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 ;) 

There are a lot of misconceptions on this.
1. The 1/220 a second flash is irrelevant to frame rate. The eye can integrate the energy. Whether one could tell the difference between that and a longer flash, i.e. the same amount of light energy distributed over a longer impulse, would be more relevant. Think of applying a large amount of force to an object for a short period of time, it still moves, and probably keeps moving.

2. Again because of integration, high velocity movement in the real world certainly "accumulates" under the eye even if all the percieved is a blur. Best any graphics-monitor can do is stutter away compared to that.

3. It's Lag. No one seems to talk about this. If your at 50 fps, that's 20 milliseconds a frame. But, latency is not just the cycle length, what if more than one cycle? Presumably you're doing 50 because that's all it will do, so it takes 20 milliseconds to "build" a frame. So that's 20 ms constant. If you move your mouse (optimistically, 150 hz sample rate mouse, lag maybe 1-6.7 ms then) so the signal is just missed best case frame, another full cycle, nearly 20 ms. Then there's the constant framerate needed for the monitor (I think). That brings the total to something like a variable 30-60 ms lag from mouse to screen. Maybe more. More processing stages in game? 

This should SO be a discussion thread. 

WRT the visual difference between UK video and US, that may be due to the differences between NTSC (IIRC, there the colour's a bag on the side of a black and white signal) and PAL formats.

As for film, lemme check with Nimoy...

For this scene [in The Good Mother] we were using Agfa film in the cameras, because it gives a much softer effect; for the harsh "realistic" scenes, such as those in the courtroom, we used Kodak film for its crisper, "grittier" look.

Needless to say one camera was loaded with Kodak, so the shot had to be redone.

Thus alspracht mister-20fps-average. 

Correct. This was hammered out and eventually explained quite well on Blues or the shack or something.

Anyway, I'm quite happy as long as the FPS is 30-40+ and constant. That's fine for me. Abyss might be a freak, that's his bad luck. 

if he was 100% wrong, that would make you 100% right

Yeah... Great logic...

*rolls eyes*

(Yes I am aware that expecting reasoned debate on the net is a stupid idea)