Frames Per Second?

[muppet]

I get about 70 to 80 inside the sub and about 60 on the bridge in clear waters and about 30 to 40 in heavy battle,Are these around normal for my system?

vista premium
2gb ram
64 x2 5400
8800 gts 640
250gb hd

[AVGWarhawk]

I get 20-25 on the bridge and 50 inside the sub. No such thing as normal in SH4 but you FPS is way above the average I'm sure.

[Panama_Red]

Your individual graphic setting have a lot to do with your frame rates too, but you have not said what these are set at so they can be compared with other peoples set ups.

[muppet]

Your individual graphic setting have a lot to do with your frame rates too, but you have not said what these are set at so they can be compared with other peoples set ups.





I use the 8800 gts at the stock settings for now as i dont see a big difference when i change it.
Resolution @ 1400 x 900
8x af
4x aa
multismpling
vert sync on
open gl

This is what i normally use to play games.

[Panama_Red]

The graphic setting that I am talking about are in your game, not particulary what you have your card set at. The settings inside my game can make at least a 20 FPS difference depending on what I have checked.

[TDK1044]

I judge the game on how it looks and how smooth it runs. I only have a mid range system, but SH4 runs like a dream on it. I get a high fps inside the sub, and between 24 and 40fps on the exteriors. As I play the game, I couldn't tell you when I'm getting 24fps and when I'm getting 40. I think people fixate on the fps instead of how the game feels to them.

[Panama_Red]

The magic number is 24 FPS (this is movies FPS). If you can keep the FPS number at or above 24 it will appear smooth as you play the game.

[Digital_Trucker]

The magic number is 24 FPS (this is movies FPS). If you can keep the FPS number at or above 24 it will appear smooth as you play the game.

This coincides with human physiology since the average eye cannot recognize any more than 30 frames per second (actually more like 25).

[ATR-42]

in the open sea, i get about 75 from the bridge. (however when looking dead ahead it will flicker from 73-75 for some strange reason, spray maybe?)

near port or in the heat of a convoy it may sink into the 40s.

inside the sub i think is around 90.

all graphics settings maxed out, including V-fog. however terrain detail is turned down just a bit.

Res 1280x1024

8x af
4x aa
vert sync forced on
multisampling


Intel C2D E6700 (stock)
Corsair Dominator DDR2 1066 2GB
eVGA 8800 GTS 640
eVGA 680i SLI MB
Win XP

[Phase05]

This coincides with human physiology since the average eye cannot recognize any more than 30 frames per second (actually more like 25).
:huh:

Sorry this is a bit off topic, But i felt the need to correct some misinformation in this thread.

The information stated on the threshhold of what the human eye can perceive and thus the human brain process per second of passing time stated here is grossly incorrect. In truth the human eye does not even see the world in "frames per second" a term used to descrbe animations per second displayed within a displays refresh rate threshhold, The human eye sees in constant light saturation, that is reflected into the optical nerve, and then processed by the brain in millions if not billions of updates a milisecond, we see a "effective" streaming image much like a firehose going full blast, of information that our eyes take in every moment.

The reason movies in a theater/film look smooth compared to most video games, is due to a thing called "oversaturation of the retina" Thats why a theater is dark, the very bright image on the cavas of the screen leaves a afterimage that slowly fades while the next scene of the flim is moved into place at 24 slides per second, this the film ind~ found was enough to make the movie not appear jittery during film slide transition to film patrons yet low enough to save on film stock costs.

Also if you wanted to work out how many times per second the human eye and as the eye merly redirects light and color information down the optical nerve "via light transforming to eletrical impulses" to our brain, and that in turn can calculate billion of operations per milisecond.. i think the order of what you can see in "fps" would be on the order of billions of not trillions of micro-movements "movements on the order of a fraction of 1 inch" we can perceive per second.

24 fps, 60 fps, 75 fps..ect..ect are all old myths, NOT medical facts, and if you google it, wiki it, or read any reputable medical source, you will find this all to be fact. :nope:

Sorry to step on any toes, but over the past 5 years i have corrected adleast 40 people on this stating just what was stated, and posting it as medical fact, or supported by science and it astounds me that this myth still exists even today.

But it just simply isnt the case.

PS: And motion blur in todays games is an attempt at creating the same transitional effect we see in major movie theaters to smooth out the framerates so even at a *by game standards barely playable* 24 fps can look smooth enough not to be jittery (tho we will still feel the input lag)

[Digital_Trucker]

Well, it depends on who you talk to.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01025.htm

http://rad.usuhs.edu/medpix/master.php3?mode=single&recnum=7638&table=card&srchstr=&search=

Let me rephrase what I said. Over 25 or 30 frames per second, the frames are considered by the human eye to be motion rather than seperate frames. Personally, I can't tell the difference in this game or any other over about 30 and that's all that matters. The human eye may process an infinite number of frames per second, but after about 30 "it just doesn't matter".

[Phase05]

Well, it depends on who you talk to.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01025.htm

http://rad.usuhs.edu/medpix/master.php3?mode=single&recnum=7638&table=card&srchstr=&search=

Let me rephrase what I said. Over 25 or 30 frames per second, the frames are considered by the human eye to be motion rather than seperate frames. Personally, I can't tell the difference in this game or any other over about 30 and that's all that matters. The human eye may process an infinite number of frames per second, but after about 30 "it just doesn't matter".

I agree with you on what you just stated,, because most assuredly in games *esp' with some kind of motion blur* anything over 30 fps will not be effectivly noticable in terms of smoothness, tho without in very fast moving objects you can see some hitching compared to 100+ fps, But at that point we really are nitpicking.

Many FPS players claim to tell the diff between 40 fps and 70 fps, Tho Visually there is barely if any "real" perceivable diffrence in visual smoothness, (the placibo effect is caused by the controls being smoother due to more updates to the controls and mouse movements per second, since out sense of touch and movement is even greater then our sight alone.

But well met :up:, i respect your well informed and intelligent reply.

[Digital_Trucker]

I really should have stated it that way to begin with, but as fast as I'm losing brain cells, it's usually hours later that I figure out that I (to quote my "favorite" President) "mispoke myself":rotfl: . Thanks for pointing out my foible.

I know exactly what you mean about folks claiming to "eyeball" the differences in frame rates. I know a fella that claims that 60fps makes his "eyes bleed". :yep:

Anyway, I didn't mean to start a huge medical discussion by "misspeaking" myself. Likewise, I appreciate the informed rebuttal to my original statement.:up: Nothing like a good debate:rock:

[Peto]

I'd just like to state that when I started with computers, we could have measured in SPF (Seconds Per Frame). I'm sure glad that's changed :rock:

[DrBeast]

I'd just like to state that when I started with computers, we could have measured in SPF (Seconds Per Frame). I'm sure glad that's changed :rock:

Heh...when I'm in stormy, foggy seas, with lots of ships in the vicinity, and a torpedo strikes true, I use SPF when the explosion ensues. After that, I'm back to single-digit FPS :p