Why do people always think having 60fps all day is necessary. Sure, I like having 60fps all day too on my 560ti, but it's really not necessary when the human eye can only see at 24fps. Hence, movies are only shot at 24fps -- those don't look laggy now do they? When the game drops below 24, or has large fluctuations, then it could be less "comfortable." but you can play Crysis 2 in 3D in 1080P at 24hz (And therefore 24fps) - and get no lag and no difference in speed, playability, etc....like me on my 50 inch samsung 3D tv. thus 60 fps all day is really not necessary, it's more of bragging rights and knowing that you won't have to worry about FPS dropping...

Dude, the human eye can see way above 24 frames per second. It's around 70fps that the human eye stops noticing large amounts of difference, but I'm not positive about that. Films don't look juttery because you can't see higher. It's because films employ motion blur - it blurs the frames together making it seem less juttery. Most games need to run higher because the vast majority of games don't use motion blur, or use types that don't quite have the same effect on frame rates, but just produce a nice, cool-looking visual effect, nothing more. Crysis 1 was one of the first games that employed motion blurring in a way that actually makes a lower framerate (around 20 frames) still fairly playable, as it's blurring all the frames together. If you don't believe me, go download this comparison video:

http://www.mediafire.com/?ybmlymn2nnl

I'd link you to a youtube version of it, but youtube is capped at 30fps so it wouldn't work properly. There's also this much simpler comparison if you don't want to download a tiny video, but it doesn't illustrate it quite as well as the video does:

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html


The reason movies are (or were, at least, before the digital age) shot at 24fps? Because it's the lowest framerate they could go without it starting to look horrible. The higher the framerate, the more film would need to be printed, because there'd be more frames. You know the old classic style film rolls they mounted onto projectors? If a film was shot at 60fps those film rolls would need to be almost three times the size as one shot at 24fps, because there would be almost 3 times the amount of frames.

So basically, it's 24fps because it's cheaper.

because it really will
Im just thinking about the comparison from DX9 to DX10 in crysis wars, it was barely noticeable. Crysis should feature the nicest technology available, just because its crysis i guess, but i don't think DX11 is going to provide any more of any improvement graphically then dx10 did in wars.

"FANBOY POSTER: "OH but jgonz didnt you see the video. DX 11 looks incredible.

ME: That video was filled by a camera from 30 ft away shush!"

because dx10 wasn't that much of an improvement over dx9, but dx11 is a major improvement over dx9 and 10, so it will make a bigger difference if implemented properly, and as for fanboy? seriously? all i said was it will make a difference because all the games i have played with dx11 have been alot better using it

because it really will
Im just thinking about the comparison from DX9 to DX10 in crysis wars, it was barely noticeable. Crysis should feature the nicest technology available, just because its crysis i guess, but i don't think DX11 is going to provide any more of any improvement graphically then dx10 did in wars.

"FANBOY POSTER: "OH but jgonz didnt you see the video. DX 11 looks incredible.

ME: That video was filled by a camera from 30 ft away shush!"

because dx10 wasn't that much of an improvement over dx9, but dx11 is a major improvement over dx9 and 10, so it will make a bigger difference if implemented properly, and as for fanboy? seriously? all i said was it will make a difference because all the games i have played with dx11 have been alot better using it
I wasnt callin you a fanboy. Just reffering to a comment i heard on these boards once.

Human eye stops noticing difference in 240!!! fps! And that is max! You just start to feel picture absolutely real - and if it`s in 3D - you need 480 fps overall for both eyes - Google for Sony 3d camera prototype - i don`t remember its model - but they were announced that about a year ago, i think - and there was words about 240-480 fps 2D/3D. Of course? we don`t need now so many fps - or virtual reality will eat our brains finally but in the future - maybe 10-15 years we`ll see this stuff, i think - with resolution above 7000x4000 - UltraHD rules

http://www.4gamer.net/games/049/G004964/20110601002/

dx11 revealed @ computex

apparently the patch is coming very very soon

I just don't understand why people are crying about DX11 after patch 1.8.
They never said it was a DX11 patch...But great to see DX11 is at work
and release is "very soon".

I just don't understand why people are crying about DX11 after patch 1.8.
They never said it was a DX11 patch...But great to see DX11 is at work
and release is "very soon".

where did you hear "very soon?"

I'll believe that when I see screenshots of it. But until then, for all they can prove is nothing, not that it even exists.

Hi guys!

I upload the quick DX11 demonstration of Crysis 2 on Computex 2011.

Why do people always think having 60fps all day is necessary. Sure, I like having 60fps all day too on my 560ti, but it's really not necessary when the human eye can only see at 24fps. Hence, movies are only shot at 24fps -- those don't look laggy now do they? When the game drops below 24, or has large fluctuations, then it could be less "comfortable." but you can play Crysis 2 in 3D in 1080P at 24hz (And therefore 24fps) - and get no lag and no difference in speed, playability, etc....like me on my 50 inch samsung 3D tv. thus 60 fps all day is really not necessary, it's more of bragging rights and knowing that you won't have to worry about FPS dropping...

Needless to say...where the **** is DX11 this is ****...I hardly play the !@#$%^&* game anymore- haven't played single player more than 2 levels...multiplayer is fun...but !@#$%^&*, we all bought this for DX11 beast !@#$%^&* graphics, and upgraded our rigs. Ugh...**** console development bottlenecks.[/quote]

Cause synchronizing your FPS with HZ of your monitor gives you advantages of good mouse movements and no mouse lag and of course screen is more stable. You LOW-SKILLED players do not realize that. You will see a big difference staying with synchronized FPS and not 45FPS on 60Hz monitor. Ciao![/quote]


Dude, you need to GTFO of here with your annoying as hell elitist attitude. You are cancer.

Why do people always think having 60fps all day is necessary. Sure, I like having 60fps all day too on my 560ti, but it's really not necessary when the human eye can only see at 24fps.


LOL at everyone who says this it total B U LL SH IT
FYI most console first person shooters are capped at 30 FPS and movement is **** compared to a rig running at 60FPS **** it quite noticeable
i even notice a difference when im running over 60 FPS on my 120hz monitor
Movies run at low FPS becasue it doesn't look natural to run over 30FPS games are not the same as movies


So yea FYI you can see 60 FPS unless you're retarded then maybe u cant

Wow,

TampaBayRaysFTW......dude....you are either:

A. Trolling
B. Talking out of your ARSE man.

The human eye is only capable of seeing 24 FPS. Is that data you obtained from you WIKI ophthalmologic page. I almost pissed myself when I read that. Here is a GREAT idea:

DON'T quote stuff / make up data you have no damn idea about or are completely incapable of making seem legitimate. If you truly think the human eye can not detect FPS above 24.....well lets just say you either have a glass eye or ......lets just say..... bilateral amblyopia. You can look that one up. Its a real name for something that ACTUALLY exists.

OH GOD !!!!!! Thats some seriously funny stuff. Seriously. I love watching people act all elite and quote stats that are COMPLETE FALSIFICATIONS. I'm gonna forward your post to a few friends who will love it. Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.

Oh I could go on and on about that. Lets just say you are full of $#%^ and yourself.

LOLOLOLOL.


OH MY GOD.....i had to edit my post. I read more of your post to see how full of crap you were.

"You can play Crysis 2 1080P in 3D at 24 htz"

NO YOU CANT. 3d monitors run at 120 hertz.....thats why you have to pay for 3d monitors. BECAUSE THEY RUN AT 120 HZ.

You must be trolling.......because you have some serious flaws in your post. Why are you posting in a tech game forum with garbage like that. Oh man.....it just gets better and better.....I may edit in a few minutes after I attempt to grasp how stupid your post was.

This guy is like people I see all day long. I know a lot of you guys reading this will identify with it. Sometimes, people say stuff that is so outlandish and stupid you have to check yourself to see if you are:

1. Awake
2. If you heard that right

Seriously....sometimes people can oooze their stupidity onto you and.....for a moment.....make YOU feel as if you are the stupid one....

Actually to clear that up, I was curious about that, and searched on the net about what the max fps a human eye can detect. There is no actual limit known to what the eye can detect; theres a site documenting this, just google max fps human eye detects, the airforce did a study to see what human sight is capable of, so they tested their pilots by flashing single picture frames at different speeds to them, and the pilots could not only see the pictures but identify each aircraft when viewing a single frame shot above 210 fps. studies suggest the eye detects fluid movement, not single frames as a camera's lens. you dont need 210fps for a picture to appear fluid; thats why at 24hz and 30fps, movies and games appear fluid and continuous. but there really is a difference in how a game looks at 30fps vs 60 and 100 and so on. anyone who's played a game at those speeds will tell you that.

Ya....thats why I laughed sooo hard when he said the limit was at 24 fps. Any moron can notice 30 FPS games on a PS3 vs PC. Just check out Battlefield 2. It runs max 30 FPS on PS3 and 60 or higher on PC. I CAN SEE THAT DIFFERENCE. MY EYES ARE SPECIAL EYES. Lololol. Oh man.

Ya....thats why I laughed sooo hard when he said the limit was at 24 fps. Any moron can notice 30 FPS games on a PS3 vs PC. Just check out Battlefield 2. It runs max 30 FPS on PS3 and 60 or higher on PC. I CAN SEE THAT DIFFERENCE. MY EYES ARE SPECIAL EYES. Lololol. Oh man.

I got some HD .mpg vids that run at 50fps and look fantastic, way better than the 30fps ones i got.

I agree.

I can also detect variation between low and high FPS during gameplay.

And for me a stable 60 FPS is a must for online gaming.

To be honest i think people should play a game at whatever FPS their happy with and get a good gameplay experience.

I'm pretty sure one the reasons movies run at 24 FPS is so they can get the over-exaggerated cinematic motion blur. At 24 FPS, at least for me, it makes the motion picture feel much bigger, much slower, and much larger with the huge blurring that 24FPS gives. After a google or two, I found another pretty straightfoward reason: I don't know why [24FPS] became the standard for theatrical films, but I would assume that price of film stock is at least part of the answer. Each frame of of film is about 0.75" long, so at 24 frames per second, each frame is 18" of film. If they had gone with something like 30 frames per second (which is essentially the standard for TV in North America), it would required an additional 4.5" of film per second. Over a 90 minute movie that would be an additional 2025 feet of film. Multiply that by several thousand prints and you're talking a substantial amount of film.

I guess it's an appeal to antiquity. Lol.