View Full Version : Just when I thought I was happy...
McClusky
5 April 11, 00:35
I thought I was "happy" with Shift 2 until I went back to Shift 1 (modded of course). On my pc the modded Shift 1 looks so freakin good and is so freakin smooth with a solid 60FPS no matter how many cars I have on track and this is with the HD mod or Forza converts.
I like many things in Shift 2 but the current state of graphic performance is keeping me from loving it.
I really hope EA/SMS, Nvidia and ATI will monitor, listen and correct the issues we see.
If graphics are your main problem, then I have no concerns. Shift 2 runs fine for me (over 30fps is plenty for a racing game and I get 45-60 on average). If what you say is true, then I hope they optimize it but its not "broken" in my case.
Maybe the physics engine is doing more in the background than the first? Flight Simulator X doesn't look all that great but it runs pretty bad due to all the calculations going on in the background.
Absolutely disagree that 30fps is good enough for a racing game that is not arcade
Flight Simulator X - is a plane you would be a mile or more down above the ground before hitting something (loads of time to get over input lag)
in a racing game you could be inches away from crashing all the time
It is necessary to have good fps so as not to interfere with inputs from the player,
actually it is probably the one genre where fps count more than most apart from competitive first person shooters (ie pc first person shooters)
Well I suppose we need to agree to disagree then. Human reflexes are pretty slow in general (200ms is pretty average) and a single frame at 30fps is only 33ms. Doubling your framerate to 60 would mean a 16ms advantage which in my opinion is negligible.
Test your own reaction time here:
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php
30-45 is plenty fine for me. I dip into the 20's once or twice which is definately noticeable. I could gain a few frames running all low, but medium-high looks prettier. Though night is not nearly the black death it was toted to be.
AndrewMac
5 April 11, 02:07
Well I suppose we need to agree to disagree then. Human reflexes are pretty slow in general (200ms is pretty average) and a single frame at 30fps is only 33ms. Doubling your framerate to 60 would mean a 16ms advantage which in my opinion is negligible.
Test your own reaction time here:
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php
It's not just a reaction time issue. You, the wheel, and the game form a feedback loop with input (steering, pedals) going one direction and output (screen) going the other. Delay in this loop causes problems, such as oscillations when trying to maintain a straight line. It's true that 16ms should be pretty insignificant, but if you are averaging 30fps there might be occasional brief drops to 15fps or less.
Also, 60fps appears noticeably smoother than 30fps, and the smoothness itself is enjoyable beyond quantifiable measurements.
Actually, its not that noticeable.
Movies and TV are around 24fps, and 23fps in some cases. And I doubt many of you "OMG 60FPS OR BUST" people go into a movie theatre and say "This movie sucks because the framerate is bad."
If 24fps is good enough for movies, how is 60fps a "Noticeable" change? if anything, its negligible, since first, you'd need a monitor that does 60hz, and most TV displays only do 59, which is still not 60, and by the logic of half of said crowd, that makes them inferior. Second, you need eyes that see in 60fps, and most eyes aren't digital.
Edit: That doesn't even begin to explain the flaws in the logic that a 16ms delay in a loop causes a noticeable ammount of lag. Since first, reaction time is well over that, second, we don't percieve in milliseconds (guy called einstein kind of killed that, a very long time ago) and third, if there was a break of 16ms in a loop, you still don't account for the delay from the opening of the loop (the pc information) to the closing of the loop (the wheel) and also the background noise in the line of your USB which is far more likely to be percieved.
AndrewMac
5 April 11, 03:01
Actually, its not that noticeable.
Movies and TV are around 24fps, and 23fps in some cases. And I doubt many of you "OMG 60FPS OR BUST" people go into a movie theatre and say "This movie sucks because the framerate is bad."
If 24fps is good enough for movies, how is 60fps a "Noticeable" change? if anything, its negligible, since first, you'd need a monitor that does 60hz, and most TV displays only do 59, which is still not 60, and by the logic of half of said crowd, that makes them inferior. Second, you need eyes that see in 60fps, and most eyes aren't digital.
I can certainly notice the difference.
If you don't believe you can, download the video demonstration from here (http://mckack.tumblr.com/post/3535190601/60fps-vs-24fps)and see what you think (make sure you actually download the zip file, youtube is capped at 30fps so that won't work).
Just because 24fps is good enough for movies doesn't mean there's not a perceptible difference between 24 and 60fps. In fact, when people see a movie shot at 60fps they tend to say it lacks a "cinematic feel" because we are so used to seeing films at 24fps - the smoothness makes it seem wrong somehow.
edubz123
5 April 11, 03:07
I disagree Shinzah.
The faster the action on screen the higher the FPS requirements. I'm sure "Gone with the Wind" is fine at 24 FPS for most of us but for a racing sim:
60 = Awesome, ideal situation, gold standard
45 = Acceptable and highly playable by most of us
~30 or below = Garbage, stuttering, choppy mess
And sitting 24 inches away from a modern LCD with a 60hz refresh rate most people would notice some degradation between 60 & 45 fps.
Eyes detect changes/movement, and the brain actually blurs everything except for said changes. 60 fps is definitely superior to 30 as frame recognition of the human eye is capable of upwards of 300fps (although very rare). Fighter pilots were flashed a screen over 300fps with only 1 screen containing a picture of an enemy plane and some were able to discern said plane.
That being said anything below 30 fps with fast moving objects is easily detected by the brain because it has to "blend" images together that are too far apart.
Bottom line, higher fps is better, and 30 should be the minimum expectation (no drops below). Also having Vsync enabled helps when you are able to render at 60+ fps on average.
Another thing to note, is that most graphics card drivers allow you to set how many "frames prerendered" it processes. Setting it to more than 2 or 3 can add to the input lag feedback loop that was mentioned above.
I disagree Shinzah.
The faster the action on screen the higher the FPS requirements. I'm sure "Gone with the Wind" is fine at 24 FPS for most of us but for a racing sim:
60 = Awesome, ideal situation, gold standard
45 = Acceptable and highly playable by most of us
~30 or below = Garbage, stuttering, choppy mess
And sitting 24 inches away from a modern LCD with a 60hz refresh rate most people would notice some degradation between 60 & 45 fps.
Cool story bro, too bad its entirely baseless in mathematics, science, and universal constants. You dont see in frames per second. It doesn't happen.
Image blurring is how we perceive smoothness in a 2d image. Even implying you see differently, because of the situation, is like me saying an apple is red because the grass is green, its not a direct comparison and theres nothing quantifiable to back the statement up as truth. If you play a racing game with more motion blur at 30fps then a racing game with less motion blur at 30fps, you will see that the second game seems slower/more choppy then the first game, and then you need to double the frames to recreate the motion blur so that the frames overlap properly, in an ideal world. In the real world, you can simply adjust page flipping until the 30fps looks alot like the 60fps, or on most LCD/TFT and Plasma displays the difference is so negligible from the built in blurring from the mechanical dynamics that its just not that big of a change.
Watch an onboard lap from a regular TV camera. Compare it to a 60fps lap. Then a 30fps lap. Whats the difference? Not a whole lot is there? If you can see that difference, you need to find a scientist, because they have debated this for decades.
Tell me something, have you ever played a game without those "magical" numbers in the upper corner? You might be surprised in what you actually see vs what is actually there.
Bottom line, higher fps is better, and 30 should be the minimum expectation (no drops below). Also having Vsync enabled helps when you aren't able to render at 60+ fps on average.
Do we have any people who actually know what Vsync IS? Vsync, synchronizes the amount of rendered data to the display. If you render less then the maximum amount of hz supported by your display, Vsync is a TERRIBLE idea and won't help at all, if anything, it will drop performance by overworking the buffering to the display to try and display the image at the display settings, thus throwing out any frames that don't align to the maximum amount of hz of the display, which means if you don't have 59-60fps, turning vsync on will do absolutely nothing for you, because it will constantly try to purge/refill buffers that should just remain filled until the next frame! Worst information I've ever seen in a post.
oohgoditsbees
5 April 11, 03:36
Eyes detect changes/movement, and the brain actually blurs everything except for said changes. 60 fps is definitely superior to 30 as frame recognition of the human eye is capable of upwards of 300fps (although very rare). Fighter pilots were flashed a screen over 300fps with only 1 screen containing a picture of an enemy plane and some were able to discern said plane.
The human eye doesn't see things in frames per second, only light. I know there's a scientific explanation for this but i'm having trouble finding it on Google right now.
The human eye doesn't see things in frames per second, only light. I know there's a scientific explanation for this but i'm having trouble finding it on Google right now.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
This helps?
oohgoditsbees
5 April 11, 03:40
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
This helps?
I'm pretty sure that is the one I had saw months ago too. Thanks.
Eyes detect changes/movement, and the brain actually blurs everything except for said changes. 60 fps is definitely superior to 30 as frame recognition of the human eye is capable of upwards of 300fps (although very rare). Fighter pilots were flashed a screen over 300fps with only 1 screen containing a picture of an enemy plane and some were able to discern said plane.
Another gem of pseudo science with not very scientifical experiments. If its 300fps, plus 1 frame of a plane, thats 1 plane per 5 seconds. 1 plane per 5 seconds is 12 planes per minute. Eventually the eye will pick up on it, in the same way that focusing on a brain teaser will reveal an image as well.
This game needs +40fps in order to look smooth, at least in my computer.
AndrewMac
5 April 11, 04:00
Another gem of pseudo science with not very scientifical experiments. If its 300fps, plus 1 frame of a plane, thats 1 plane per 5 seconds. 1 plane per 5 seconds is 12 planes per minute. Eventually the eye will pick up on it, in the same way that focusing on a brain teaser will reveal an image as well.
You misunderstood - the plane is flashed once for 1/220th of a second, according to the 100fps.com link you posted.
I'm not sure how "scientifical" this experiment was but since you posted the link yourself I figure you will accept it.
Maybe you guys should realize that if you have to go back and forth on it this much, it really doesn't matter either way?
Holy crap......just play the game. I think this is what gaming has become in the message board era; play the game for an hour, then come online and bicker about it for 2 hours. Rinse and repeat.
You misunderstood - the plane is flashed once for 1/220th of a second, according to the 100fps.com link you posted.
I'm not sure how "scientifical" this experiment was but since you posted the link yourself I figure you will accept it.
Its still not a "correct" experiment, a more correct experiment would be to flash 300 different planes in one second and have your potential eyesight hero catalog them, that would be your definitive proof in how much frames are humanly perceptible.
Movies and TV are around 24fps, and 23fps in some cases. And I doubt many of you "OMG 60FPS OR BUST" people go into a movie theatre and say "This movie sucks because the framerate is bad."
Well, actually they do the opposite, they use 24 precisely for the choppy feel. Amateur film makers go out their way to get hold of cameras that film in it so they can get their videos to look like films.
Similar to the way that TV often add post processing film grain effects - not because the flaws don't matter because we can't perceive them, but the opposite, because if you imitate film - you get something that looks like film.
Besides, movies are filmed with cameras at the same rate. This cause each image to be blurred.
There's a difference between 24 FPS motion blurred images filmed 6 months earlier in New Zealand and 30 or less still game frames rendered in real-time interactively with the viewer's inputs.
If someone can't tell the difference between 60fps and 30fps I would say they probably have a mental or physical defect affecting their perception. That's very different from saying "I can see the difference but I'm happy enough playing games at 30fps"
second, we don't percieve in milliseconds (guy called einstein kind of killed that, a very long time ago)
Which of Einstein's papers are you referring to here? Was it "need vor speed shiftun zwei FPS? machen Sie sich keine Sorgen"
captainvik
5 April 11, 04:41
^ good grief ! shinzah I am guessing you just graduated yr 12 physics or currently studying university but actually you have NO idea about much of what you speak.
Your bookish lectures about vsync and fps made me laugh - many of us here are alot older & wiser than you might expect or believe, with a few decades of experience in computer simulations & digital graphics.
If you cannot see the mightily perceptible difference between a racing game @ 60fps and one @ 30fps with your own eyes then there is little value in debating you.
Isn't it difficult to state that 24 fps is good enough for movies when there aren't any filmed at 60? How can you compare it to something that doesn't exist and say it is "good enough"? Anyway I can tell a difference up until 120 or so fps even when it dips to 60-70 from 120. I have played many different games(300-400 pc games) so I am sensitive to it.
<cutting the crap>
Which of Einstein's papers are you referring to here? Was it "need vor speed shiftun zwei FPS? machen Sie sich keine Sorgen"
That's an extreme statement by someone who is no longer willing to use anything that contributes to the debate. You might as well have;
^ good grief ! shinzah I am guessing you just graduated yr 12 physics or currently studying university but actually you have NO idea about much of what you speak.
If you cannot see the mightily perceptible difference between a racing game @ 60fps and one @ 30fps with your own eyes then there is little value in debating you.
And the flames roll on once again at nogrip the second someone mentions a racing game running below 60fps. I guess theres a reason I don't like BBS communities with such lax moderation, can't hold a decent discussion, and at the end someone decides "lol ur stupid i troll u"
Your bookish lectures about vsync and fps made me laugh - many of us here are alot older & wiser than you might expect or believe, with a few decades of experience in computer simulations & digital graphics.
Really, my bookish lecture about Vsync? "Older and wiser"? Because age is clearly shows how much actual knowledge you have. You probably don't know how old I am, really and truely. On top of that, qualifying knowledge with age, shows how little you actually have yourself.
Vsync. As explained by a thread on hardware forum:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1027966611
Which do you like better. The abridged version. Or the essay version that still shows how blatantly wrong the poster was?
Do we have any people who actually know what Vsync IS? Vsync, synchronizes the amount of rendered data to the display. If you render less then the maximum amount of hz supported by your display, Vsync is a TERRIBLE idea and won't help at all, if anything, it will drop performance by overworking the buffering to the display to try and display the image at the display settings, thus throwing out any frames that don't align to the maximum amount of hz of the display, which means if you don't have 59-60fps, turning vsync on will do absolutely nothing for you, because it will constantly try to purge/refill buffers that should just remain filled until the next frame! Worst information I've ever seen in a post.
You are completely right! I totally meant that if you could play the game at 60+ fps with no drops then you should enable vsync. I made it a negative with "aren't" by accident. Pretty bad to give the complete opposite advice I wanted to give! :ohmy: will edit.
Another gem of pseudo science with not very scientifical experiments. If its 300fps, plus 1 frame of a plane, thats 1 plane per 5 seconds. 1 plane per 5 seconds is 12 planes per minute. Eventually the eye will pick up on it, in the same way that focusing on a brain teaser will reveal an image as well.
That was the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in that the eye/brain can only detect change and not a certain threshold of FPS.
...
If you cannot see the mightily perceptible difference between a racing game @ 60fps and one @ 30fps with your own eyes then there is little value in debating you.
If you play a racing game with more motion blur at 30fps then a racing game with less motion blur at 30fps, you will see that the second game seems slower/more choppy then the first game, and then you need to double the frames to recreate the motion blur so that the frames overlap properly, in an ideal world.
These two excerpts are basically saying the exact same thing. I haven't tested the latter myself, but given the short time between frames at 30 FPS and our much longer reaction time it may well be that more than 30 FPS isn't required for smooth driving in racing games as long as we perceive the motion to be smooth.
With un-motionblurred graphics, there is a clear difference between 30 and 60 FPS, the latter being much smoother which makes sim-driving easier. If the same effect can be achieved by motion blur at 30 FPS, the whole discussion is not about FPS but about perceived smoothness of motion. That's a big difference :)
The trick is that directinput (the Microsoft library managing controllers) seems to use it's own threads to ask for controller position. The game asks directinput for the latest controller data it has, but directinput retrieves itself the data. And at a lower level, USB device communication, other threads, input buffers, most of the USB device communication is high level (software).
It seems when the framerate decreases, a bottleneck effect is quickly reached: all these operating system threads supposed to share the CPU time left by the game struggle to breath, and they often don't have a very high priority. Buffers may get full, events missed or processing delayed, polling frequency cut down.
That's why between 30 and 40 fps not much difference on screen, but sometimes a noticeable difference in responsiveness.
Spectre88
5 April 11, 09:45
I disagree, I already knew about V-Sync and that it matches the refresh rate of your monitor, but I have always used it regardless because it has always helped with screen tearing. I only get 45-50 FPS on Shift 2 but without V-Sync I can clearly see tearing when I pan the camera. Besides, with v-sync on and tripple buffering there is virtually no impact on FPS.
I disagree, I already knew about V-Sync and that it matches the refresh rate of your monitor, but I have always used it regardless because it has always helped with screen tearing. I only get 45-50 FPS on Shift 2 but without V-Sync I can clearly see tearing when I pan the camera. Besides, with v-sync on and tripple buffering there is virtually no impact on FPS.
True, triple buffering is a must if FPS drops below your screen's refresh rate. However, triple buffering can result in increased input lag.
Furthermore, VSync can result in less crisp FFB in case frame rates are significantly higher than the screen's refresh rate and the FFB update rate is linked to the FPS rate.
Vsync in any form and racing games = No
Because of input lag.
I personally hate the laggy controls that V-sync adds to all games.
Anyone know how console games are frame rate locked at say 60fps, do they use vsync or some other method to fix the frame rate and prevent tearing and input lag?
Quite a few movies of Shift 2 on consoles showed significant input lag...
McClusky
5 April 11, 12:43
I should have added this: On my pc when playing Shift 2 if it drops below 60FPS it gets choppy which happens at most tracks. It's more prominent if I'm in the shadows of the trees. If I run solo I don't have issues. I have a pretty stout pc, i5 2500k, 4GB DDR3 RAM and a GTX 560Ti. I run with my monitor in native res at 1920x1200.
In comparison when I run Shift 1 with that same hardware it is a rock solid 60FPS, smooth as can be. Even with my old hardware, E6850, 4GB DDR2 RAM and a GTX 260 I did not have "choppiness" if the FPS went below 60 which it did all of the time as it fluctuated between 40 to 60.
With Shift 2 I can get it to run smooth if I can deal with poor AA which I cannot, if I get good AA (but not perfect like Shift 1) I get choppy FPS below 60 so is it my hardware, graphic settings or am I spoiled on how good a modded Shift 1 looks?
I should have added this: On my pc when playing Shift 2 if it drops below 60FPS it gets choppy which happens at most tracks. It's more prominent if I'm in the shadows of the trees. If I run solo I don't have issues. I have a pretty stout pc, i5 2500k, 4GB DDR3 RAM and a GTX 560Ti. I run with my monitor in native res at 1920x1200.
In comparison when I run Shift 1 with that same hardware it is a rock solid 60FPS, smooth as can be. Even with my old hardware, E6850, 4GB DDR2 RAM and a GTX 260 I did not have "choppiness" if the FPS went below 60 which it did all of the time as it fluctuated between 40 to 60.
With Shift 2 I can get it to run smooth if I can deal with poor AA which I cannot, if I get good AA (but not perfect like Shift 1) I get choppy FPS below 60 so is it my hardware, graphic settings or am I spoiled on how good a modded Shift 1 looks?
How do you get AA working in the game? Whether I select AA in-game or in the ATI driver, it doesn't work as the jaggies remain. Only performance is compromised.
McClusky
5 April 11, 12:53
How do you get AA working in the game?
I use Nvidia Inspector and make this change Antialiasing compatibility: - 0x000010C1 within it. It definitely helps but its definitely not perfect.
http://www.nogripracing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1334342&postcount=159
BlueBlueBlue
5 April 11, 13:10
To me, the input lag between roughly 45FPS with AA and 80FPS without AA is hugely noticeable.
You are completely right! I totally meant that if you could play the game at 60+ fps with no drops then you should enable vsync. I made it a negative with "aren't" by accident. Pretty bad to give the complete opposite advice I wanted to give! :ohmy: will edit.
*only* if you have screen tearing. Vsync exists solely to fix screen tearing. If you dont have screen tearing, read some of the other posts on input lag to see why it still isn't a great idea :thumbup:
I should have added this: On my pc when playing Shift 2 if it drops below 60FPS it gets choppy which happens at most tracks. It's more prominent if I'm in the shadows of the trees. If I run solo I don't have issues. I have a pretty stout pc, i5 2500k, 4GB DDR3 RAM and a GTX 560Ti. I run with my monitor in native res at 1920x1200.
In comparison when I run Shift 1 with that same hardware it is a rock solid 60FPS, smooth as can be. Even with my old hardware, E6850, 4GB DDR2 RAM and a GTX 260 I did not have "choppiness" if the FPS went below 60 which it did all of the time as it fluctuated between 40 to 60.
With Shift 2 I can get it to run smooth if I can deal with poor AA which I cannot, if I get good AA (but not perfect like Shift 1) I get choppy FPS below 60 so is it my hardware, graphic settings or am I spoiled on how good a modded Shift 1 looks?
You need to disable Vsync, either in the driver or in the game.
McClusky
5 April 11, 13:50
You need to disable Vsync, either in the driver or in the game.
Even with Vsync disabled in and out of game it doesn't cure my issue.
Even with Vsync disabled in and out of game it doesn't cure my issue.
Then your graphic settings are too high, probably in the AA department. If I get 30-45 fps at 1920x1080 on a two year old system, you should get 60 solid on a 560ti.
An older game is going to run smoother then a newer game, period.
McClusky
5 April 11, 14:57
Then your graphic settings are too high, probably in the AA department. If I get 30-45 fps at 1920x1080 on a two year old system, you should get 60 solid on a 560ti.
An older game is going to run smoother then a newer game, period.
my current settings minus the vsync setting as I've been trying various combos
my current settings minus the vsync setting as I've been trying various combos
That makes no sense. Your card should handle that perfectly fine.
McClusky
5 April 11, 16:24
That makes no sense. Your card should handle that perfectly fine.
I know, I can run any other game at full without issue. I can run Shift 1 with HD mod (and Forza converts) with 16 cars, everything maxed at a solid 60FPS.
What I don't get is with Shift 2 I get up to 60FPS with those settings but when it dips below 60 it gets choppy so how is it that some guys get 30 to 40FPS and it runs "smooth" for them?
It sounds like a classic vsync issue, but if you don't have vsync on...(can see that its clearly on in your screen from inspector, but you said the same problem happens when its off)
Try killing triple buffering. You don't really need it anyway, maybe that will help. Force off vsyc via inspector and no triple buffering.
Also play with your page flipping/pre-rendered frames in nvidia cp.
I run shift 2 at 30-45fps, and its perfectly fine. I get up to 60 on low shadows, and can max the whole game out if I play at a lower res.
Normally two major things cause jitteryness below 60fps, pageflipping and vsync. 30fps should be playable, if 30fps is not playable (in a totally gamebreaking sense) then your settings, hardware, or a combination of both is the problem.
yeah stable 30, 40 and so on, but not sloppy 20 - 40 (although on my pc & settings Shift 2 U don't peak into extreme low or high frames that much too), for example if you lock 30 with fps_limiter. 40 would work too but with 60 hz display might get tearing and so on.
aaltomar
5 April 11, 18:21
Well I suppose we need to agree to disagree then. Human reflexes are pretty slow in general (200ms is pretty average) and a single frame at 30fps is only 33ms. Doubling your framerate to 60 would mean a 16ms advantage which in my opinion is negligible.
Test your own reaction time here:
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php
http://pheattarchive.emporia.edu/projects/reactiontime/Pain_Hibbs.pdf
"The results demonstrate that the neuromuscular-physiological
component of simple auditory reaction times can be under 85 ms and that EMG latencies can be under 60 ms."
I can definately distinct between 30 and 60 frames per second. Of course I don't see individual screens but in quick motion there is a difference. It's sort of a same thing why I can't stand old CRT-monitors with a refresh rate below 100Hz. 60Hz flickers like hell even when looking straight at the monitor. 85Hz flickers just noticeably with a white background. 100Hz is when I don't notice the flicker anymore. Luckily I'm using TFT's now.
http://pheattarchive.emporia.edu/projects/reactiontime/Pain_Hibbs.pdf
"The results demonstrate that the neuromuscular-physiological
component of simple auditory reaction times can be under 85 ms and that EMG latencies can be under 60 ms."
I can definately distinct between 30 and 60 frames per second. Of course I don't see individual screens but in quick motion there is a difference. It's sort of a same thing why I can't stand old CRT-monitors with a refresh rate below 100Hz. 60Hz flickers like hell even when looking straight at the monitor. 85Hz flickers just noticeably with a white background. 100Hz is when I don't notice the flicker anymore. Luckily I'm using TFT's now.
You're now talking about two different things. One is the ability to see on/off transitions (the flickering of an analog tube), while the other is seeing the difference between different numbers of frames per second to make up fluid motion on a TFT screen.
As I stated above, most people see the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, but Shinzah also stated that that is because just about all games don't use motion blur and 60 Hz makes up for motion blur by projecting more images. If a game at 30 FPS would use proper motion blur, at least the smoothness difference between 30 and 60 FPS would be a lot less severe. I'm not sure whether they would be indistinguishable myself, I would need to test that, but I'm willing to believe that motion blur can compensate for a lot :)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.