What determines the choice between v-sync and screen-tear in games? *spawn

[nightshade]

Mod : Spawned from the Framerate Analysis thread, where talk was of Call of Juarez's framerate and degree of screen-tear.

(on hearing the framerate is >40 fps).
So the game is a smooth game afterall
Well good for it in a way since the game wud feel bad with unresponsive controls.

But what bothers me the most is why didnt the developers looked after the fact that it tears so much ? There surely should be a way to do the optimization so that it is much less noticeable or maybe so less that its on the same level as GTA4/RE5 !

Because tbh, I think a game with so much Tearing should'nt even be said to be a finished product.[virtually every other frame's torn & that too when the tearing happens almost all over the screen]

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It reminds me of the old days of Quake and Quake 2. Where FPS was more important than removing torn frames. Thus it wasn't uncommon for people to have screen tears in 2 parts of the screen simultaneously. The responsiveness of controls was deemed far more important than screen integrity for anyone that was serious about FPSes at the time. Especially competition level FPS play.

Heh, I have a feeling that when run through PS360's analysis tool, that almost all competition grade Quake 1 and Quake 2 machines would have recorded close to zero FPS due to the massive tearing.

I definitely prefer Quaz/Digital Foundry's method of calculating FPS for a game. Old school as it is.

It appears that Techland has come from that school of thought.

It may also help explain why X360 generall gets no vsync. It's reputation as a hardcore FPS console might be making devs more inclined to gear their game for increased responsiveness rather than increased screen integrity. Imagine the outcry from the "hardcore" FPSers if they suddenly felt that their control input "felt" laggy.

Whereas there's nothing to lose on PS3 by including vsync as many crossplatform games already appear to "generally" run slower on PS3.

Regards,
SB

 

[nightshade]

Well when I play competitive games [mostly COD4] I sure do like to turn off V-sync [exception being TF2..screen tearing hurts that game's look]

.It may also help explain why X360 generall gets no vsync. It's reputation as a hardcore FPS console might be making devs more inclined to gear their game for increased responsiveness rather than increased screen integrity. Imagine the outcry from the "hardcore" FPSers if they suddenly felt that their control input "felt" laggy.

Whereas there's nothing to lose on PS3 by including vsync as many crossplatform games already appear to "generally" run slower on PS3.

Regards,
SB

I really dont think its like that

 

[obonicus]

It reminds me of the old days of Quake and Quake 2. Where FPS was more important than removing torn frames. Thus it wasn't uncommon for people to have screen tears in 2 parts of the screen simultaneously. The responsiveness of controls was deemed far more important than screen integrity for anyone that was serious about FPSes at the time. Especially competition level FPS play.

Heh, I have a feeling that when run through PS360's analysis tool, that almost all competition grade Quake 1 and Quake 2 machines would have recorded close to zero FPS due to the massive tearing.

I definitely prefer Quaz/Digital Foundry's method of calculating FPS for a game. Old school as it is.

It appears that Techland has come from that school of thought.

It may also help explain why X360 generall gets no vsync. It's reputation as a hardcore FPS console might be making devs more inclined to gear their game for increased responsiveness rather than increased screen integrity. Imagine the outcry from the "hardcore" FPSers if they suddenly felt that their control input "felt" laggy.

Whereas there's nothing to lose on PS3 by including vsync as many crossplatform games already appear to "generally" run slower on PS3.

Regards,
SB

Hardcore console FPS players are about as similar to Quake-era hardcore FPS players as a fish is to a dog. No one plays games that fast on console. Hell, people don't play games as fast as CS on consoles. Most of the hardcore, be it 360 or PS3 have no idea what they're seeing, or how responsive their controls are.

 

[JPT]

Hardcore console FPS players are about as similar to Quake-era hardcore FPS players as a fish is to a dog. No one plays games that fast on console. Hell, people don't play games as fast as CS on consoles. Most of the hardcore, be it 360 or PS3 have no idea what they're seeing, or how responsive their controls are.

I used to play a Quake2 mode called Action Quake, but I was vastly better at that than any console FPS.

 

[digitalwanderer]

You do realize you can enable v-sync on Call of Juarez, don't you? I had to figure that one out right away, the tearing was killing me.

It's much better with v-sync on.