Can you tell the difference?

Just wondering who can tell the difference when they are playing at more than 25 FPS in any games.
I was playing Counterstrike Source today, and noticed that it was playing pretty jerky. I checked the FPS and it was running at an average of 35. Usually I get about 70+. My ac adaptor wasn't plugged in properly so that was causing it, but I noticed a huge difference in gameplay.
I have seen that "human eye can't see more than 25FPS" mentioned here a few times ( I have also seen the people who say thats wrong and humans can see more), but I thought I'd see how many people can tell the difference.

 

I can see more than 25 fps but I cant tell the difference once it starts getting above 45 or so.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty much the same as that

 

I need 60FPS in games.

 

yea you can totally tell the difference between 25 and 25+ fps

 

I agree with the vampire, once in get to high you can't tell the diffrence but you will notice 25+

 

Yeah me too, but I can't tell the difference between 30-35 FPS.

 

Mine personally falls under 3 zones. I mainly play America's Army and the amount of attention i pay to the game is what actually makes me notice right away when theres a major change in fps

Below 30 - This one jumps out right away. Even if it goes to 29 fps i seem to notice it. Not at all pleasant for playing

30-45 - The playable range. No jerks or anything but i can still notice when im in this zone mainly when i turn around quickly

Above 45 - All systems go, runs smoothh. This is where my current system hangs out so im more into killing people.

 

the 30 fps is from old frame movies that ran at 30 fps

A movie is very different than a video game. People sitting and chatting. Also I believe movies now are more in the 60 fps range

I stop noticing somewhere around 80 fps

 

God, not this crap again.

Movies fake 24 fps. On fast scenes it blurs the scene to look good.

The human eye can see hundreds of fps... it depends on the resolution.

How many fps you can see is different from how many fps make something fluid... The reality is, no less then 500 fps is needed for realism.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

I can't tell the difference with anything over 35 fps.

 

Me neither. God remember that thread with the guy saying he ran CS at the lowest settings in DX7 mode just so he could get 100fps all the time....

I play games at 35fps on my Go7400 and still perform the same as I do on my desktop at 70-80fps easily.

 

Yeah, I don't get any 1337er when I play at my net cafe with all the bling on. It's just personal physiology really.

 

I would gues that the computer showing just the avarege fps for some amout of time, that means that when i shows 25Fps, it is in between 20 to 30 fps for some second and so on. Thats why you can usully see some diffrens. But personolly, when i am in game and not just watching from the side i dont see any diffrens.

 

I can tell the difference up to about 35fps, then it all looks the same to me

 

It kind of depends. On NFS:Carbon, the game has a motion blur feature, so I can play at 20-25 fps and feel fine. But most games don't have this feature, so anything above 35-40 fps seems pretty much the same to me. Anything below that though, and things start to look a little jerky. Not always sure whether this is due the low framerate, or maybe the game really is dipping in framerate because of details, but I do see the difference. I usually get over it though.

 

I just wanted to add that this may be due to the fact that I grew up on console games, which pretty much all run at 30fps.

 

Main thing to remember is that you don't want your game to EVER get lower than 30fps. Even if you top end isn't high, it's the lowest framerate you get that really dictates playability, and to a lesser extent the average. Higher averages denote higher minimum framerate, which keeps play from bogging down in effects-heavy situations.

 

I think 30 fps is more the 'noticable' cutoff point for me.... things just don't seem smooth enough under 30 fps, but 30+ tends to look great

 

I start having trouble with headshots in CS:S at around 40fps, and any lower I just quit or overclock my card because it's unplayable in terms of reaction time and "mouse lag". Mind you CS:S runs at around 60 fps average and breaks 100fps reguarly with all settings to max (no AA though, not needed) on my machine.

 

Like I said, the minimum FPS is the most important number. I'm surprised more reviews don't include this information. If I saw an nvidia card played a game at 80fps maximum, 40fps minimum, and an ATI card played the same game at 100fps max, but dipped down to 20fps, you can be darn sure I'd want the nvidia card to play it on.

 

I find it annoying when frames go up and down a lot especially with lows under 30fps so I usually keep frame limiters on in games such as GTA VC and SA which limit the game to around 30 fps max, and they don't often dip below around 25. For FPS games as long as it doesn't slow down noticeably it's not that bad, I'm not an FPS giant after all!

 

Isn't there a physiological element to it? I thought that humans cannot detect differences beyond 20 fps?

 

That's been mentioned before in other threads, something about the human eye not being able to process more than a certain number of frames, but seeing as I know I can tell the difference up to around 40-45 frames I was just curious about how many other people felt that they could as well.

 

I think we need 24 frames per second for whatever we are viewing to appear to be motion, i.e. smooth and not disjointed, however I think the human eye can process quite a lot higher than that.

 

i can only place CSS at 100+fps..anything less and my scouting goes bye bye (i only use scout...even on tides/office..lol)

 

I can easily tell the difference between 30 and 35FPS, 35 and 45FPS - basically anything up to 60. I'm quite fine with playing games at 35-45 FPS, as that is normally what my laptop is capable of in most games at the settings and resolution I prefer (usually 1280x1024 and maximum detail - works for most games (Battlefront 2, Battlefield 2, CS:S, obviously not FEAR/Oblivion).

I definitely agree here. Having a consistent framerate is very important - as in, the framerates stay fairly steady while playing; within a certain range . It is very useful when reviews include graphs of framerates throughout the benchmark.

 

it actually depends on the game
say if ur playin nfs carbon..............u will make out the difference

for games like UT and CS u wont
atleast i dont

 

Ah, the dreaded awper! Abuser of one of the most heinous oversights in any fps. That's why i stopped playing counterstrike. I know it's a game and it's not real but that's just stupid.

 

That's why I only play no awp maps. That gun just sucks the fun outta it.

 

Petition to nerf the AWP anyone?

 

I'm sure they'll get round to it...just as soon as they fix this dynamic weapon pricing rubbish they introduced a month or two back

 

i can't believe you guys didn't notice but pbcustom said scouting not AWPing

i singled jess paws out cause she's the first one to flame the awp but applies to all other fools that took her lead


scouting as opposed to the awp takes a lot more skill as 1 shot does not kill, thus they have to hit you 1-3 times (depending where they hit you, armor, or how much your hp is taken away already).

takes real skill to play with a scout because by the time it takes them to shoot 2 twice, i can usually rush close enough to kill with an AK


and i love iceworld 2k without the awp or in css dm_iceworld

that is insane chaos



EDIT: oh yea, i can't see diff in 45 fps+, anything lower and it becomes noticable (especially when i play cs at mouse senstivity 6)

 

True, however I believe one can still do with the scout what one can do with the AWP i.e. pop out from behind a wall, shoot someone and pop back all in the space of 1-2 seconds which is so mind-crushingly unrealistic I want to cry. If that's not the case with the sniper as well then I'm sorry but it still displays a hideous ignorance in how real sniper rifles work and as such provides an unfair advantage.

Whatnow? I haven't played for a bit, what's that all about?

 

Basically they introduced a system where an algorithm calculates how much a particular weapon has been purchased and the price changes according to that. I think they have reset the pricing for the desert eagle though as I just checked the prices on the website and its back down to about 650 but a week or two back it had moved up to 12000 making it the most expensive item to buy.

The server can turn the dynamic weapon pricing off but I don't think a lot of people know about it so now I just stay to my "favourite" servers and hardly bother exploring to find new servers.

 

What the... what a USELESS modification! Valve suck, truly. They leave the AWP at it's impossibly unrealistic level and make i even worse by making a DE 12 grand??

I was considering getting CSS again. Don't think I'll bother!!

 

I usually just play servers with no awps and no dynamic weapon pricing. Its still ok without those two

 

let see you walk out, aim accuratly, and jump back behind the wall in 1 sec

takes a lot of skill to actually hit the dude while the dude can spend like 3 sec rushing you till you no longer have the long range advantage.

also, the faster you jump out and aim, the more chance you'll miss



trust me, takes skilll to snipe in cs

though the auto sniper is just GAYYYYYYYy

 

It may take some skill yes but it's still utterly preposterous. Sniper rifles take minute precision to aim properly, time, breathing control... you can't just pop out and headshot someone!

 

I think Jess_Paws was saying that it may take skill, but its a completely unrealistic twitch reflex skill. I'm a sporting shooter, and I can tell you, the stuff you can do with a rifle in CS is just impossible in RL. Games like CS:S and America's Army certainly don't gp for the realism value, which can annoy some gamers. CS most certainly feels like (to me) playing Quake with different textures.

 

well, in real life,

for example.

if you get shot by a bullet, you shouldn't be able to walk as fast as if you didn't get shot, and yet in CS you still can. would you call that cheap?

in real life, most people are not ambidextrous, then if you get shot in one hand/arm, then you shouldn't be able to hold the gun in that hand and the game should force you to hold the gun in the other hand with crappier aim

in real life, a stomach wound, left untreated is almost always fatal, then shouldn't a person getting shot in the stomach constantly lose hp as he's walking around?

in real life, i don't think anyone can continously run as fast as peeps do in CS for extended periods of time, shouldn't they get tired?



see these games aren't made to be real life, it's just a game. In order to include sniper rifles into the game, they had to make it as you say "heinous."

i'd say that i'd rather have sinper rifles in the game rather then none at all, but the auto snipe truly is cheap... as well as the noob cannon

furthermore, it takes sniper rifles a min+ to aim for distances > 300m where as in most maps, there aren't even that much open space in one's line of sight.

finally, it's not like as if you can't go and pick up a scout and use it

 

I'm not saying games should be real to life. That'd be boring. What I'm saying is that not only is that so INCREDIBLY unrealistic that it completely oversteps the mark of artistic licence, it's also unfair to those who choose to awp and makes the game no fun for anyone else.

In BF Vietnam for example, when it came out, the m60 and rpd were FAR too accurate for support weapons meaning people with those who had them could utterly rape those with other weapons due to the higher fire rate and larger magazine/belt box etc. on the first patch it was nerfed to more support weapon like standards, so only accurate really when prone, but with the proper features intact. The coding of the AWP and scout is a disaster and valve should rewrite them making them behave more like sniper rifles, in many many people's opinions.

 

how would you nerf it?

you don't seem to understand how hard it is to snipe someone at less then 300m which imo (i'm guestimating) is around how big a cs map with a clear line of sight to be.

if maps were bigger (maybe 600m+) then yea, i do agree they need to be nerfed

but in order for them to remain competitive among other weaponry, you have to give them extra powers when you're fighting in such close quarter as you do in CS.

if you made them more realistic, as in you need a scout man, you need to hide, lay prone and wait at least a few sec to make the reticule small again and your breathing to calm down for such a small map as let say iceworld, then no one would snipe as they'd be owned instantly.

also, those procedures are only necessary for high powered rifles where you try to kill peeps 600m+ away.

so imo, for a low power sniper rifle as the scout, it's programmed very well to remain competitive with other weaponry in the game when it has such a disadvantage in close/medium quarter fighting

 

How nerf it, maybe make the area at which it is inaccurate decrease more slowly after you have moved, if that makes any sense.

As for high and low power sniper rifles well, low power are (or at least were) usually based on regular combat rifles with a few modifications. Real sniper rifles are used by real snipers who do real sniping, namely M24s, M1s, M82s, Dragunovs, PSGs etc, staying for hours in the same place, hidden, camouflaged and taking out targets at distances of at least 600m often more, something like 1km - 1 mile even. I believe there was a recorded kill by an M82A1 during the first Gulf War at a distance of 2 miles. If they're not applicable to the game (i.e. map size) then I can't support including them but making them utterly unrealistic just to fit with the game.

 

1) i think you have a double negative in that first sentence and i think you mean "reduce the rate at which the reticule returns to its original size when the player has moved"

2) ya i heard some peep shot another peep 2 mile away. didn't know it was in the gulf war. that is an amazing accomplishment. just thinking about all the compensation needed to hit something 2 mile away is just insane

3) i don't like the awp, cause i think it does qualify as a high powered sniper, but i think the scout is okay cause it doesn't really do THAT much dmg for each hit and its still **** hard to aim that thing with its ROF

 

Yeah I think the scout is ok. Not as annoying as the awp for sure. I don't get people who use it but.. whatever.

And yeah I'm tired and my words are probably a bit shot lol.

 

i love the scout for a few reasons:

1) it lets me run fast
2) i have decent aim
3) i can be pretty deadly
4) im a decent strafe artist
5) i know common tactics for D2, that allow me to anticipate a few things
6) its the only gun ive used for months
7) i have pulled off some amazing shots with it

and i dont know what else to say here..i love scout.

the awp annoys me to the point that i HATE awpers...im more of the anti-awper..

 

the one thing that annoys me is people who jump and get headshots whilst they're in mid flight. They're more likely to shoot their own feet than their intended target.

Also, the point about map sizes, why would you bring a sniper rifle to a fight (in RL) when the ranges are between one and fifty metres max? It's just silly, why not bring a submachine gun?

 

jumping headshots annoy me as well, but as i say, welcome to source..the hitboxes are messed up.

i cannot comment about your second paragraph, since i scout in just about every map (tides included..awp map if i can buy in it..etc...)

pb,out.

 

I remember the best shot I ever did. I forget the name of the map now, the deserty one that isn't Dust. I stepped out from behind a wall looking down a short tunnel into an open area. There was a guy crouched waiting for me. I headshotted him in one pull of the trigger with a Desert Eagle and stepped back (not having known he was there before I moved) all in about 1 second. It was beautiful! I Also remember on Dust having a score of 12-1 with an M4.

Nice.