greencba Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 The human eye can see well over 200 fps... The human eye can NOT notice a difference past around 80 fps (and that's with training such as the airforce....so no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bliapis Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 i also notice that FPS will bumb up when i hide the 2d graphics, aka the interface with ALT+Z. wierd >< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bascal Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Sure. The human eye can discern things over 50 fps. No, really. Go look it up. I'll wait. He's right. You're trying to compare something completely biological to a digitally created pulsing image. The human eye can perceive WELL over 50 fps and it's been shown in studies. Hollywood movies are set as low as 24 fps with smoothed edges and heavy rendering to make it appear fluid. For videos games 30 is acceptable, however, in order to avoid headaches from prolonged gaming sessions most avid gamers accept no less than 60+ fps. At that range eye strain decreases dramatically and gaming can continue without sores or headaches for longer periods of time. TL:DR: Eyes sore? Maybe you should try bumping down your graphics to run 60+ fps. And ya, there's been multiple posts about this gamebreak issue for many hardcore fans, this fps lag as well as the ability lag are my biggest issues right now. I'm running: Phenom II 965 x4 (clocking 3.4) 560 GTX Ti (which whoever said they havent updated drivers since October is misinformed, they've had multiple updates since Skyrim launched alone and that was November) 8 gigs of DDR3 - 1333 RAM I shouldn't be having issues with a gaming rig that can play 64 man BF3 on high in 1080. Worst of all, my brand new Sony Vaio F-series laptop barely plays the game on low in 720 and it's sporting: i7 x4 (2.4 with 3.1 turbo boost) 540m 8 gigs of DDR3 - 1333 RAM Just questing gives me headaches from sitting at 20-30 fps. I don't even want to try a warzone on my laptop given how irritating they are on my desktop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOLTgamer Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Maybe you should check again. Claiming 140 FPS is totally bogus when the game doesnt allow more than 111. Was hard to put two and two together I know. The game allows 110 but my fraps shows 140 fps, just sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanzaiChigau Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 The game allows 110 but my fraps shows 140 fps, just sayin So your system is running the game just fine, you're getting the max possible FPS the game allows, don't complain then. Yeah, FPS seem a bit unstable sometimes, blame bad optimization, drivers, etc., it's a new game. BF3 needed new drivers, which were beta at first, to be able to be played otherwise you got a huge pile of crappy polygons and textures, these kind of problems are common and will be addressed soon (let's hope) enough. We all understand people with very good PCs have a right to complain about wanting to get more and more performance but some people are having worse problems which are more important than yours, that's if you may call that a problem And regarding FPS and the eye, stupid topic TBH, with current mainstream screens which run at 60 Hz for he most part, there's a noticeable difference in performance between 30 and 60 FPS, anyone can notice that. If your screen runs at 60 Hz and you're getting 100 FPS you might not notice a huge difference from 60, in fact, you may even notice "worse" performance since you will see screen tearing effect coming from the game showing more images per second than the screen¡s refresh rate which would be 60, that's why console games are capped at 30 (because of TVs rate and tech limitations aswell, anyway) and we have vsync and FPS smoothing options in most games, because going over your monitor's refresh rate is usally pointless and not as smooth and it also makes the GPU to generate unnecesary more heat since it has to work more. Anyone who used to play fast paced first person shooters from the quake era knows about this, back in the day our screens had higher refresh rates and they were different depending which resolution we ran the game at. That's why in those games you could have 150 FPS and felt as smooth as nothing else, and quite fast. Nowadays we achieve "similar" feeling with 60 FPS with our 60 Hz screens, so unless you have a higher refresh rate screen you're not going to see things as smoothly with higer FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts