good FPS MSF level at high resolution help1!!!!

reno123456789 · 06-10-2003, 10:14 PM

im running bf1942 at 1600x?????? at the highest resolution
ihave 768 333mhz ddr ram
gf4 ti4400
1.53 gighz amd
and i get around 40-50 fps but it seams to lag everyone once in a while and when i lower the resolution i get like 99 fps but runs much better, buttt, i thougth it doesnt matter what the fps is as long as it larger than like 32 cuz thats what the eye recieves.

Skilo · 06-14-2003, 02:05 AM

Dude, i think it is about time to update your processor,

. And buy a ATI Raeon 9800 Video Card, the best 400 bucks ive spent, the images r so sharp, the cut my pupils!

Deetox · 06-14-2003, 02:25 AM

Our eyes can distinguish a hell of a lot more than 32fps, if you want silky smooth gameplay all the time you need to maintain a minimum of 60fps.

elitesix · 06-14-2003, 02:54 AM

One of the biggest quoted misconceptions is that the eye can see only 30 fps.

Air Force Research studies have shown in studies conducted on fighter pilots that they can tell upto 500 fps; they were flashed the stilletto of a mig in one frame out of 499 in one second and they could tell they saw something.

The misconception stems from the fact that television seems very smooth but it's only at 30 fps. First, it seems smooth because each frame includes motion blur of the ones it's between (such that it's not 30 distinct unblurred frames as on the computer). Secondly, it is a logical fallacy to just conclude because the television looks smooth the human eye cannot see better than that.

At any rate what the human eye can and cannot see is not only the thing in question -- mouse input is more responsive at higher fps at any rate.

Just wanted to clear up those often quoted fallacies :)

Dick_Justice · 06-14-2003, 06:24 AM

The human eye can probably tell the difference, but it only needs 20-30 fps to see a smoothe picture.

BTCOMM · 06-14-2003, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick_Justice

The human eye can probably tell the difference, but it only needs 20-30 fps to see a smoothe picture.

He just explained why a tv looks smooth vs a Video game. Try playing a video game at 30 FPS, it's not smooth at all.

06-10-2003, 10:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
reno123456789 Private Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 1	good FPS MSF level at high resolution help1!!!! im running bf1942 at 1600x?????? at the highest resolution ihave 768 333mhz ddr ram gf4 ti4400 1.53 gighz amd and i get around 40-50 fps but it seams to lag everyone once in a while and when i lower the resolution i get like 99 fps but runs much better, buttt, i thougth it doesnt matter what the fps is as long as it larger than like 32 cuz thats what the eye recieves.

06-14-2003, 02:05 AM	#2 (permalink)
Skilo Private Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3	Dude, i think it is about time to update your processor, . And buy a ATI Raeon 9800 Video Card, the best 400 bucks ive spent, the images r so sharp, the cut my pupils! __________________ \" Rage is the only freedom left me.\"

06-14-2003, 06:24 AM	#5 (permalink)
Dick_Justice Major Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Marl, Germany Posts: 3,350	The human eye can probably tell the difference, but it only needs 20-30 fps to see a smoothe picture. __________________ Plays BF 2 in Europe under the name of \"Erich_Felsner\"

06-14-2003, 02:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
Deetox Private Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 50	Our eyes can distinguish a hell of a lot more than 32fps, if you want silky smooth gameplay all the time you need to maintain a minimum of 60fps.

06-14-2003, 02:54 AM	#4 (permalink)
elitesix Private Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 7	One of the biggest quoted misconceptions is that the eye can see only 30 fps. Air Force Research studies have shown in studies conducted on fighter pilots that they can tell upto 500 fps; they were flashed the stilletto of a mig in one frame out of 499 in one second and they could tell they saw something. The misconception stems from the fact that television seems very smooth but it's only at 30 fps. First, it seems smooth because each frame includes motion blur of the ones it's between (such that it's not 30 distinct unblurred frames as on the computer). Secondly, it is a logical fallacy to just conclude because the television looks smooth the human eye cannot see better than that. At any rate what the human eye can and cannot see is not only the thing in question -- mouse input is more responsive at higher fps at any rate. Just wanted to clear up those often quoted fallacies :)