Open Source Realtime Strategy Game Engine
https://springrts.com/phpbb/
14 tanks, 3 cars, 11 hovercrafts moving with AI + 22 tanks onscreen standing standing still. FPS = 37
Wait. Since when were FPS games designed to run at that framrate? Last I checked FPS and Racing Games (and games in general) were supporting 80 Frames a second.reivanen wrote:And no, it won't start lag even if i set 100 tanks in there.. probably not with 1000 either. There was no performance difference before or after placing the models or making them move. If you will keep missing the point, i could redo the test with a few hundred tanks...
Basically no consumer-level PC can run Crysis at 80 FPS at medium settings, much less high settings.Ixoran wrote:14 tanks, 3 cars, 11 hovercrafts moving with AI + 22 tanks onscreen standing standing still. FPS = 37Wait. Since when were FPS games designed to run at that framrate? Last I checked FPS and Racing Games (and games in general) were supporting 80 Frames a second.reivanen wrote:And no, it won't start lag even if i set 100 tanks in there.. probably not with 1000 either. There was no performance difference before or after placing the models or making them move. If you will keep missing the point, i could redo the test with a few hundred tanks...
Like... the average the human eye can keep up with.
So unless Crysis had some really weird design goals, last I checked, 37/80 IS LAG.
Now, Crysis (with it's 27 million dollar budget) might no let you know it's lag, By chopping out some frames, smoothing out the differences and not letting the input catcher fall behind, but 37fps is terrible for a fast paced game last I checked. I mean F-zero GX ran at 80-100 fps.
Spring is in the process of leaving it's hacked abomination phase and (I hope) entering a phase where it gets optimized and generalized to not be designed for TA.
That's my answer for the performance gap.
Every film and TV technology uses motion bluring to mask the noticeable difference between moving frames. Games don't. motion blurring is expensive and unfeasible for things rendered in real time. The human eye can barely conciously pick up the difference between running 50 fps and 80 fps... but the instinct centers use visual information more intimately than the conscious does. High end FPS players will chock down settings if it means the difference between 80fps and 100fps. I can speak from experiance, that difference is massive when you're doing something heavily relying on instinct. I used to get pissed off while KZ jumping if my FPS dropped to 85, because it significantly degraded my ability to perform the required motions.Felix the Cat wrote:80 rendered frames per second is a waste of processing power. As Hobo Joe pointed out, you will not be seeing 80 frames per second, you'll be seeing 60 or 75.
For comparison, 35mm movies are displayed at 24 frames per second, European TV is displayed at 50 frames per second, and American TV is displayed at 60 frames per second. (Movies are actually displayed at 24 FPS but have a refresh rate of 48 or 72 hertz. Each frame is illuminated 2-3 separate times by the backlight, but during those 2-3 illuminations the frame doesn't change.)
My old ass KDS CRT goes up to a refresh rate of 150.and it's a rare CRT that goes over 75.
That's basically what I'm talking about. Fast FPS is way more noticeable with FAST play-style Games. I would find it hard to justify any RTS as needeing the incredible reflexes of Burnout, F-Zero, or a good chunk of the FPS's out there.The effect is real and noticeable. Human eye doesn't work like computer displays, it's asynchronous, so saying that one can't tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps isn't quite true. Maybe it looks the same for the untrained eye, but definitely not if you know what to expect. Ask anyone who's ever played Quake competitively.
RTS Gamers can fire off a lot of commands, in many mods/games MICRO is a huge part of what it takes to win. If you have ever played with the uber-ninja-god-fuckwin players you would see this sick amount of commands in action.Ixoran wrote: I would find it hard to justify any RTS as needeing the incredible reflexes of Burnout, F-Zero, or a good chunk of the FPS's out there.
I 'm not saying that isn't true.smoth wrote:RTS Gamers can fire off a lot of commands, in many mods/games MICRO is a huge part of what it takes to win. If you have ever played with the uber-ninja-god-fuckwin players you would see this sick amount of commands in action.Ixoran wrote: I would find it hard to justify any RTS as needeing the incredible reflexes of Burnout, F-Zero, or a good chunk of the FPS's out there.
everything from camera movement to attack orders is important in an rts.
.Unless you had a non-standard monitor, your monitor only refreshed at most 75 times per second.SwiftSpear wrote:Every film and TV technology uses motion bluring to mask the noticeable difference between moving frames. Games don't. motion blurring is expensive and unfeasible for things rendered in real time. The human eye can barely conciously pick up the difference between running 50 fps and 80 fps... but the instinct centers use visual information more intimately than the conscious does. High end FPS players will chock down settings if it means the difference between 80fps and 100fps. I can speak from experiance, that difference is massive when you're doing something heavily relying on instinct. I used to get pissed off while KZ jumping if my FPS dropped to 85, because it significantly degraded my ability to perform the required motions.Felix the Cat wrote:80 rendered frames per second is a waste of processing power. As Hobo Joe pointed out, you will not be seeing 80 frames per second, you'll be seeing 60 or 75.
For comparison, 35mm movies are displayed at 24 frames per second, European TV is displayed at 50 frames per second, and American TV is displayed at 60 frames per second. (Movies are actually displayed at 24 FPS but have a refresh rate of 48 or 72 hertz. Each frame is illuminated 2-3 separate times by the backlight, but during those 2-3 illuminations the frame doesn't change.)
1. All I know is my monitors display config button will go all the way up to 150 at 800x600Hence, it would be impossible to see more than 75 refreshes per second.
edit. FPS players use psychic powers, everyone knows that.
Motion blur is an increasingly common thing to see in new games. It's been added in the Source engine for all the newest games like Portal and TF2 and EP3, and is supposedly going to be added to all the older Source games. Crysis has it as well, and I believe COD4 does.SwiftSpear wrote:Every film and TV technology uses motion bluring to mask the noticeable difference between moving frames. Games don't. motion blurring is expensive and unfeasible for things rendered in real time. The human eye can barely conciously pick up the difference between running 50 fps and 80 fps... but the instinct centers use visual information more intimately than the conscious does. High end FPS players will chock down settings if it means the difference between 80fps and 100fps. I can speak from experiance, that difference is massive when you're doing something heavily relying on instinct. I used to get pissed off while KZ jumping if my FPS dropped to 85, because it significantly degraded my ability to perform the required motions.Felix the Cat wrote:80 rendered frames per second is a waste of processing power. As Hobo Joe pointed out, you will not be seeing 80 frames per second, you'll be seeing 60 or 75.
For comparison, 35mm movies are displayed at 24 frames per second, European TV is displayed at 50 frames per second, and American TV is displayed at 60 frames per second. (Movies are actually displayed at 24 FPS but have a refresh rate of 48 or 72 hertz. Each frame is illuminated 2-3 separate times by the backlight, but during those 2-3 illuminations the frame doesn't change.)
RTS gamers will of course perform better with a better framerate, but it's simply not the same as an FPS game. The difference between 40 and 50 FPS can be the difference between a kill and a death, because it takes twitch speeds and perfect precision to do that, and thus needs a good framerate to pull it off.nope it isn't, rts gamers need high fps also. I doubt fps gamers need more kps then an rts gamer. When you are moving a SEVERAL units to dodge a laser or cluster bombs it does matter.
Ixoran wrote: /thread.
