Importance of 60 fps in arcade/simulation racers *spawn

[MrFox]

The precision of your control and your reaction time won't change between 30fps and 60fps. Your most important and precise movements are linked to anticipation, conditioning and feedback. This isn't a first person shooter.

I'll take a rock solid 30fps over an irregular 60fps any day. So it's either they succeed with a stable 60fps under all circumstances, or they should lock it down at 30fps because dropped frames at corner entry will seriously cramp your style.

 

[Jwm]

Can't wait to see better vids, the YT compression is killing it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Your most important and precise movements are linked to anticipation...

This is very true. In a traditionally racer, you are planning ahead. Most immediate changes are happening on a scale of 100s of ms I dare say (human reaction time). There are lots of plus points to 60 fps, but I wouldn't say poor control at 30 fps is one of them. For me, the games that most need 60 fps are those that have a lot going on, either with broad camera changes or lots on screen at once. A racing game doesn't fit that bill.

 

[tuna]

The precision of your control and your reaction time won't change between 30fps and 60fps.

I totally disagree. You can "see" in motion much more clearly at higher frame rates and then your brain can figure out what is going on faster.

 

[Davros]

I totally disagree too, a fast car can cover 300 feet per second thats 10 foot every frame at 30fps.
That means you can only see your travel along the track in increments of 10ft at 30fps, that would be terrible in something like nascar that has a lot of cars closely following each other.

 

[-tkf-]

I totally disagree. You can "see" in motion much more clearly at higher frame rates and then your brain can figure out what is going on faster.

The difference is so small it's not a twitchy game where milliseconds count . I prefer 60 simple because I prefer the smooth look it gives, the actual advantages in game play in arcade racers are small to non existent.

 

[-tkf-]

I totally disagree too, a fast car can cover 300 feet per second thats 10 foot every frame at 30fps.
That means you can only see your travel along the track in increments of 10ft at 30fps, that would be terrible in something like nascar that has a lot of cars closely following each other.

Well you are looking a bit further than 10 feet, you don't react to something that is stationery and 10 feet away from you, and the rest of the cars are moving in the same direction as your car.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I totally disagree too, a fast car can cover 300 feet per second thats 10 foot every frame at 30fps.
That means you can only see your travel along the track in increments of 10ft at 30fps, that would be terrible in something like nascar that has a lot of cars closely following each other.

But nothing's going to happen in that 10 feet that can be solved by seeing it at 15 feet thanks to 60fps. If there's an obstruction, you'll see it 300 feet ahead (on a straight where you're reaching those speeds) and have plenty of time to adjust. All those cars in Nascar are travelling the same direction at roughly the same speed, so the perception for the drivers regards the other cars is like travelling at 5-10 mph. Random YT video, 30 fps...

You're going to have several frames of changes before you react to anything like a car pulling in front of you. You don't need to worry about tracking high-velocity objects to dodge them or anything. Here's Motorstorm at 30fps. Far more dynamic than a road racer, yet eminently playable. Plus a great sense of speed due to the mo-blur.

Looking at NFS:Rivals videos, that came could have benefited from 60 fps. I think DriveClub won't suffer save for those who love 60 fps. It'll be playable without compromise despite the lower framerate.

 

[Phil]

For me, the games that most need 60 fps are those that have a lot going on, either with broad camera changes or lots on screen at once. A racing game doesn't fit that bill.

I cant say i agree. In a racing game, you are constantly moving. Most pixels that represent moving scenery, road surface, other cars - anything other than your pretty static dashboard or your bumper is moving at high velocity. At fullhd resolution, the majority of pixels - yes the pixels that are moving to give you the perception and immersion of speed - are covering extensive distances on your screen. Going through a hair pin will have a movement speed similar to a twitchy shooter - pixels traveling the full length of 1920 pixels in a full second. At 60fps, you aproximately have jumps of 30pixels per frame - at half the frame rate double. I dont think we need to point out how jerky that looks and feels.

Then there's also the argument that the average tv screen sizes are getting larger - at least larger than they were 10 years ago. Larger screens amount to larger distances 30 pixels represent. I have around 3.5m diagonal screen size on my projector - wanna guess the length of 30 or in the case of 30fps, 60 pixels in centimeters?

At some point - you are moving towards the jerkyness you'll experience sitting close to the screen in a movie theater watching a 24fps landscape pan. In a video game, this effect in usually exagerated due to not having the motion blur a video camera recording will give you.

Then there is also the argument of visual feedback and reaction time. Sure, a racing game may not require the same reaction time a shooter does - but accurately maneuvering a car at high speed, simulating bumps, oversteering and other factors are greatly improved at a higher framerate. Just play wipeout among others - and imagine how that plays at half the framerate, half the visual feedback, half the precision. In fact, play it on psone (i think 30fps) or the PSP version. Then come back and tell me it doesnt matter.

 

[Jedi2016]

Okay, this is getting kind of ridiculous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAA1xgTTw9w

The game is 30fps. It's always going to be 30fps. It's never going to be 60fps. Ever. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you must argue the merits of 60fps, for the love of all that's holy, take it somewhere else so the rest of us can get back to discussing the game. Thank you.

 

[djskribbles]

Or please spawn a new thread.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I cant say i agree. In a racing game, you are constantly moving. Most pixels that represent moving scenery, road surface, other cars - anything other than your pretty static dashboard or your bumper is moving at high velocity. At fullhd resolution, the majority of pixels - yes the pixels that are moving to give you the perception and immersion of speed - are covering extensive distances on your screen. Going through a hair pin will have a movement speed similar to a twitchy shooter - pixels traveling the full length of 1920 pixels in a full second. At 60fps, you aproximately have jumps of 30pixels per frame - at half the frame rate double. I dont think we need to point out how jerky that looks and feels....

I agree 60 fps look better. It's smoother and less jerky and gives a better flow. What I fundamentally disagree with are those saying 30 fps renders a racing game nigh unplayable. We have the existence of racing games that are playable at 30 fps very clearly disproving that. The changes on a race-track are few and far between and pretty gradual so high temporal resolution, no matter how desirable, is not a necessity.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Or please spawn a new thread.

Agreed. The last two pages have nothing to do with DC

 

[Davros]

But nothing's going to happen in that 10 feet that can be solved by seeing it at 15 feet thanks to 60fps.

Its more like 5 feet, If your 200ft away from the start of a corner and you want to brake at 95ft from the corner you cant do it properly at 30fps, (you will only see 190ft, 180ft, 170ft ect) you may not think 5ft matters but when pole position can come down to 1/1000 of a second it does.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The physics engine runs at 60+ Hz. You won't press the brake by arriving at the 95ft mark and suddenly reacting in an instant. You'll see the point you want to brake at approaching (you'll also have it memorised well in advance if a high-level racer) and press the brake at the right time. You'll actually start pressing the button before the 95ft mark to engage the brake exactly when you want it to engage. Racing isn't about instant reactions (which are never instant) but being well informed by constant input/feedback.

 

[-tkf-]

Its more like 5 feet, If your 200ft away from the start of a corner and you want to brake at 95ft from the corner you cant do it properly at 30fps, (you will only see 190ft, 180ft, 170ft ect) you may not think 5ft matters but when pole position can come down to 1/1000 of a second it does.

The amount of racing games where 1/1000 matters can be boiled down to Grand Turismo. Even in f1 it's rare that it's so close.

But it really doesn't matter, since everyone is playing at 30 fps no one gets the 5 feet advantage..

 

[Davros]

but being well informed by constant input/feedback.

but your feedback isnt constant at 200mph you get input every 10ft

You'll actually start pressing the button before the 95ft mark to engage the brake exactly when you want it to engage

Agreed and if the point you need to send the signal to your foot to hit the brake at the 95ft is at the 115ft mark its still less than ideal.

But it really doesn't matter, since everyone is playing at 30 fps no one gets the 5 feet advantage

true of course, but then again if you consider your opponent the laws of physics as I often do in simulations of real life races then not so true.

 

[MrFox]

1. The rendering pipeline is already causing a lag of at least 32ms to as much as 100ms, I have no idea why this wouldn't be a more important issue in this case.
2. Your TV adds somewhere between 16ms and 100ms depending on the brand.
3. Your brain requires 100ms to react to a visual stimuli.
4. A force-feedback wheel will take over 100ms to turn it because it has mass, and because it's pushing against your muscles. Similar situation for load-cell pedals.

That's at least a third of a second. Adding or removing 16ms of lag on the pipeline won't change anything to your lap times. The brain adapts to reach a perfect timing, as long as this lag (controller+pipeline+TV) is stable. If it had have any impact, the best players in the world wouldn't use a force-feedback wheel and load-cell pedals. They would use a DS3 with hair triggers.

 

[London Geezer]

^ this.
Case closed.

 

[Jedi2016]

The big difference between racers and other types of games that are typically viewed as "requiring" high frame rates (such as shooters) is that there really isn't any such thing as a "twich" racer. You don't need to spontaneously react to anything because the track itself is static.. you know when the next turn is coming and how to handle it. Even in multiplayer, most drivers tend to follow similar tendencies, so you know what the guy in front of you is going to do as he goes into that corner.

What this argument boils down to, IMO, is the sense of speed, nothing more. Higher framerate = moving "faster". Especially at high speeds, where the jump from one frame to the next can be several feet.. being able to see more frames greatly enhances the sense of speed. Blending those frames together via motion blur also eliminates that "jumpy" look from the so-called "low framerate". IMO, the experience, the "sense of speed" is identical to the higher framerate, if not even moreso... actually seeing the environment around you start to blur as you pick up speed in many ways enhances the sensation of fast movement.