Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!europa.clark.net!194.162.162.196!newsfeed.nacamar.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!ayres.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!peernews.cix.co.uk!cix.compulink.co.uk!usenet
From: pjgtech@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Peter Gagg")
Subject: Re: frame rates in general
Message-ID: <F7MKHp.4wv@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: n/a
References: <MPG.113958b74bd3479e9896ad@news>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:49:01 GMT
X-News-Software: Ameol - PC Zone
X-Url: http://www.ameol.com
Lines: 71
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.autos.simulators:76663

In article <MPG.113958b74bd3479e9896ad@news>, 
mighty@mightydrake_antispam.com (Drake Christensen) wrote:

> In article <h9Lz2.9$ra2.2803@vic.nntp.telstra.net>, 
> avalon@powercom.com.au says...
> > Hi,
> > just wondering what is considered a smooth frame rate for driving 
> > games. it is for an article I am writing, am I correct in saying 
> > that 24 frames per second is the minimum we should have for film 
> > like smoothness?
> > 
> > thanks
> > 
> > rob
> > 
> There is no single answer.  Some people are happy with 15 FPS.  
> Others find 25 barely adequate.  And if you're racing against one 
> or more humans, the the person with the highest frame rate 
> generally has a distinct advantage.
> 
> And it's a little apples and oranges to compare any video frame 
> rate to film.  The mechanisms are so different that you can't make 
> a one-to-one comparison.
> 
> The 24 fps for film and 30 fps for video are probably somewhere in 
> the 90% range of where people perceive the images as "smooth."  
> Maybe high 90's.
> 
> Mighty

My understanding is that generally, the human eye can only percieve 
differences in graphical images (tv, video, etc) up to around 30 - 32 
fps?

However, higher frame rates in driving games/sims provide a smoother 
view and can make the game/sim easier to drive even though the eye may 
not notice any difference? This is because the game is being updated 
faster, and control imputs are read more frequently, etc.

Two examples:

Formula 1 Grand Prix 2 (F1GP2) - from Microprose. The max fps 
available is 25, and when run on a fast pc (with cpu occupancy mainly 
below 100% - this is a whole other area we won't go into here!) it 
runs and looks great at 25fps.

Grand Prix Legends (GPL) - From Sierra. The max fps is 36, and again 
on a decent pc running at 36 is very smooth and adds to your ability 
to control the car.

Thats a difference of 11 fps. Try running GPL at 25fps after running 
it at 36 for a while, and there is a noticeable drop in performance.
Then again, I first ran GPL on an old k6 200 and *had* to turn off 
most details and run it at around 25 fps and it was still *very* 
playable and still looked great. So you could argue its all 
subjective?

Some people seem very happy running thier games/sims at 20fps, maybe 
cos they haven't had the equipment available to run them any faster?

I'de say the faster the better from a game/sim players point of view, 
and an absolute minimum of.........?

Hmmmm tough one, acceptible levels are changing with technology too.

In F1GP2 nothing less than 25 would do? In GPL nothing less than 36 
will do? In F1GP3 maybe only 50fps will do?

8-)

*Peter*   #:-)
