DUST Search - Shoot for 60 fps!

All Channels

General Discussions

Shoot for 60 fps!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
dukeEarl 9	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:28:00 - [1] - Quote Please put onus on 60 frames per sec CCP! Do whatever you have to to make that happen! I can see myself playing dust 514 for years on end, if only you can make the game playable at 60 fps! I even wont pay that much attention to the screen tearing and texture pop-ins that are likely to occur here n there! 60 fps guys. I have faith you can do it
Mr Funless Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 191	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:34:00 - [2] - Quote You can't see past 30 fps anyway. /troll
Liu Kaizong Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 41	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:37:00 - [3] - Quote LOL @ 60 FPS. Keep fantasizing :)
dukeEarl 9	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:37:00 - [4] - Quote Mr Funless wrote: You can't see past 30 fps anyway. /troll Says the guy who hasn't experienced 60 frames per sec EVER
dukeEarl 9	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:40:00 - [5] - Quote Liu Kaizong wrote: LOL @ 60 FPS. Keep fantasizing :) Not on the ps3 ur probably right
Ten-Sidhe Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 414	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:43:00 - [6] - Quote I thought 60pfs was the limit of the eye, but 30 looked almost as good(sdtv is about 30fps, imax about 60). Never understood marketing on 200+fps tv sets, you can't see it anyway so what difference is it. I would overlook low fps if game is good, big maps, big player count, eve tie in. I played overloaded rts games that slowed till I could count fps with a watch, 2-3 fps. Looked it up, halo3 is locked at 30fps, avatar was filmed at 24fps, animated films are 12 or 6 fps. If game is good and at least in 20's I'll be happy.
Debacle Nano Shadow Company HQ 639	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:46:00 - [7] - Quote I'd rather have 30-45 fps if it depends on game play. 60 is the top of the line and will most likely cause lag.
Naustradamus Oracle Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 61	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:49:00 - [8] - Quote dukeEarl wrote: Mr Funless wrote: You can't see past 30 fps anyway. /troll Says the guy who hasn't experienced 60 frames per sec EVER This is to funny to correct
dukeEarl 9	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:52:00 - [9] - Quote Mr Funless wrote: You can't see past 30 fps anyway. /troll Actually pretty much anything over 30 fps is interpreted to the human eye as a FLUID MOTION! At 30 fps n under is not so much. If you can't notice a difference, (assuming you have experienced 60 fps) then either you're in denial or u have cataracts.
dukeEarl 9	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:53:00 - [10] - Quote Debacle Nano wrote: I'd rather have 30-45 fps if it depends on game play. 60 is the top of the line and will most likely cause lag. Top of the line is anywhere between 85-120 fps buddy

Rhadiem Algintal Core Gallente Federation 496	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:54:00 - [11] - Quote I can definitely notice over 30, especially when moving. FPS also affects response time which also is important for Dust. /troll headshot Man, there are moments when I wish Dust was a PC game.
Ten-Sidhe Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 414	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:57:00 - [12] - Quote most monitors only show 60, or in some cases 24fps. Rather have good draw distance, and large limits on map size/player count at 24fps then smaller counts at 60fps. Movies are 24fps, looks good enough there.
Debacle Nano Shadow Company HQ 639	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:57:00 - [13] - Quote dukeEarl wrote: Debacle Nano wrote: I'd rather have 30-45 fps if it depends on game play. 60 is the top of the line and will most likely cause lag. Top of the line is anywhere between 85-120 fps buddy Anything over 60 the human eye can barely distinguish apart from each other. No point in going that high.
Naustradamus Oracle Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 61	Posted - 2012.08.16 18:58:00 - [14] - Quote With the scale of maps as they have shown in this new update, I doubt they'll have any resources left for a 60 fps game Not saying it'll never happen .. but not on PS3
SuperMido Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 67	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:01:00 - [15] - Quote They can't go for 60FPS on the PS3, its just way to old to handle that. But for the people saying you can't see more than 30, you're DUMB...Its 60FPS that you can't really distinguish above it. But if you play on a higher FPS than 60, you'll still "feel" a difference, and the whole gameplay will be more fluid, even if you can't see it.
EnglishSnake Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 1012	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:03:00 - [16] - Quote Wipeout HD 60FPS
Ten-Sidhe Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 414	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:04:00 - [17] - Quote Add some motion blur with lower frame count if its easier on hardware, that is all the extra frames do create motion blur. "The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second, perceiving them individually.[1] The visual cortex holds onto one image for about one-fifteenth of a second, so if another image is received during that period an illusion of continuity is created, allowing a sequence of still images to give the impression of motion." -wikipedia The brain speeds up at times. FPS may trigger this so eye "overclocks" to more frames per second, 24-30 should still be plenty. Twice the frames won't add that much, more players/draw distance would be better. High fps is also a buffer for when it slows, so if designed to run slow and steady it would have same affect.
Rhadiem Algintal Core Gallente Federation 496	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:05:00 - [18] - Quote Debacle Nano wrote: dukeEarl wrote: Debacle Nano wrote: I'd rather have 30-45 fps if it depends on game play. 60 is the top of the line and will most likely cause lag. Top of the line is anywhere between 85-120 fps buddy Anything over 60 the human eye can barely distinguish apart from each other. No point in going that high. There are lots of factors involved beyond simply seeing a difference. I don't know the latency of the DS3 or of good HDTV's, but in the PC world FPS affects your response time for aiming, tearing and such based on refresh frequency of your monitor, providing a stable rate that won't dip when things get really crazy on the screen, etc.
DON RODIE II Deep Space Republic 168	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:07:00 - [19] - Quote I would rather have 256 players than 60 fps. That's just overrated. Look at that trash cod. That's 60fps lol
dukeEarl 9	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:18:00 - [20] - Quote DON RODIE II wrote: I would rather have 256 players than 60 fps. That's just overrated. Look at that trash cod. That's 60fps lol COD sux BUT the buttery smoothness of the game is undeniable! The 60 fps is a HUGE reason why COD is so successful. IF a big player count is more important than the overall performance of you, and the game itself, then thats your problem

dukeEarl 9	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:19:00 - [21] - Quote Rhadiem wrote: Debacle Nano wrote: dukeEarl wrote: Debacle Nano wrote: I'd rather have 30-45 fps if it depends on game play. 60 is the top of the line and will most likely cause lag. Top of the line is anywhere between 85-120 fps buddy Anything over 60 the human eye can barely distinguish apart from each other. No point in going that high. There are lots of factors involved beyond simply seeing a difference. I don't know the latency of the DS3 or of good HDTV's, but in the PC world FPS affects your response time for aiming, tearing and such based on refresh frequency of your monitor, providing a stable rate that won't dip when things get really crazy on the screen, etc. Correct sir!! +1
Dante Daedrik Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 97	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:21:00 - [22] - Quote For people kittening about the guy that said you can't see over 60fps, if you scroll down it even says /Troll. Holy kitten we have a bright bunch here...
DON RODIE II Deep Space Republic 168	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:22:00 - [23] - Quote dukeEarl wrote: DON RODIE II wrote: I would rather have 256 players than 60 fps. That's just overrated. Look at that trash cod. That's 60fps lol COD sux BUT the buttery smoothness of the game is undeniable! The 60 fps is a HUGE reason why COD is so successful. IF a big player count is more important than the overall performance of you, and the game itself, then thats your problem lol you actually think 60 fps is why cod sells? You in a dream world. They promotion and how they get people to buy it every year even if it sucks is why it sells a lot. It's called peer pressure and brainwashing = sells not 60 fps lol
Debacle Nano Shadow Company HQ 639	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:23:00 - [24] - Quote Rhadiem wrote: Debacle Nano wrote: dukeEarl wrote: Debacle Nano wrote: I'd rather have 30-45 fps if it depends on game play. 60 is the top of the line and will most likely cause lag. Top of the line is anywhere between 85-120 fps buddy Anything over 60 the human eye can barely distinguish apart from each other. No point in going that high. There are lots of factors involved beyond simply seeing a difference. I don't know the latency of the DS3 or of good HDTV's, but in the PC world FPS affects your response time for aiming, tearing and such based on refresh frequency of your monitor, providing a stable rate that won't dip when things get really crazy on the screen, etc. The negatives outweigh the positive when it comes to 60 FPS. PC is able to handle more than the PS3 which is why 60 FPS will most likely never work.
Stile451 Red Star. 76	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:25:00 - [25] - Quote I would be happy with 45 fps. 30 is too low for me(I can see the difference). Ten-Sidhe wrote: most monitors only show 60, or in some cases 24fps. Rather have good draw distance, and large limits on map size/player count at 24fps then smaller counts at 60fps. Movies are 24fps, looks good enough there. Movies are made using special techniques such as slow moving scenes and sometimes even blurring between frames because of the low fps, not the other way around. Look at nearly any panning shot and marvel at how choppy it is - then again you may not notice it if you haven't experienced better fps or at least a TV that has 120hz frame interpolation.
EnIgMa99 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 219	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:29:00 - [26] - Quote nope draw distance is more important kthxbye
Cless Vallein Teknomen 37	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:38:00 - [27] - Quote Black Ops 2 is slowly sucking me in... HELP!
Rhadiem Algintal Core Gallente Federation 496	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:49:00 - [28] - Quote all this FPS talk makes me want to go install counterstrike source on this macbook pro i7 beast and see what it'll do. ;) I'm also really tempted to get Arma II for DayZ.. but I have Fable 2, Diablo 3 and Skyrim left unfinished.. Anyways, yes I'll take a rock solid 30fps with 256 players over a 60fps 32.. 64+ players would be nice. Bigger numbers just means bigger corps and more scheduling drama. 40 man raids in WOW were challenging.. but I suppose these big mega corps will just invite the whole blob and fill up the spots with random alliance members, and tough kittens if you're not invited.
Ten-Sidhe Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 414	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:51:00 - [29] - Quote Movies also benefit from natural motion blurring. PC/console games don't, That is why they need more frames to emulate the blurring. The eye detects analog light input, then brain reads digitally. It expects the image to be smeared, digital input doesn't register right. The more images are overlapped the more it tricks it into thinking its motion blur, seems to work more realistically then coding in motion blur so far.(one day they may find the perfect way to code motion blur, they just haven't yet.) The eye picks up 10-12 fps, but if out of sync input may be needed at double this. The brain also speeds up when it thinks it has to, fps trick into this mode. So, brain reads 20-24 images(double normal is pretty good increase), expecting analog blur of motion on each image. Digital images need to be at double this to make sure brain doesn't miss a refresh when it reads. So at most the brain will need 40-48 images per second, but it expects them blurred so any additional frames aid smoothness by simulating blurring. Any gain above 30 fps are small, and could be replaced with a little blurring. Having the frame rate not go up and down and good draw, gameplay(map size and player count fit here) are more important then a little eye candy. It may have started as a troll, but turned into a debate about what is more important in graphics.
Rhadiem Algintal Core Gallente Federation 496	Posted - 2012.08.16 19:54:00 - [30] - Quote all my experience with motion blur in gaming has been bad. it just doesn't seem the same, and is probably more taxing than just more fps.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.