Shifty Geezer said:
i knew there was some misunderstanding here.... im not talking about Mckmas...
i quoted dukmahsik not Mckmas.
here, Dukmahsik -> http://forum.teamxbox.com/member.php?userid=30189
i
Project Gotham Racing 3 Designer Diary #1 (new screens!)
- Thread starter mckmas8808
- Start date
i knew there was some misunderstanding here.... im not talking about Mckmas...
i quoted dukmahsik not Mckmas.
here, Dukmahsik -> http://forum.teamxbox.com/member.php?userid=30189
i
@1280x1024 w/ 4xAA on a top end PC with an X1800XT--which is not even available on the market--CoD2 averages ~56fps. The Xbox 360 version, at 720p, is locked in at a fluid 60fps meaning it is averaging well above 60fps. There is some more information on this here. To sync with a TVs 60Hz to get a solid 60fps you will need to get an average framerate above 60fps. In almost all cases if your average framerate is at 60fps it is going to jump up and down significantly. Solid 30fps > Jumpy 60fps. Based on the recent X05 comments CoD2 is one of the two games with the smoothest framerates.pjbliverpool said:
From a theoretical peak performance standpoint Xenos is faster than R520 (~240GFLOPs vs. ~170GFLOPs); from an architectural standpoint (PS:VS load balancing with the USA, eDRAM with on-die logic with ROPs designs for 4xMSAA, etc) Xenos is more effecient than R520 and would have better utilization of its power and fewer bottlenecks. CoD2 does not use HDR, but if it did the combo of HDR+MSAA would be a larger impact on an X1800XT than Xenos (one of those architectural advantages). Processor wise x86 are better general performance CPUs, but the XeCPU has a decisive edge in FP for tasks like particles that CoD2 makes extensive use of.
Considering CoD2 was primarily designed for the PC and the devs have had limited time with the Xbox 360 dev kits and architecture getting the results they have out of CoD2 is pretty impressive.
It is well known that the Xbox 360 and PS3 both have GPUs that are more powerful than the current desktop counterparts. Heck, if RSX is "only" an overclocked G70 with a FlexIO interface you are talking about a 28% bump in performance over the 7800GTX, not to mention all the advantages of a closed box system and being fed by a FP monster which should be an advantage in many gaming situations to increase eye candy and fluidity.
What dukmahsik is saying on other forums is utterly irrelvant. Here, in this one thread, he replied with a smilie that it was silly for Mckmas to try to resist the lure of PGR3 on XB360. Hell I don't even know if the person you're thinking of is the same person here. Maybe they just copied the name? Rather than bringing external relationships/conflicts into the forum, leave everything else outside. Treat everyone here as a unique individual from their supposed presence elsewhere. Goodness, it's bad enough the interpersonal grudges some have on this forum, let alone importing more!dskneo said:
mckmas8808
Legend
dskneo said:
Well nice avator on that site Dukmahsik.
And now back to your regurlarly scheduled topic...
I saw PGR3 in person yesterday in NYC and it looked fantastic in motion, better than the videos. I'm not a racing fan usually but ill be buying this one.
Its funny how the crowd there 'oohed' and 'aahed' over stuff these forums rip on for pages at a time. There may be hope for mainstream acceptance of 360 after all!
I saw PGR3 in person yesterday in NYC and it looked fantastic in motion, better than the videos. I'm not a racing fan usually but ill be buying this one.
Its funny how the crowd there 'oohed' and 'aahed' over stuff these forums rip on for pages at a time. There may be hope for mainstream acceptance of 360 after all!
Acert93 said:
well, that's not quite right. you may have an average of well above 60fps and still have dives. to get a stable 60fps you need not have a single frame longer than 1/60sec. but steady 1/60 times would also do, in which case you'd get an aveage of 60fps and that'd still be solid synced at 60Hz. bottomline and my point being, solid 60fps is not a matter of average framerate ; )
I am not sure what you are disagreeing with and what you believe I am incorrect on. I actually allude to this very scenario in the part of my post you quote; note the bold:darkblu said:
Acert93 said:
Almost all cases = Frame-to-Frame rendering speed varies dramatically
Rare cases = Frame-to-Frame rendering speed is extremely consistant
I specifically noted "almost" due to the very thing you point out: The rare/non-existant game that actually not only averages 60fps, but is a stable average 60fps frame to frame, scene to scene, etc. Hence "almost". It is basically a moot point, but I was careful to allow for the exception in what I said.
That was my point, thanks for restating it.
Not necessarily.expletive said:
A couple frames here and there below a rate of 60fps is not going to be a deal breaker. The problem is when you spend a significant amount of time jumping from 30fps to 60fps. In my experience, and of that of a lot of people I know (and also of the game reviewers I trust), the general consensus is that a game locked at 30fps is more fluid and appears more stable than a game that constantly "hiccups" and drops frames and bounces from 60-to-30-to-60-to-30 etc. A jumpy game, although it averages a higher frame rate, appears choppier than a solid 30fps to many people.
But a few drops are not very noticable in most cases.
So your minimum framerate in any given sample is most likely going to be below 60fps, even if your average is well above 60fps. Take Doom3 on the 7800GTX. Even capped at 60fps you can see the game drop a bit below 60fps. Even an SLI rig does. (Note in that link the average FPS is lower than 60fps because of the cap; if there were no cap the average would be well above 60fps, but the drops would still occur).
Of course Doom 3 on a 7800GTX or 7800GTX SLI is very smooth, even if it drops some frames. The key is limiting the number of drops. The higher the number of drops the greater chance you will begin to "annoy" someone or they will notice.
This is one reason on the PC I prefer, graphically, games that are either very stable OR setting the resolutions/features for a game on my video card in a situation where the drops are not as noticable. e.g. Playing BF2 and seeing the framerate drop to the 20s when I am averaging above 60fps is REALLY annoying. An average of 60fps is usually just not enough if there are big jumps so settings that bring the framerate in the 80s (or a better GPU!
) really make things a lot nicer!Some drops are ok, but the constant jumps are very annoying in any game. I am not sure there are any hard and fast rules on what works and what does not. I think most developers would eye ball it and test it and go with what works best at the end of the day based on impression from the dev team and testers.
Acert93 said:
i believe i quoted exactly the two sentenses of yours that needed correction, nothing more nothing less. if you don't believe them to read what they appear to (not only to me, apparently) you can go on and correct them/clarify them so that they start to be correct.
it's far from being a moot point. that's _how_ you get stable 60Hz synced framerate - when every one of your frames takes (1/60 - epsilon) secons, epsilon being a non-negative variable, and then your rendering/frame composing thread "wastes" (i.e. technically sleeps over) that epsilon, that's the technical mechnanism behind 'stable 60Hz framerate'. it produces _consistent_ 60fps, and that framerate also _averages_ at 60, and that's what developers mean when they say 'stable 60fps', marketing an PR speak notwithstanding. eveything else you may encounter referring to 'average' is not stable, no matter how much higher than 60 that average may be. ok?
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow. Not only do you completely misread an earlier post by another member, but now you seem to split some imaginary hair with a respected member. Here's what I got so far:darkblu said:
Yours:Acert93 said:
So you're saying that having an average of above 60 is not good enough--you need to have an average of at least 60.
Maybe I misunderstand what "average" means here?
.Sis
I say, "Almost all birds can fly".darkblu said:
You say, "That is not quite correct. Some birds do not fly. Penguin being an example".
"Almost" is not a "Statement of Totality". Almost is a modifier. Since you are being dogmatic about the meaning of a statement I wrote and insisting it means something other than the plain English or what I meant there is no point to continue. Your "correction" only continues the same point I made and we are in agreement.
I don't see anyone else having the same problem you are having with my English.
That was my point last week. And that was my point in this thread so thanks for restating it. Again.
The good news is he is making the same point I am!Sis said:
The same one I made last week in which I provided nice charts too, here. But hey, if he wants to argue based on a misunderstanding of the subtleties of English and restate my point over and over, hey, I am all for it! At least my point will get through! No harm no foul.As for splitting hairs, I got a lot of them so split away! All I request is you start with the ones on my back
Sis said:
wow indeed. read further.
no. you've plain misundertood what i wrote. go read it again, particularly that sentense with the 'bottomline' word in it. maybe before accusing me of 'hair-splitting with respected members' you may actually care to comprehend the discussion?
Acert93 said:
um, no, it actually went like this:
you said:
me said:
in other terms, the measure of 'average fps' gurantees you nothing about 'stable fps'. there goes your first sentense. in addition to that, you may have a framerate of exactly 60fps, hence averaging at 60, and that is not in 'rare cases', on the contrary - that's how it actually works, as i cared to explain to you. so there goes your second sentense. now, i hope that clears it up.
ps: apparently other forum members can see that.
expletive said:
You are still missing the modifier "almost"! After making a statement I immediately qualified it. And that qualification is being generous considering the fact I have never in my life seen a single game that is stable enough to average 60fps and never have dips. EVER. I threw in the qualifier because I knew someone on this forum, like you, would want to nit pick for the very point of being abbrasive. The fact you want to twist my words and ignore what I said--and the links I have shown to back up my statement--is amazing.
Further, what he is agreeing to is the exact same thing I have already stated before. So how in the world you can take what he said about the substance of my posts and twist that to "other forum members can see" errors in what I said--when they are agreeing with me--is beyond me.
Is English your first language?
After making a statement I immediately qualified it. And that qualification is being generous considering the fact I have never in my life seen a single game that is stable enough to average 60fps and never have dips. EVER. I threw in the qualifier because I knew someone on this forum, like you, would want to nit pick for the very point of being abbrasive. The fact you want to twist my words and ignore what I said--and the links I have shown to back up my statement--is amazing.
First, explitive only said he agreed with something you said--he never said anything about the "deficiencies" in what I said.
Further, what he is agreeing to is the exact same thing I have already stated before. So how in the world you can take what he said about the substance of my posts and twist that to "other forum members can see" errors in what I said--when they are agreeing with me--is beyond me.
Is English your first language?
Acert93 said:
first, i did browse through your links, i may not have read every single word but the charts were nice. second, i'm not twisting your words - i've been merely quoting them. and it's not like somebody was arguing about the 'relevance of average framerates to stable framerates' when you stepped in and introduced your 'average above 60' concept. now, why when knowing that it's not a matter of average framerates but one of _minimal_ framerates, as you say you do, you'd still insist on average is beyond my understanding. especially when you tried to explain why the minimal fps was not so important in your reply to expletive.
he agreed to what i said about something you said. that looks to me like he's seeing deficiencies in the average fps apporach.
i didn't find, at least not in this thread, any place where you actually point out the significance of minimal framerate. please correct me if i omitted something you said.
no, it's my 3rd. my spelling sucks but hey, i have other greater deficiencies. like failing to see your point ; )
Last edited by a moderator: