I'm no expert but I believe screen tearing is caused by your FPS - frame-rates per second - being faster than the speed that your monitor can refresh itself. Supposedly, it's dependent on your monitor being able to keep up with a faster FPS. With a low FPS, your monitor probably will not tear but your game will look a little choppy. I think most new monitors only go to about a max of 60FPS, so if your FPS is faster than that you might find some tearing. However, and I'm not sure about this, some of the newer monitors may be able to refresh images at faster rates.

To avoid this problem, it's best to enable VSync options, which caps your FPS to however fast your monitor's refresh rate can allow. That said, I don't know if consoles can enable options like that but it may be that the 360 has built in VSync to allow minimal screen tearing. I've only encountered screen tearing on newish - for consoles - open world games like Fallout 3, and even then it wasn't that bad. Only like a few instances or once in a while.

I don't know, that's about all I know. :shrug:

That's what I mean. It's more about the performance of the game than something graphically or artistically actually in the game. To negate the effect of screen-tearing, Bethesda's only real option is to enable full V-sync and have to deal with the occasional framerate drop, which Microsoft might not tolerate. As with Fallout 3, I expect the PS3 version to have constant V-sync enabled, but have the occasional framerate drop instead of screen-tearing, and I expect the 360 version to have V-sync some of the time, but with it being disabled to avoid a framerate drop (Microsoft is pretty strict on games having to maintain a certain fps, usually at least 30) every now and then resulting in screen-tearing. It's either one or the other. Bethesda may as well let both platform-owners choose which one it is... but I'm not sure how much of either Sony's or, especially, Microsoft's policies interfere with this. I know BioShock had such an option on both consoles, however... but Bethesda will either have to choose one or the other or go back through the game and cut out any situations a bit more intensive than the norm, I would assume.

RDR on PS3 had alot of screen tearing in my experiance playing it on 360 i never noticed it, so on a very loose assumption i would think the 360 does support v-sync and the PS3 can't.

^ My sentiments exactly.

To put it bluntly, that's because the PS3 version of Red Dead Redemption was a [censored] port all around. It's not the most ideal thing to do... basing an opinion of capabilities entirely off of one game... and one of the most notorious examples of poor ports in recent memory, at that. The PS3 does indeed support V-sync. Given when you posted this, you probably haven't seen it, yet... but see my post above. In both platforms, it limits fps, however. On any PC, it's the same thing. V-sync takes a chunk out of your average fps.

Both consoles don't have good V-Sync period.

Thanks for the info, also didn't realise RDR was a bad PS3 port.

I agree with your other post, there are FPS drawbacks from using V-sync so hopefully they can find a nice medium on consoles for it.

don't care, and this is coming from a person that is buying a copy for the 360.

Watch a Tom and Jerry cartoon. That's 24 fps. Losing a few to v-sync isn't so terrible, screen tearing is much worse imo than lower frame rate.

Lol, i like how people yell "fix it!" when they don't even know if its still an issue. Its even common knowledge the footage is from older builds.

Two months before release and while advertising, only a company that doesn't even know the basics of marketing would show an incredibly outdated version of their game. They're still tweaking the game for bugs and possibly even screen-tearing/frame-rate issues, now (ironing out the game's code, really)... but proper practice for a company would not be to show builds from any extensive period of time ago.

This. If your monitor is any good, it will probably be at 60FPS anyway with a few drops to - at probably max - 30 now and again. 60FPS is pretty damn good, in fact, I don't even think you actually need anything higher than that.

I have had an Xbox 360 since shortly after it's release and had a PS3 for a few years, too. I have never once noticed anything like that on either system.

I wouldn't get my hopes up my 360 version of Oblivion still is a crashy mess even with DLC and newest updates. My PC version however is virtually flawless but I don't have expansion for it. However I will say I only have original Oblivion not GTY or Anniversary Edition that might be part of it.

To be honest, assuming screen tearing on the 360 is a problem, I'd rather them spend time on more important issues that more people would notice. Many haven't even noticed screen tearing until it was brought up on these forums.

Too bad it's not :confused:

No screen capture program would ever produce screen tearing, as they just capture what is being rendered one frame at a time before it's being displayed on screen, and horizontal screen tearing is not a single-frame issue. Screen capture softwares might skip frames due to either crappy capturing implementation or machine limits but they just can't tear the image because they would need two frames to work with, and they simply don't work this way. Screen tearing doesn't have anything to do with playback either. It's a rendering issue.

The human visual system does not see in terms of frames; it works with a continuous flow of light information. A related question is, “how many frames per second are needed for an observer to not see artifacts?” (from wikipedia)

FPS varies considerably from film to film and game to game to adhere to the above question, animations are probably the most simple form of film in terms of this so it's not a great example.

There are certains tricks like blur that can compensate for a lower frame rate etc

24fps could look totally wrong in a film or game even if it looks right for tom and jerry.

Me too, Believe me...If it was created on the Xbox and will Port over to PS3....The PS3 will probably have it worse than the 360 version

I'm not sure why consoles can't use vsync, its not like its a real resource hog, it only lowers fps by about 1-2 frames, is that really so much that they cant use it? Most of the time games are at there 30fps frame cap and could probably run even faster if they weren't limited by it.

Actually, low FPS can produce screen tearing too. Screen tearing occurs when the frame rate is neither an integer multiple nor an integer factor of the refresh rate (at least in the case of double buffering).

If you don't care,don't tell us.
We don't care.

Well, the speed impact of Vsync is only minimal when triple buffering is used, but triple buffering costs in VRAM usage - and VRAM is a precious resource on consoles.

people were saying they didnt know if the ps3 version was gona be any good, and they kinda made skyrim for the 360, but now its the 360 having problems??? hahaha, glad im on ps3 :celebration:

Hard to know whether the PlayStation 3 version has problems when no one has (knowingly) seen any footage from it.

Crashy Mess, Like it Crashes? I've played the Xbox360 Version for literally hundreds of hours, and (Clavicus Vile lockup excluded, which was patched), I've only had it Freeze and/or Crash eight times.

My PC Version on the other hand, Crashes every 3-7 hours. Though I'll always prefer that version anyway.


Anyway, I actually didn't see any screen tearing, and I've gotten real familiar with finding it. Playing Mass Effect again so I have my Import read for Mass Effect 3 (Old HDD pooped out). I don't know how many people are familiar, but the Xbox360 version of Mass Effect Tears like (resisted urge to make sixual reference) cheap tissue.