The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

This article was updated: 7/27/2002 due to its popularity and to reflect in more detail the science involved with our eyes and their ability to interpret more than 60 FPS. 

Would you like Pt's 6,7 and 8? 

You can drag up information to back up any story/argument, the best way is to see for yourself, you may not be able to do high end scientific experiments etc, but you can do what you can do. I know for a fact that I can see/feel/percieve a difference (and a large difference) going from, in Quake,72FPS to 150FPS and higher. I know for a fact that I can see/feel/percieve a difference in QuakeIII, going from 85FPS to 125FPS and higher. I will never believe that there is not any gain in going above 60FPS or such, because in my experience, I know different. People can quote articles, figures, results till they are blue in the face, if it doesn't match my personal experience, I would be a fool to accept it. Check it out yourself, come to your own conclusions, remember, the experts once said the World was flat. 

too long, didn't read.

just link to the fucking article you're quoting. 

here or there, not my point though 

Post a URL, not the whole fucking article.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html 

quit being a smartass. it's just framerate, you don't need to post 50 millions times to try and prove you're right. 

Smartass, look who's talking 

go map. 

Go 

you're getting into a fight just becuase you think you're 100% correct about something that really doesn't matter. You're crazily posting full content's of articles that no one really cares about rather than just linking them for the few that do. You're just being arogant and stupid, so seriously, go lay off and map for awhile. 

j00 r both t3h dumb

It's not 60fps as in the 'visual framerate', it's the refresh rate on the physics/movement/etc.

You could still run at 6,385fps if you wanted (or could), but it means you won't be able to jump further (a la Q3 where you jumped further at 72, 90, 125 & 333 fps), because the refresh rate (that's not your monitor refresh rate either) will be locked at 60. 

I couldn't care less if I am 100% correct or not. Your just shitty cause youre 100% wrong. You AREarogant and stupid, so serriously, go fuck yourself for a while, I'm sure you've had plenty of practice!!
BTW, it was only half the article 

I actually find the subject quite interesting. Visual perception has always been one of my pet fascinations; it could be because of my interest in visual design, psychology and biology. But it's more likely to do with my interest in Predators ( <#wAnT soME CanDy?#> )
Anyway, couldn't the difference in 'feel' be related to the movement as well as the visuals?
I dunno, I can barely set my railgun color at the console :P 

All I know is the difference is there, and is real, and is good. And the difference is brought about by the increase in FPS. Other than that I don't know, I don't really delve in to deep in this stuff. 

so if you don't know, how can you POSSIBLY say scampie is 100% wrong? if he was 100% wrong, that would make you 100% right, and you said you couldn't care less about being 100% right. . .

so it appears that not only did you admit you don't know what you're talkin about, but you're a liar too.

so take 100% of your dick and stick it 100% up your half ass.

you make me yawn.

/me quietly goes back to his well paying job and his own abode. 

so if you don't know, how can you POSSIBLY say scampie is 100% wrong? if he was 100% wrong, that would make you 100% right, and you said you couldn't care less about being 100% right. . .

so it appears that not only did you admit you don't know what you're talkin about, but you're a liar too.

so take 100% of your dick and stick it 100% up your half ass.

you make me yawn.

/me quietly goes back to his well paying job and his own abode. 

LOL!! 

Me quietly sits here at least being willing to be registered on the board.

Me goes back to do what I do, see, unlike you, I am fortunate enough to be filthy rich, I do not need to work, not today, not ever, and I own my own 'abode' as you put it, several actually. And I couldn't give a rats ass what you think.

Have a nice day 

I got that figure from the first lecture of my 3d graphics class. Right now I'm finishing off a raycaster for assignment 4. Ray-triangle intersection is a pain in the ass.

Abyss:
How Quake1 feels at higher framerates has nothing to do with Doom3's framerate given that the physics framerate is capped. Nada. Zilch. 

Nada. Zilch 

 

Say you were given 5 seconds to watch 5 different things on the TV: Sitcom, Soap Opera, Movie, Live News, British tv series. It's hard to explain, but you can see the difference between each of these showings. You can easily (to me) differentiate a live viewing from a film, a sitcom or drama series (which both have different appearance.)

I was told this has to do with refresh rates, and about the British TV shows - they have different standards with their TV's and such. I wonder what these differences are called though, if there is any such designation to them. 

one of the differences between the types of programme ( we Brits call them programmes, not shows ) is the film/camera with which they are recorded. An example of the difference this makes was the Brit soap Brookside, which was the first to be filmed using a-type-of-film-I-can't-remember-the-name-of; it was basically the same stuff that TV news is filmed on and gave the soap a fresh 'realistic' feel not seen before. I don't know if that is actually to do with refresh rates.
The difference between British and US TV footage is apparent, and an old flatmate and I once commented on it watching a series of rock vids together. While it's clear from comparing any Brit sitcom to an American one, the difference was clearest because we could watch segments of the same promo vid processed differently - in this case it was 'Sumerland'. On the same compilation, the full promo is shown and at the end of the tape there's an artfully produced interview made specifically for NY MTV ( this is also obvious from comments the vocalist makes regarding 'our own country' ). Intersperced with the interview midshots are bits from the previous vids, clearly 'glossier' looking than before. My flatmate suggested this may be related to the interlacing mechanisms of TVs manufactured for different countries. I don't know though, but it's an effect that can apparently be applied in post production, regardless of the original footage. So I don't think it's related to framerate.

2/- 

the elongated hyphenate above is supposed to read 'a type of film I can't remember the name of'.
metl, your board sucks ;)