30fps vs 60fps - is there a tech demo out there to persuade the ignorant?

This 3Dfx demo once shut me the hell up. You will need this Glide wrapper to run it on modern systems. It's a side by side realtime 30fps vs 60fps demo. 30fps has motion blur while movement in 60fps is silky smooth(the higher framerate also helps in control input). Now when people start talking about ridiculous 80-100+ framerates that's when i'm gonna have to draw the line and remain stubborn.
 
High Davros.. I think 95 hz or 120hz or something like that at the time. I had a good moniter but played at low res for the fps since I was competitive at the time.

However I still kept Vsynch disabled, and noticed I prefered it. Thats a little bit more controversial I think (frame tearing and the like) as it has to do with how the human eye tracks objects.

But yes, high fps makes a huge difference in tracking fast moving objects as does temporal and screen antialiasing. The more, the better. In Tribes, it wasnt unusual to track players going 300mph or so and time actions on milliseconds worth of frame data. Extremely twitchy.
 
You sure? No IMAX movie that I've seen is 60 fps

Looks like it was short lived and abandoned.
Well, off the top of my head, there are two reasons not to use high frame rates and both are cost related:

1) The film clearly has to be longer and
2) It puts increased stress on the celluloid and thus greatly increases the chance of it breaking.

Many years ago, I watched a documentary** on the format where it was stated that the result (not surprisingly) was perceived to be significantly more realistic at the higher framerates than the standard 24Hz.


**The documentary was actually on the "rolling loop" projector technology developed in Australia, which is where I saw the documentary.
 
Quake 3 has some strange behaviour with high fps. There are various sweet spot values where things behave differently. Something like 120 fps, and multiples thereof.

This persists in engines that borrow some Q3 tech, like the call of duty series. For instance, you can jump higher and scale previously impossible walls if your client is fixed at one of those values.
 
Regarding the original question, just have said fool play a game at 30 fps and then at 60 fps. If he can't see it, then, well, what's there to say. :)
 
Back in the days when we had to choose between 30fps@32bpp or 60fps@16bpp I said I preferred 30fps because 32bit looked so much better ;)

Today of course I want stable 60fps, we don't have ugly 16bit anymore !

Anyone having played a fast paced action game know that high framerate is much better.
 
so whats better :
30fps on single card, or 50fps with SLI/Crossfire? :D (average fps)

Not worth the price neither the pollution or power consumption.

(In case it's not obvious, I'm expressing my opinion there, you're free to have different one.)
 
Send them down to the local big screen TV store and see the sony tv demoing 60vs120 side by side.

That's just interpolated data, and it looks considerably better.
 
Most of the time, people aren't going to notice a difference between constant 30 fps vs. constant 60 fps. The primary issue is that with games, a 60 fps average means fewer very slow frames, meaning a smoother gameplay experience.
 
I can definitely notice. 30fps has a motion blur that you can see in moving objects while 60fps does not. Download that 3Dfx demo in my original post to see for yourself.

Here is a screencap of the demo to show it's side by side comparison. The room is spinning as the ball is bouncing up and down.

clipboard01nj2.jpg
 
It's still the case, though, that it's the slowdowns that are the much more dramatic impact on gameplay.
 
It's still the case, though, that it's the slowdowns that are the much more dramatic impact on gameplay.
Of course slowdowns are more noticeable. But 30fps even constant is noticeable too. There's nothing wrong with a constant 30fps but it would be even more ideal to have a more fluid 60fps.
theres no motion blur in those pics
I'm just giving an example of what the demo looks like. I thought it would be obvious that you would have to see it in motion to see the difference in framerate. The demo and glide wrapper together are a few MB, seeing the demo would put away any doubts some of you may have in the differences with framerate. It is clearly evident when a game is at 30fps or 60fps it's not even a matter of it being difficult to distinguish. The difference is especially pronounced when switching on progressive scan on last gen console games since 480p allows for full frame 60fps.

Also I think some of you with LCDs should take into account the response times of your panels and if they're able to keep up with 60fps. You would need 16ms response time for 60fps but learning the real response time of a LCD can be tricky since manufactures like to stretch the truth on their specs for LCDs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd much rather have a constant 30 fps than 60 fps with slowdowns at times. What happens for me when there are moderate to severe (even minor) fluctuations in the frame rate is a loss of immersion in the game. Still, for racing games and fighting games a constant 60 fps is the best option for me.

I hate slowdowns with a passion. It makes the overall game unbearable at times and I do see it as a detriment to the gameplay.

If anybody still has a Dreamcast and Sega Rally 2 you will be able to see exactly what I mean. Then pop in the 60 fps cheat code and bam!, noticeably better "feel" to the game.


Haven't tried a 120 fps to 60 fps in a big screen TV yet, though I think it might just be my next project aftr I get back from vaction.
 
Haven't tried a 120 fps to 60 fps in a big screen TV yet, though I think it might just be my next project aftr I get back from vaction.
Considering TV's have a 60fps interlaced refresh, there won't be any difference. You'd need to have some sort of motion blur tech to see any.
 
Back
Top