Fixated on fps?

[TDK1044]

I read a lot of posts here that talk about what fps people are getting with SH4, and I can't help wondering why people are so fixated with fps instead of how the game looks and plays on their system?

I have a mid range system, and I had no idea what my fps was...nor did I care. I run with the event camera disabled because I don't like it, and I disabled volumetric fog for the same reason once the option was there to do so.

I run with patch 1.3 and TM 1.4 and a few other mods. I have 8X AA and 8X AF selected, and the game runs like a dream and looks stunning. If I hit Ctrl F8, I see that I get between 27fps and 40fps on the exteior camera views and a much higher fps within the sub.

The point is that when I'm playing the game, I have no idea when I'm seeing 27fps and when I'm seeing 40fps.

It's true that if I had a low end system delivering less than 20fps, then a video card upgrade could be an issue, but I can't help thinking that someone is happily playing and enjoying SH4, only to discover that he's getting an fps figure lower than he'd like, so he goes and invests in a new video card. If nobody had told him how to check his fps, he'd have been quite happy with the game the way it was.

A friend at work has SH4, and an all singing all dancing $3000 computer system to go with it. He has two powerful Nvidia cards driving his system, and I swear that SH4 looks and plays only marginally better on his system.....the main reason being his 30' wide screen monitor.

He's proud of his 88fps, and I don't have the heart to tell him it looks just like my game only on a better monitor.

I understand that RAM, CPU, Processor and video card all play a part in the gaming experience, but I think there's an element of 'the Emporer's new clothes' with this fps issue.

Don't let fps drive your decision regarding your video card, let your eyes be the judge.

[SteamWake]

Pulls out a ruler and gestures towards his crotch :p

[TDK1044]

Pulls out a ruler and gestures towards his crotch :p

:rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree with the FPS deal. I never really bothered with it until I started looking at it and attempting to get more performance. I was perfectly happy with my game play and smoothness. Now I have turned into a FPS lunatic...tweaks, turn this on, turn that off......:oops: Now I spend more time attempting to get better FPS than actually playing:oops:. It has become more of a addiction than anything. My game plays at 20 FPS on outside view and I'm happy with that. Yet, in the back of my mind is always the question....will a better graphics card really make it better with the current system I have? One can only open the checkbook to find out. Unfortunate they only give you so many checks to write:dead:

[Popeye the Sailorman]

FPS doesn't mean a thing to me, either. But what *DOES* is that miserably slow, laggy, cursor that I try SO hard to put where I want it... when running full graphics, wide open! It is Live-With-Able when I run full graphics and only 1024 Res... which is the way I am running...

[Schunken]

The only things FPS matters to me is:

1. Flight Simulation (is a rubbish to land a 747 with 8 FPS....)

2. Car racing games (is crappy go into braking zone with 8 FPS)

but... I always adjust for 22-24 FPS... If I get more I use it to add eye candy... everything more than 22 FPS is perfect for me :)

In outside view of SH4 I be also happy with 15....it looks still smooth...

Andreas

[SteamWake]

The only time I get cursor stutters is when the game is first loaded and at high rates of time compression.

Also the first time I change screens to say the exterior view it takes much longer to load. But after that first time there is little or no delay.

[cali03boss]

Why we are so fixated on fps rather than how the game looks?

Is that seriously a question?

FPS has a LOT to do with how the game looks and plays. Missed frame rates can even damage your monitor if you have an old one.

Specifically, searching for the perfect fps is searching for a way to play the game in the speed the designers made it for. Playing it with a sub-standard fps not only limits you in time, but also in calculations. Aside from sitting on your nav map which has perfect fps, some people (like me) like to do their calculations from the bridge, with a pencil and paper. You cannot do this with a sub-standard frame rate since all your calculations will be off by certain half-seconds.

I've seen way too many times on this board guys just talking about their low fps, or low graphics so they simply 'upgrade' to a new video card. There is way more to getting good graphics than just a video card. First of all, motherboards can only support a certain transfer of information at each port (PCI or AGP). AGP has lasted so long because its transfer rate is so high that you can use the same motherboard and upgrade video cards for years. PCI-express is much different (which I assume most of you have). According to Ubisoft, all of their PC games require a minimum of a 500 motherboard chipset. The latest out right now is 690i. If volumetric fog is too harsh on your fps, or makes your crewmembers transparent...then its your MOTHERBOARD. SH4's volumetric fog may be DENSE(and thus require a high transfer speed), but it is not anymore complex than just pixilated dots(in other words...the video card has no problem rendering the fog....its the transfer speed that kills the fps).

SH4 was designed on multi-core machines and tested on intel quad cores with the latest SLI nvidia technology. If you want it to run perfect, you'll need a multi core machine with high ram, high bus transfer speed, and a MINIMUM of one 512mb video card.

[SteamWake]

Why we are so fixated on fps rather than how the game looks?

Is that seriously a question?

FPS has a LOT to do with how the game looks and plays. Missed frame rates can even damage your monitor if you have an old one.

Specifically, searching for the perfect fps is searching for a way to play the game in the speed the designers made it for. Playing it with a sub-standard fps not only limits you in time, but also in calculations. Aside from sitting on your nav map which has perfect fps, some people (like me) like to do their calculations from the bridge, with a pencil and paper. You cannot do this with a sub-standard frame rate since all your calculations will be off by certain half-seconds.

I think your missing the point.

Lets say you get 45 fps and I get 36. Chances are you would never really notice the difference but you CAN say you get higher fps.

Some folks will spend hundreds shoot thousands of dollars and hour after hour trying to get there fps from 32 to 40. Again you probably would not even 'see' the difference but you CAN say you get higher fps.

Personally if the game looks good plays smoothly Im happy and could care less what the actual fps is.

That being said if I do get a low fps and end up with stutters it drives me absolutly nuts.

[cali03boss]

Lets say you get 45 fps and I get 36. Chances are you would never really notice the difference but you CAN say you get higher fps.

oh is that a fact? And are you running 1080p widescreen HD?

If you are, then I'm surprised you don't note a difference.

If you aren't...then there you go.

[longam]

It seems this all started with that 3d test program that everyone use to DL and brag about what there FPS where. I have a friend online that went insane buying the latest and greatest to get better results.

At this same time FPS (first person shooters) were becoming popular and the boasting of 90 FPS in game was funny considering the game engine compared to simulators.

[cali03boss]

SH4 is notorious (and SH3) for its ghosting in HD.

Some may say its overkill to play sh4 in HD.....but.....i look at some of your guys' screen shots and just gag.

[AVGWarhawk]

You cannot do this with a sub-standard frame rate since all your calculations will be off by certain half-seconds.

How do you ascertain that you will lose a half second when all activity is stopping and starting?

Some may say its overkill to play sh4 in HD.....but.....i look at some of your guys' screen shots and just gag.

Sorry that some do not have the equipment to satisfy your eye. Quite honestly the target FPS is 25. Basically any more is a waste for the human brain to really notice. If you can notice a difference from 35-45 FPS...what is your home planet? I certainly can not tell a difference. My rig handles 19-25 FPS on the bridge and it plays smoothly. Seriously, 100 FPS is not necessary for the brain to process uninterupted frames.

[cali03boss]

Well my frame rate never gets THAT low. I meant the loss of time from a moderately low fps....like 20-25.

The main problem is the firing of torpedos you have configured for a certain speed. The clicking of 'fire torpedo' takes WAY too long in low frame rates to process the information completely and then successfully fire the torpedo.

...not to mention if during this period of rush time (since you have to work faster to calculate more times) you may forget to open the tube doors...and crapola.

[FooFighters]

I read a lot of posts here that talk about what fps people are getting with SH4, and I can't help wondering why people are so fixated with fps instead of how the game looks and plays on their system?

I have a mid range system, and I had no idea what my fps was...nor did I care. I run with the event camera disabled because I don't like it, and I disabled volumetric fog for the same reason once the option was there to do so.

I run with patch 1.3 and TM 1.4 and a few other mods. I have 8X AA and 8X AF selected, and the game runs like a dream and looks stunning. If I hit Ctrl F8, I see that I get between 27fps and 40fps on the exteior camera views and a much higher fps within the sub.

The point is that when I'm playing the game, I have no idea when I'm seeing 27fps and when I'm seeing 40fps.

It's true that if I had a low end system delivering less than 20fps, then a video card upgrade could be an issue, but I can't help thinking that someone is happily playing and enjoying SH4, only to discover that he's getting an fps figure lower than he'd like, so he goes and invests in a new video card. If nobody had told him how to check his fps, he'd have been quite happy with the game the way it was.

A friend at work has SH4, and an all singing all dancing $3000 computer system to go with it. He has two powerful Nvidia cards driving his system, and I swear that SH4 looks and plays only marginally better on his system.....the main reason being his 30' wide screen monitor.

He's proud of his 88fps, and I don't have the heart to tell him it looks just like my game only on a better monitor.

I understand that RAM, CPU, Processor and video card all play a part in the gaming experience, but I think there's an element of 'the Emporer's new clothes' with this fps issue.

Don't let fps drive your decision regarding your video card, let your eyes be the judge.

I am looking for a new graphic card.. and yes a high fps would be nice.
But the main reason I want one is that TM1.4 (incl. leo's oceon mod) dropped my fps and now I have light stuttering..

That's pretty annoying..

[SteamWake]

I am looking for a new graphic card.. and yes a high fps would be nice.
But the main reason I want one is that TM1.4 (incl. leo's oceon mod) dropped my fps and now I have light stuttering..

That's pretty annoying..

I was just going to try that one ... Ill get back to you.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well my frame rate never gets THAT low. I meant the loss of time from a moderately low fps....like 20-25.

The main problem is the firing of torpedos you have configured for a certain speed. The clicking of 'fire torpedo' takes WAY too long in low frame rates to process the information completely and then successfully fire the torpedo.

...not to mention if during this period of rush time (since you have to work faster to calculate more times) you may forget to open the tube doors...and crapola.

What I'm trying to identify here, when your FPS slow or stutter, ALL action is also slowing and studdering. If the lose of 1 second on calculation occurs from a studder, the target is also experiencing the same lose. All action is happing to all things, slowing down or studdering, in the dynamic environment. FPS at a low rate is just not affecting your actions with torps, etc, it is also affecting the ships around you. Everything is affected so I do not see how a second or half second is lost on a calculation. If you are talking about the slow cursor, then yes, this is an issue as it seems to be independent of other things concerning movement. But, if your frames are 20+ the cursor is fluid in most cases if not all. Anything above 25 FPS is just a bonus and not decernable by the human brain.

[THE_MASK]

I personally would run at 4xAA and 4xAF and have volumetric fog if i could get those FPS . I use 2xAA and 2xAF with volumetric fog and get 18fps with the fog enabled . The game looks crap but i cannot do without the fog .

[Canonicus]

Your really need to stop worrying so much about " FPS"..
....and concentrate more on..."JAPS"

[cali03boss]

Anything above 25 FPS is just a bonus and not decernable by the human brain.

go get yourself a 22" widescreen monitor plugged up to an HD projection video card then tell me if it is 'not decernable by the human brain'.

[buteobuteo]

I have just got a new system which I have set up next to my old one.
New system runs @ 60+ FPS with every thing maxed out + AF and AA.
Old system runs between 15 and 20 FPS, low settings no AF or AA.
Running both side by side, apart from the eye candy, there is no discernable difference in the time taken to set up a firing solution and firing the torps. Sure it's nice to have a 60+ frame rate,but I consider that 30 FPS of that is wasted and would be better employed doing something else.

[cali03boss]

and you're running HD video on an LCD monitor?

I'd be shocked if you simply just had two of those.

[SteamWake]

I am looking for a new graphic card.. and yes a high fps would be nice.
But the main reason I want one is that TM1.4 (incl. leo's oceon mod) dropped my fps and now I have light stuttering..

That's pretty annoying..

I was just going to try that one ... Ill get back to you.

I tried this mod and it brought my system to its knees. Bad frame rate hit and severe curser stutter...

Sigh... oh well.

[AVGWarhawk]

Anything above 25 FPS is just a bonus and not decernable by the human brain.

go get yourself a 22" widescreen monitor plugged up to an HD projection video card then tell me if it is 'not decernable by the human brain'.

You can state it how you like but 25 frames per second is all our gray matter requires to process fluid motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

Note that refresh rate also plays a factor in what the human eye sees concerning computer displays.

I do not understand why you are using a HD projection video card. Would you not say the run of the mill card like my X1300 handles the game rendering a bit different than a HD projection video card? I'm not sure. So perhaps the type of card you are using requires highter FPS to render a smooth game.

[samniTe]

theres a big differance between 80fps and 30

[xboxer]

Many ppl today are obsessed with FPS and eye candy like it gives them an ego boost or something.

For me, as long as it plays decently well on my system I am a happy man.

Gameplay should take priority over graphics for any game one plays.

[FooFighters]

I am looking for a new graphic card.. and yes a high fps would be nice.
But the main reason I want one is that TM1.4 (incl. leo's oceon mod) dropped my fps and now I have light stuttering..

That's pretty annoying..

I was just going to try that one ... Ill get back to you.

I tried this mod and it brought my system to its knees. Bad frame rate hit and severe curser stutter...

Sigh... oh well.

Good to hear that I am not the only one with this problem..

@ xboxer.. I no gameplay is very important.
But for me graphics are just as important.
I love standing on the bridge looking over the pacific :sunny:
Feels like I'm on holiday :D (and then the japs show up, damn game )

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Delusory]

there is a diffrence in 30 and 100 fps, but I would say it is only noticible in online shooters (such as CS), where every milisecond counts. I get 19-30 fps outside the boat from my 4 year old computer (well exept the vga) and I'm happy with it..

[AVGWarhawk]

theres a big differance between 80fps and 30


What might that difference be to the human brain that processes 25 FPS as smooth? 80 FPS is not discernible to the human brain. The human brain detects studdering as you get towards 15 FPS or lower. If I'm on the main menu screen my FPS is in excess of 150 FPS or more, I do not see a difference if the screen is at 25 FPS. In fact, if the FPS counter was off I would not notice a difference at all. With the advent of me using the FPS counter and seeing 20 FPS on the counter, I start thinking my computer performance stinks yet last night I turned it off as not to see it and my gaming experience was smooth as ice as usual. What I believe is going on here is having lower FPS provides an opportunity for slide show like play because one is already at the lower end of the FPS spectrum. Higher FPS that suddenly dips low(low meaning 25 FPS) is not detected to human brain. Now, if I'm sitting at 20 FPS and for some reason my FPS dips to 15 or lower, then the slide show begins. With that said, having the highest FPS you can get eliminates the possibility that the player will experience a slide show. Shut off the FPS counter so you can not see what it is calculating. If you computer is jumping between 25 FPS and 80 FPS I would highly suspect you would not notice.

[AVGWarhawk]

there is a diffrence in 30 and 100 fps, but I would say it is only noticible in online shooters (such as CS), where every milisecond counts. I get 19-30 fps outside the boat from my 4 year old computer (well exept the vga) and I'm happy with it..

This is true but in the respect that online gaming you are now dealing with packet and packet loss via your connection. I play IL2 online. One member has a super nice computer with all the gizzmos yet he is in a place that he can only get dial up. This is a bad bottleneck for him. Often we see him warping as packets are lost on his connection. No matter, he still shoots my butt down all the time anyway:oops: Online gaming requires a very good connection as well as good FPS. Specifically with first person shooters and flight simulation good FPS and connection go hand in hand.

At any rate, my 3 year old rig runs at 19 FPS or higher. My pea brain does not detect a slide show like picture. When she dips to 8 FPS on very high TC, then and only then do I detect a slide show. My only beef here is I'm on the lower end of the FPS spectrum and the possibility to get a slide show more often is present.

[Linavitch]

I was reading this thread earlier and had a little play around on the deck.

Looking straight ahead in light seas I recorded 30fps as the bow goes up and down. Then panning around to the left the fps increases to 40 as there is only sea and sky, back down to 30 as you pass the watchman at the rear right and upto 60 as you view the conning tower. finally looking right at the other watchman back to 30.

But with all that fluctuation in fps I didn't actually notice any difference in 'smoothness'.

[AVGWarhawk]

I was reading this thread earlier and had a little play around on the deck.

Looking straight ahead in light seas I recorded 30fps as the bow goes up and down. Then panning around to the left the fps increases to 40 as there is only sea and sky, back down to 30 as you pass the watchman at the rear right and upto 60 as you view the conning tower. finally looking right at the other watchman back to 30.

But with all that fluctuation in fps I didn't actually notice any difference in 'smoothness'.

And you really should not. Your FPS is in the spectrum that is detected as smooth to the human eye.

[cunnutazzo]

@AVGWarhawk:
I confirm, theres a big difference between 80fps and 30. A game is not like a movie, in the game we have a sort of "stroboscopic" frames (no panning), so if you want see it completely smooth, the games must work at least 40 fps. In a game every frame is "freezed", no blurred like in a movie when the action is faster.
Anyway SH4 is a "slow" game and we don't need higher fps, a combat flight simulator is very different, it require at least 60 fps, because the airplane move so fast!
I'm not "fixated" with higher fps, but I like so much to play SH4 with a beautiful videocard. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

@AVGWarhawk:
I confirm, theres a big difference between 80fps and 30. A game is not like a movie, in the game we have a sort of "stroboscopic" frames (no panning), so if you want see it completely smooth, the games must work at least 40 fps. In a game every frame is "freezed", no blurred like in a movie when the action is faster.
Anyway SH4 is a "slow" game and we don't need higher fps, a combat flight simulator is very different, it require at least 60 fps, because the airplane move so fast!
I'm not "fixated" with higher fps, but I like so much to play SH4 with a beautiful videocard. :up:

Agreed. There are some difference in gaming and movie FPS but in all reality I'm not an expert on this subject. Just things I have read about it, etc. I'm sure we are missing some vital information on it. Have we really looked at refresh rate for out displays concerning this? Not really. For the most part I have noticed that 20 FPS or higher renders a smooth game and the cursor is also smooth...concerning SH4 that is.

[AVGWarhawk]

Here is an article that is pretty good on the subject.

//http://cs.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=8643 (http://cs.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=8643)

The article also delves into the players ability to perceive FPS and the physical state the player is in at the time. Anyway, back to the original question at hand...have I become a FPS nut? Yes, I'm spending more time tweaking than playing. I'm busy looking at faster vidcards to get my FPS fix...as it were.....

[cali03boss]

I do not understand why you are using a HD projection video card. Would you not say the run of the mill card like my X1300 handles the game rendering a bit different than a HD projection video card? I'm not sure. So perhaps the type of card you are using requires highter FPS to render a smooth game.

Well my point was that Im using a 22" widescreen monitor on 1080i. Why am I using an HD projection video card? Have you seen SH4 in HD? High Def cards have the best antialiasing and best AF of any chipset out there. Not to mention the progressive format, which is not only power demanding but also memory hungry. So yes, maybe I do have 'over the top' equipment. But the original post was in relation to fps, and "enjoying the game the way it looks". If you want to enjoy the game the way it looks, why not make it look as real is it can get? Why not make 3000 yards actually look like 3000 yards by using focus elements that are not present in the game?

Why upgrade?

Of course a card like the X1300 renders differently...its rendering in a standard VGA format(or DVI to VGA)...which is not as demanding. You can achieve great gameplay but you miss out on the world of high definition. It's a preference, and if you have the money...theres no turnin back.

[C DuDe]

I understand what you mean TDK and I do agree up to a point.

:hmm: I don't know what the human brain is capable of but if it's 20 to 25 FPS then so be it.


However....

With all the great Mod's out there.. and in this case I mean the graphic's Mod enhancements like the sun mod’s, ocean mod’s, smoke mod’s, vessel enhancement mod’s and so on. The strain on the whole package.. Mobo, VD card, RAM and so on is getting greater as well.

On that regard a FPS of about 20 to 25 isn’t high enough to cope with the fluxes presented when you look through the periscope or are in CAM-mode when a ship blows up (yes I’ like to watch when that happens :yep: ) or you witness a air assault on a enemy taskforce which you are about to engage. (don’t know if this is incorporated in the game as I haven’t seen it yet) but it’s unlikely that your FPS is going to stay at 25FPS.

In my opinion a significant drop in FPS on those bases (having to watch something blow up with a stuttering screen) is not :nope: the way I want to play the game wouldn’t do right to the Dev’s either. Therefore having a decent FPS should be strived for (depending on your machine) so you can enjoy the full capacity of the game and Mod’s.

I play the game with an FPS between 60 and 100 but when I watch a ship blow up my FPS drops to 40…so I have a lot to spare. (with time compression at max it drops way down to 5 or 6) so I can imagine what the frame rate’s going to be with 20 to 25 FPS when she blows.


Within 1 maybe 2 years max, most of the gaming community is going to need a new PC with DX10 already over the horizon. So be sure as to keep updated what’s new in the stores and specially what the reviews are of the products when you go and buy a new PC.

Having the top of the line VD-card (which is the most expensive) and a crap Mobo is not a good idea, not to mention the frustration you're gonna get when you did so:damn: . The VD-card will never reach its max capacity and also FSB is a good thing to look at together with some good RAM.

My PC is 2 years old now and I’m still able to play most games, I have to lower the graph settings now but it’s still good.:rock:

Paying a couple of Euro’s, Dollars, Pounds or whatever more can give you that much more but also and most importantly can prolong the time you can use a PC gaming wise so in the end you “saves” money.:smug:

[cali03boss]

On that regard a FPS of about 20 to 25 isn’t high enough to cope with the fluxes presented when you look through the periscope or are in CAM-mode when a ship blows up (yes I’ like to watch when that happens :yep: ) or you witness a air assault on a enemy taskforce which you are about to engage. (don’t know if this is incorporated in the game as I haven’t seen it yet) but it’s unlikely that your FPS is going to stay at 25FPS.

bingo

almost too true though. So many people just buy $45 mobos and a $600 video card....forgetting that the motherboard is what actually processes everything!

Just a side question, if you're running 60 to 100, is your card over 512? Cuz u said you haven't upgraded...I'm just wondering if I could get my older ATI to get 60fps


In addition, if you have an NVidia card anyone, there are tricks that you can do to optimize the video usage on the card. For example: When playing games, run32.dll uses whatever is the easiest access for memory(fastest way)....but typically it does it so fast that you barely notice a difference. Therefore, in your bios, you can reconfigure your card's memory usage. When an application uses rendered video, it should take all its memory from the card....but when its projecting either pre-rendered 3d, or its simply showing a 2d image...you can tell the card to use memory off the motherboard, leaving more pickup speed in the card's memory for when you enter a rendered 3d world. They vary from motherboard to motherboard in the bios as to how to do this....but if you have a gaming board, or one from either EVGA or Nvidia....it is very easy to find.

[C DuDe]

I have the ATi Radeon X800 Pro TVD with ATi Drv. 7.6

[Mikkow]

I have been playing games since I was 5, in 1985, on various TV's and monitors.

Some movies and TV shows display 24-30fps. The reason this looks free from jerkiness is because there is motion blur on each frame. Computer monitors don't have this when rendering games.

25fps is percieved as quite noticably jerky and phoney. It doesn't affect precision terribly, but it does appearance.

35 is a similar story.

45 is still phoney jerky looking to detract quite a bit from the immersion and believability. I'm quite dissatisfied with it.

60 starts to feel fairly smooth and stuttering is not apparent as long as things don't move quickly. Moving the mouse to turn your view around in a game will reveal obvious fake/stuttering artifacting. I consider 60+ to be just fine for most gaming, but not perfect.

85 is pretty much perfect. It's not hard to notice the difference between 85 and 120, but 85 is high enough not to obviously point it out in any way. I.e. I would have to move the view around somewhat quickly and visually inspect it to really make notice of it.

I've met people who seem completely unable to notice any artifacting. I don't know why they can't see it. Even myself didn't 'get' the FPS vision thing because I was used to everything being like that with games back in the heyday. It was only after seeing how it could look like that the difference became so very apparent.

Yes, some strange people seek social status and esteem through comparing favourably FPS-wise to others. But I won't believe that as long as it's below 120fps.

If I got 30FPS in SH4 on average, I'd lose most immersion. It'd be quite dissappointing. Worse yet, any kind of event or extra strain (harbor, explosion) would bring it down to 5-15, which does in no way look like a real explosion etc.

[ryanwigginton]

25fps is percieved as quite noticably jerky and phoney. It doesn't affect precision terribly, but it does appearance.

35 is a similar story.

45 is still phoney jerky looking to detract quite a bit from the immersion and believability. I'm quite dissatisfied with it.

60 starts to feel fairly smooth and stuttering is not apparent as long as things don't move quickly. Moving the mouse to turn your view around in a game will reveal obvious fake/stuttering artifacting. I consider 60+ to be just fine for most gaming, but not perfect.

Couldn't agree more on that...
With my v-sync enabled, if I don't have the graphics set quite right I'll get slow spots where the fps drops from 60 to 30... There's a big difference. Once you get used to 60, you won't believe anyone that try's to convince you 25fps is smooth.

[Fearless]

And here I thought running at 10fps was good.:lol: Any ideas how I can tweak my graphics in the bios? My specs are in my sig.

[kv29]

And here I thought running at 10fps was good.:lol: Any ideas how I can tweak my graphics in the bios? My specs are in my sig.

Fearless, your problem is your vid card, and using an integrated sound chip eats some cpu cycles too. Well... your cpu is not a beauty contestant either :p, but is not the main problem. Im using a 2000 xp along with a 6600gt, and Im getting around 25fps, not bad I think.

[Argus00]

My current system (will be upgrading in a month or so):

Intel Core 2 Duo e6300 @1.8 GHz
Kingston 2GB 800 MHz DDR2 Dual Channel RAM
Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3
Leadtek WinFast PX7900GS TDH 256MB DDR3
Western Digital Caviar Special Edition 500GB SATA-II
LG GSA-H42LRBB
Creative X-Fi MX Xtreme Audio


SH4 runs superb, everything turned on/maxed out except for fog, which i don't like. Don't know what fps I have, and I don't care as long as the game looks great and plays smooth.

The only game I've tested to see what fps I'm getting was F.E.A.R., becqause it came with a built in fps test program (I got 69 fps max peak, 48 fps average).

[AVGWarhawk]

And here I thought running at 10fps was good.:lol: Any ideas how I can tweak my graphics in the bios? My specs are in my sig.

I had the 6200OC card. The game was unplayable. I got a better vid card and have 25+ FPS. My other components are 3200+ and 2 gig RAM. Look into a better card if you can.

[DragonRR1]

The human eye can only really truly "see" 25 fps although this varies a little between different people BUT the eye does expect to see motion blur. A single movie frame displays motion blur since each shot is taken with a set exposure time so an object crossing across the camera has blur. This is effectively what happens when you see a racing car pass in front of you - your eye blurs the image of the car (if you keep your eyes still). If you don't keep your eyes still but track the car the road will blur. So... a movie looks smooth and gets away with 25 fps because there is blur in any tracking or passing shot....

Most computer games, SH4 as an example, doesn't apply motion blur. It displays frozen frames so the eye really does see 25fps as slow. As a previous poster said... at around 60 FPS (very dependent on individuals) the brain stops caring about the missing blur.

I should also point out that many people can see "flicker" on older CRT monitors at anything less than 85hz (85 FPS)

Dragon

[Fearless]

And here I thought running at 10fps was good.:lol: Any ideas how I can tweak my graphics in the bios? My specs are in my sig.

I had the 6200OC card. The game was unplayable. I got a better vid card and have 25+ FPS. My other components are 3200+ and 2 gig RAM. Look into a better card if you can.

Thanks AV. What would be a suitable GFX card for the rig I have.

[TDK1044]

I guess my original point is that all this is pretty subjective. I am perfectly happy with my system delivering between 27 and 40fps. While playing the game, I have no idea what frame rate I'm observing. I just know that the game is smooth and looks great.

In the end it's about enjoying the game. If you have a suped up system, that's great, but if you don't, you can enjoy this game just as much on a mid range system. :D

[TDK1044]

And here I thought running at 10fps was good.:lol: Any ideas how I can tweak my graphics in the bios? My specs are in my sig.

I had the 6200OC card. The game was unplayable. I got a better vid card and have 25+ FPS. My other components are 3200+ and 2 gig RAM. Look into a better card if you can.

Thanks AV. What would be a suitable GFX card for the rig I have.


I have the XFX GeForce 7600GT. It runs SH4 very well indeed.

[SteamWake]

In the end it's about enjoying the game. If you have a suped up system, that's great, but if you don't, you can enjoy this game just as much on a mid range system. :D

Perhaps enjoy it even more when your not obssesing over tweaking to wring out a couple more FPS.

But then again some folks enjoy obssesing over such things.

[AVGWarhawk]

And here I thought running at 10fps was good.:lol: Any ideas how I can tweak my graphics in the bios? My specs are in my sig.
I had the 6200OC card. The game was unplayable. I got a better vid card and have 25+ FPS. My other components are 3200+ and 2 gig RAM. Look into a better card if you can.
Thanks AV. What would be a suitable GFX card for the rig I have.
I purchased the Visiontech X1300 XGE 512mb card. I'm happy with it. You have to consider your power supply as well. This card uses 300w power supply or more. I had a 300w supply so got this card. I did however upgraded to 350w power supply. Not because of a card issue, it was a original equipment power supply that I was reading nightmares about. Basically if the original power supply blows it takes the motherboard with it:nope:

[johnny chimpo]

Dont forget to check the amp rating of your supply. Its just as important as the wattage.

[SteamWake]

Dont forget to check the amp rating of your supply. Its just as important as the wattage.

Wattage is simply amperes at a given voltage. PC power supplies produce several voltages.

Ive never understood how they come up with an overall (wattage) number for the total capacity of the power supply.

But yes make sure your power supply is up to the taksk. I personally fried one after installing a new video card.

[fair_weather]

Dont forget to check the amp rating of your supply. Its just as important as the wattage.
Wattage is simply amperes at a given voltage. PC power supplies produce several voltages.

Ive never understood how they come up with an overall (wattage) number for the total capacity of the power supply.

But yes make sure your power supply is up to the taksk. I personally fried one after installing a new video card.

Actually no...For Video Card you should check the amps on the 12v rail. For certain video cards you need a certain amount of amps on it in order for it to function properly. If not, the card will die from not having enough power.

And I for one care about having a high fps in current games. Cause if I get 60 fps in current games I know I'll get a good amount of fps in upcoming games.

Think ahead is what I say.

[SteamWake]

Actually no...For Video Card you should check the amps on the 12v rail. For certain video cards you need a certain amount of amps on it in order for it to function properly. If not, the card will die from not having enough power.

And I for one care about having a high fps in current games. Cause if I get 60 fps in current games I know I'll get a good amount of fps in upcoming games.

Think ahead is what I say.

Thats kind of what I was trying to say but (shrug)... Watts=amps*voltage (good ole ohms law). So say 500ma at 12V=6 Watts, 500ma at -4V=2 Watts. So what is the overall rating of the psu ???

In my case the video card ran fine (although the cooling fan was running as hard as it could) untill the 120V fuse blew in the psu. My first thought wow nice video card but wow is it loud. When I put a larger psu in now the cooling fan is running much less furiously.

Its kind of funny I was playing Oblivion intently sneaking up on something when POW and the screen went blank. I nearly crapped my pants.

[johnny chimpo]

Yeah just gotta be carefull them new dx10 cards are hungry buggers.