768)

[MikeJW]

15 is acceptable for this game if theres a lot going on. its not like a flight sim or racing sim where FPS that low could actually harm you. I wouldnt worry about FPS unless your getting like 20-25 on the bridge because then you know when the action happens its going to stutter and freeze.

[Fercyful]

Hi!

I think for this kind of game 20 and up is good FPS... the human eye is super happy at 24 FPS... before that you see more smooth but for the human eye 24 FPS is fluid and good. BTW real movies are at those "FPS" hehe they don´t use 100 FPS or so :doh: (is not necesary...)

here after changing CPU I get 25 at Pearl Port (campaign) and 30-40 in open sea so I happy with the performance...

:arrgh!:

[stabiz]

Below 25fps and I`m getting pissed off.

[Prof]

Hi!

I think for this kind of game 20 and up is good FPS... the human eye is super happy at 24 FPS... before that you see more smooth but for the human eye 24 FPS is fluid and good.I disagree. 24 FPS+ is fine for SH4 but for things like racing sims it's pretty terrible. I've seen other people claim that the human eye can't distinguish much over 24 FPS but I seem to be able to. On racing sims I start to notice 'choppiness' at anything below 40 FPS...24 FPS would be bordering on unplayable for me.

BTW real movies are at those "FPS" hehe they don´t use 100 FPS or so :doh: (is not necesary...)Apples and oranges :) Computer rendered images are perfect still frames with no motion blur, whereas individual frames on films are still blurred according to the shutter speed. This slight blurring on the film frames means you can get away with a lower frame rate with no perception of choppiness. The perfect images displayed on a computer screen require much higher frame rates to look smooth.

[Hartmann]

Yes, it´s not the same run at 150 milles/hour or 20 knts.

In naval games, low fps are still playable, but not in other games, like flight sims where a fast image reaction is very important, imagine aim the gun reticle at 300 mph in a small moving target. you need see were are hitting the bullets in real time for correct the aim.And the same with shooters or car races.

In sh3-sh4 you can still play it with a low frames because you have a lot of time to react .

[Scoochy]

I am completly content with my 15-20 fps outside, it's the mouse lag that pisses me off though. Everything else is fine by me, but the mouse moves around the screen like it's drunk, forcing me to turn down the options....