I thought it was ten, but this guy told me the default is 12.
Edit: I guess that dude Dark prince xx, or whatever should double check his references.
ID:181635
 Jan 7 2010, 10:30 am (Edited on Jan 7 2010, 10:48 am)
|
|
The default framerate is indeed 10FPS, however as noted elsewhere this value can be increased or decreased. It's just not ideal to do so for multiplayer games.
| |
Most video game use 20-60 FPS. I have seen a few go higher but that was mostly due to old games being played on new computers (try playing a game running at 1500+ FPS).
But to be honest, depending on what is being used, 20-30 FPS is more than enough. If the graphics are sharp and clear, then 30 FPS is enough. If they make use of motion blurring then 20 will do. Humans cannot perceive any differences after 20-30 FPS (visually at least), so it makes no difference whether it is 30 FPS or 60 FPS really. But yeah, 10 FPS is actually really slow and unless you have bad or damaged eyesight, you will most likely always be able to tell that the game visually has a sort of slow and clunky feel to it. | |
The Magic Man wrote:
Most video game use 20-60 FPS. I think it goes a little bit higher than that, especially for fast-paced games like Mirror's Edge. :) Humans cannot perceive any differences after 20-30 FPS Correction: 33 FPS. But yeah, 10 FPS is actually really slow and unless you have bad or damaged eyesight, you will most likely always be able to tell that the game visually has a sort of slow and clunky feel to it. :( | |
Say what? Humans can't see a different after 33FPS? I do believe you are sorely mistaken. I can't play PAL games due to the massive slowdown (50FPS as opposed to 60FPS for US/JAP/etc).
| |
Android Data wrote:
The Magic Man wrote: i can't think of any console game that consistently maintains over 60 FPS on purpose Humans cannot perceive any differences after 20-30 FPS let's not get started on that-- trying to give a specific number for the "unnoticeable FPS" is just an act of ignorance and oversight (no pun intended). for instance, i can very distinctly tell the difference between 20 and 30 FPS, and between 30 and 60 FPS. i wouldn't be surprised if others can tell the difference between 80 and 100. and then others might not even notice/care about pretty much any change in FPS. a lot of factors play into it | |
Over 60FPS is just insane. I'm pretty sure only Sonic games go above that (the really bad 3D ones anyway).
| |
Zaole wrote:
Android Data wrote: For most people beyond 60FPS is a waste simply because there is a good chance their monitors don't display any faster so even if they can normally see more, they wouldn't. That said, a buffer is always good, although it's less important at that point since most won't notice a drop from say 60FPS to 45FPS without a counter. Which of the following is more of a performance loss? A. Going from 900FPS to 400FPS. B. Going from 60FPS to 56.25FPS. If you answered A or B, you're wrong. | |
Xioden wrote:
For most people beyond 60FPS is a waste simply because there is a good chance their monitors don't display any faster so even if they can normally see more, they wouldn't. That said, a buffer is always good, although it's less important at that point since most won't notice a drop from say 60FPS to 45FPS without a counter. i'm not at all sure how this relates to the point i made | |
Zaole wrote:
Xioden wrote: What doesn't relate? You mentioned FPS above 60, I mentioned how most people's screens won't even show above that. Most TV won't show above 30FPS, Most PC Monitors won't go above 60FPS, Making any arguments about FPS higher than that is in majority of cases moot beyond being a buffer. You also mentioned telling the difference between various FPS, So I posed a question relevant to the concept of FPS as a whole. | |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
TV's won't show above 30FPS? Are you high or something? No, You just need to know what you're talking about before posting. TV's will typically display at 60FPS interlaced, for a full 30FPS. Edit: I can't find the article, but a lot more people own TV capable of ###i TV than ###p TV as of September '09 at least in the US. | |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
TV's outside of PAL ones do go at 60FPS. So, I will repeat myself, are you high or something? NTSC is 60FPS since when? It's 29.97. For Digital TV it all depends on the TV. If it is Progressive scan it CAN do 60FPS. Progressive scan TVs still tend to cost quite a bit more than the ###i TV (Interlaced) which are only showing 30 FPS. Since most people with HDTV are using TVs that aren't progressive scan, most people aren't running around with TV's doing 60FPS. Maybe you should lay off the drugs before posting on the forums, you seem to be trying to make everyone you reply to seem like an idiot. It's not working sorry to tell you. | |
NTSC = 60FPS
PAL = 50FPS Common knowledge. Show proof NTSC is 29.97 (how is it .97 a frame? <_<). Also, show proof that I try to make people I reply to look like idiots. | |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
NTSC = 60FPS You're quite mistaken. NTSC is 29.97FPS and PAL is 25FPS. What you're thinking is something called "Double NTSC/PAL". http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c58/Mega_Tikey/Pictures/ NTSC.jpg | |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
NTSC = 60FPS Common knowledge for the misinformed maybe. Why should I have to do the most absolute basic research for you? The NTSC standard IS 29.97. Both of the above figures you posted are the deinterlaced frame rates. 50 half frames a second = 25FPS for PAL (As I said earlier already). The same applies for NTSC. Also, show proof that I try to make people I reply to look like idiots. "Are you high or something?" Will to most people basically mean "Are you high or just stupid?". | |
Usually it can be 10, 12, 30, etc.(Though the default is 10).
Which is rather slow, I believe Nintendo's GBA/Nintendo games run at 60-70.