Nand - you can see the difference between 30 and 60fps.
Also, your reaction time is added on to the time it takes for the game to display your situation. So running at 30fps puts you 1/60th of a second behind someone running 60fps - pales into insignificance really when you consider your reaction time of ~0.2s, but every little bit helps.
Finally, the 'French' theme really makes you look like an arse.
As cool as that research is...if you compare the fluidity at 30 fps and 60 fps on my PC running rF2 it is night and day.
There is very little doubt that there is a huge difference between 30ps and 60fps. All this stuff about how we only see 30fps sounds fabulous in theory but in practice it doesn't work that way.Originally Posted by Dave Millard
I've gotten my system tweaked (just a quad-core 2.4 and 8800 VC) to run at a steady 60-90. I have kept AA at level 1 and game resolution at a modest setting. All this 5000x3000 ain't gonna work for this guy.
Shadows and other perks are a big frame-rate killer. It makes little difference to me whether shadows are at low or high, so I keep them on low. All special effects are on low, also.
I'm interested in a smooth frame-rate more so than I am interested in fancy graphics, as long as the graphics are tolerable.
Alan
Well, assert that we.dont.need.60.fps without any arguments make me laugh, didn't laught at you, but at the common things that people on forum think there pov are facts.
So I apologize if I hurt/insult you, my answer was not good manner. Sorry.
I am a professionnal Game developper for 15years now, and every time the FPS increased all players always give feedback that the game looks more fluid.
About the explanations, it's not a question of reaction time, you are pefectly true, normal people reaction is something about waht you said.
But it's a question of how the retina works and how the brain is interpreting informations(electric impulse in nerves ) from retina for you to see.
-The retina has a persistence of image of aprox between 1/16th and a 1/50th, it difference for color and brithness, that means, when something appear in from of your eye, the retina continue to send this info , with a fade out, during approx 1/25th second to your brain. It's a sort of lag in the retina. But with a fadeout, and the new object that are in the sifght of the eye are """printed""" on the retina with higher signal that the old signal
Why at movie theater the movie is fluid at 1/24th ?
Because the movie are recorded with an exposure time of ... 1/24th, so the film is simulating, the retina persistence which is tricking the brain.
During my master in computer science in CGI, we had a class where the professor show us a CGI movie, it was some cubes floating and moving, and it look super fluid, at 16fps, because the program had simulated the persitence retina to trick our brain.
Why 3D games on LCD,CRT,DLP,monitors looks not fluid at 24/30fps?
Because they don't have exposure time at all, they print the same image for 1/30second, then brutaly change to another image.
When having more FPS, there are several image that the retina see again, and it seems fluid again.
There is also driving game, that try to trick the brain, adding motion blur, or radial blur in the side of the screen so you can feel more sens of fluidity/speed
Sorry English is not my mother tongue, it's quite hard to explain technical stuff like this in my native language too.
Lol. French. Rude.
Man, that's a bit xenophobe, right? I have been rude, I apologize, don't be an ass saying all french people are rude like me.
Well explained magicfr.
My favourite - someone 'explained' the strobe-light effect of car wheels appearing to stop or slowly rotate while at speed under lighting by saying it was because our eyes can't keep up with the motion(now, see, I would have thought that tended to make things blurry... but once someone gets an idea in their head, well, you just can't change it...)
By a similar token, some people hear that early film pioneers worked out you needed a certain frame rate to give the illusion of fluid movement, but it gets switched around in their heads and they start arguing (as a fact) that we can't see more than 25fps or so. As you've pointed out film is a different beast to non-blurred games anyway, but it's funny how these things all get mixed up.
If there's one issue with the recent widespread move to LCD screens it's the usual 60Hz refresh - on a CRT there seemed (placebo? maybe!) to be a noticeable improvement from 60 to 75fps. (and my dodgy PCs always looked better on a slightly fuzzy CRT - jaggies are so much more apparent on LCDs)
Anyway, waaaaay off-topic here.
To the OP, if you're still around - did your tweaks include +highprio? I'm guessing so, since you tried them all, but worth checking - made my frame stutters much better. As for beta, obviously we all had different ideas on how far along it would be, but no point making judgement until we get to the gold release.
Tnx. This kind of replies convince me of not turning my back on rF2. ISI must be very proud too see how commited this community is. Also the replies of people trying hard too make rF work on systems of others they don't even know. See ya on track soon!Sorry to hear things haven't worked out 100% for you Sam, glad you have decided not to just give up.Hopefully it hasn't been a waste of time as what you have done tweaks wise should serve you well when you return to rF2. I really hope you can get it sorted out, perhaps one of the updates that we will get for the beta may help so it might be worth keeping rF2 installed and giving it a shot after an update gets released. Can be really frustrating I know so I understand the " getting it off your chest " bit.
You people just aren't getting it are you?
I said a MINIMUM of 30fps as the benchmark for acceptability, vs an AVERAGE of 60fps as a benchmark of acceptability (e.g. a benchmark showing a minimum of 33fps, a maximum of 56fps, and an average of say 47fps). You are actively telling people that if they cant achieve an average of 60fps, it is unacceptable. You are incorrect. The comment was aimed at providing some solace to people guffawing at the idea of having to spend $500 odd to achieve an average of 60fps.
See the difference? Sheesh - too many "experts" - not enough hard science and hard, lifetime experience in reaction games. Most of the responses and their content are IRRELEVANT to the claim.
Its as simple as that. I have achieved professional status as a gamer (no longer - now being over 30, I am incapable of keeping up. So unless you are in your 20's....which many of you are not....), without having to have the best hardware. Many of my opponents had 50% faster fps because they had $4000-$5000 rigs. It didn't help them beat me, since my fps was sufficient.
And magicfr - you ARE rude (or were) - so learn to harden up and deal with the blowback. My comment was actually in relation to the widely held STEREOTYPE that French are rude. I thought you were rude - then noticed you were French. Laughed at irony. Certainly no worse than being laughed at in giant, capital, bold letters with no explanation. Get over yourself.
My claim stands - a minimum of 30fps is good enough for any of the supermen here to post a PB track time. Anyone who argues differently, is significantly overestimating their own abilities - and also claiming you MUST HAVE top-of-the-line hardware to bother competing. Its just not true. (POINT: To have settings in RFactor2 on FULL across the board, and achieve an AVERAGE of 60fps, you DO need close to top-of-the-line hardware).
EDIT: As I hinted in my original post - it is funny how much people get stirred up when you challenge a widely accepted but false assumption. I wont be responding to this anymore, as it is a very simple premise made by a very simple post.
Last edited by Nand Gate; 01-28-12 at 08:28 PM.
Originally Posted by Satangoss
"Man, first dress yourself. Your avatar is disgusting. Second,......."
I have to say that despite the way Nand Gate comes across in this case his being misread because of it. Many seam to be assuming Nand is saying 30fps average is fine. So your arguing against this. Understandably so. The fact is though what is actually being said is 60fps is a alright average but not to drop below 30fps at it's lowest point . Frame rates aren't always static. They move a lot at times. You all know this. When your talking average your suggesting the more stable range. To get a average 60 you also get a minimum and maximum. Again you all know this.
Nand, no one mentioned 60fps until you came along. I'm serious - go have a look. One person (Mitt) said adjust your settings until you're getting 50-60 by yourself (presumably so performance is still good in traffic), and you came along and said you don't need 60fps. Sure, magicfr laughed at it and said nothing else, which wasn't great, but all you had to do was explain yourself and let him respond if he wanted. No need to have a go at him being French (which isn't "Ok" even if it IS a stereotype), and certainly no need to talk about "you people" when you brought the subject up and one person reacted.
No one said you need 60fps. I don't know where you dug that up from, but it wasn't this thread.
And, get YOUR head around this: all 'lag' adds up. Just because your reaction time is 10x greater than screen lag, doesn't mean screen lag has no effect at all. They are cumulative, so lower screen lag will reduce the overall latency, even if your reflexes are a major part. 60fps looks better than 30fps, and running at 60fps gives you slightly less latency than 30fps. Is it necessary? No. Will it affect laptimes? No, especially in rF2 where the physics run at 100Hz regardless of your frame rate. And no one's said otherwise.
So sure, take your bat and ball and go home. Next time try arguing with people who are actually disagreeing with you.
Nand,
You are talking of FPS game (if I am correct ),which is based on aiming and reaction time.
We are talking about driving simulation which is about speed appreciation and anticipation.
More FPS = More Fluid = Better appreciation of speed = better anticipation.
BTW, French seems often rude because they usually suck at English language
Cheers,
Seb
Well, I get faster (and more consistent) laptimes when my frame rate is locked at 60 with vsync than when it bounces between 40-80 because I have higher settings and no vsync.
I don't really care for the reason - all I know is I'm consistently faster@60.
There's not a lot in it usually, maybe averaging 0.4 of a second per minute but it's there.
Cheers - N
How can you be faster with vsync activated knowing that this option generates some lag in the steering input?
Maybe you are explaining it the wrong way or your doing it the wrong way. If you lock the FPS on 60 you don't need vsync because your GPU doesn't have too sync anything with your monitor when it is on 60hz if it isn't you should lock the fps on the amount of Hz your monitor puts out. I've done this and it made a major difference in stutter and jaggies. You could experience some tearing but it is minimal and its always on the bottom or the top of the image so it doesn't get in the way. Vsync will result in lag and if you don't need it then you shouldn't use it.
A way too get rid iof the minimal tearing is too double the amount of fps. So when you set the amount too 120 fps the tearing is almost gone. But you will have too need a powerfull PC for that in this state of the sim.
People are getting too hung up on FPS which is displayed as an average, frametime is more revealing and it's nice to see ISI giving us an onscreen meter to assess this. FWIW I run with Vsync on because I don't like the tearing and small stutters/slowdowns with it off, it just doesn't look smooth despite what the FPS counter says. Luckily I don't seem to notice the input lag, I've seen some vids on YouTube and it's pretty scary the lag that some people get.
As an aside here's a couple of pictures showing typical frametimes (both 20 seconds approx snippets) I get between rF2 and rF1. Both are running with Vsync (60FPS) and neither FPS counter shows any drop, n.b. an ideal '60FPS' frametime is 16.666* ms.
Vsync rF1.png
This runs butter smooth.
Vsync rF2.png
This runs noticabley less smooth.
I have tried just about everything to stop stutters on my machine including lots of reading on this forum haven't seen this yetTo the OP, if you're still around - did your tweaks include +highprio?
BK
i5 3.3 560ti 8 g ram G27 With Acer 23"
Can anyone verify that putting +highprio in the CLI interface in the advanced tab on the launcher actually does something?
I tried it and it seemed to make a difference for the better but cant be sure.....I am also wondering now about fullproc
I use that on rf1 and it works well. I will test some more and look forward to other input
BK
i5 3.3 560ti 8 g ram G27 With Acer 23"
I don't think +fullproc does anything, because rF2 does it anyway. (rF1 needed it to use more than one core). +highprio definitely helped for me though.
Like anything though, it will vary. Setting a process to high priority will tend to make it run better, but potentially it'll take some CPU time away from a background or supporting process that will then impact rF2 performance. Worth a shot though.
for me the best result is the nvidia 290.53 beta driver vsync off and pre-rendered frames set at "1" and
in the *.plr "Max Framerate="60".
rf2 runs without stutters and tearings and without inputlags on my win7/64 sys.
I don't know what your post was about... but... You got a great rack Tom.
lol
After some more testing I cant see any difference in stuttering +highprio on or off same fps same stutters in the same places at mills with the meganes
BK
i5 3.3 560ti 8 g ram G27 With Acer 23"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote