Overclock.net › Forums › Video Games › PC Gaming › What is the actual cause of people seeing FPS different than others?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the actual cause of people seeing FPS different than others? - Page 3

post #21 of 30
I would think its a lot to do with what your used to. I played on a crappy laptop for years geting 15-20 fps. Now that I can actually play games at better fps I find anything over 30 to be unecessary and I dont see any difference.
Still going
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k Asrock z77 Extreme 4 EVGA 1070 SC 16gb Samsung LP RAM 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
256gb Samsung SSD Havik 140 Win 100000 Shimian IPSI 2560x1440 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
MK Disco Seasonic x750 Fractal Design Arc Midi  Razer Deathadder Black 
  hide details  
Reply
Still going
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k Asrock z77 Extreme 4 EVGA 1070 SC 16gb Samsung LP RAM 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
256gb Samsung SSD Havik 140 Win 100000 Shimian IPSI 2560x1440 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
MK Disco Seasonic x750 Fractal Design Arc Midi  Razer Deathadder Black 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 30
I think it has a lot to do with frame rates varying.

People see they get an average of X fps but when let's say, Dota 2 team fights, all the effects start going all at once? That's when your "I have X fps" statement is no longer accurate... hence the "I thought X fps was enough but it wasn't"
Yesz
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3570K G1 Sniper M3 RX 480 16gb CL9 1600 1.5v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Seagate 3TB Crucial 500GB SSD 1TB WD Black Noctua NH-D14 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Yamakasi Catleap 27" (2560x1440) dasKeyboard Silent (Browns) XFX 550w Silverstone PS07B 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Nixeus Revel SteelSeries Qck+ SR850/Klipsch 2.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Yesz
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3570K G1 Sniper M3 RX 480 16gb CL9 1600 1.5v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Seagate 3TB Crucial 500GB SSD 1TB WD Black Noctua NH-D14 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Yamakasi Catleap 27" (2560x1440) dasKeyboard Silent (Browns) XFX 550w Silverstone PS07B 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Nixeus Revel SteelSeries Qck+ SR850/Klipsch 2.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheeseinat0r View Post

This is kinda how I feel about the newer high-end TVs. They run at 120 or 240Hz now and the smoothness is a bit strange. Things just kind of seem to flow on an entirely different level. This is especially noticeable with cartoons. biggrin.gif

Unless you're watching cartoons drawn at 120 frames per second (you aren't), you're enjoying the newly patented placebo effect that really pushes these displays over the top.
post #24 of 30
Frame time among other things. The time it takes to render frames can vary and with all the new info being dug up about this, OEMs optimizing for frame time in newer drivers, FPS is on its way out as a measure of performance. It's no longer the optimal method.
Edited by zethGAF - 2/16/13 at 8:11pm
post #25 of 30
Well personally i can tell tell all the difference between 30 and 60 frames. I dont really mind it, but anything below 60 is not too adequate. I think people will eventually just get used to it and end up ignoring it after a certain period of time. I play dayz and arma 2 with 80plus players and most of the time that i am in a high pop area the frames go down to around 20-30. But since i play the game so often it is barely noticeable. I mean like u dont mind it.
post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666lbs View Post

Unless you're watching cartoons drawn at 120 frames per second (you aren't), you're enjoying the newly patented placebo effect that really pushes these displays over the top.

well this brings to mind two things.

120hz displays (proper ones) have a higher refresh rate than normal 60hz LCDs
This helps provide an added smoothness you maybe didnt notice before (even in cartoons not rated for 120hz)

and also, they didnt specify what they actualy meant by cartoons. I know alot of people who would refer to 3d animation (pixar for example) as a "cartoon" of the sorts.
These new animations do come in 120hz. Especialy the ones meant for 3d vision.

after saying all that, a third thing comes to mind.

I dont think there is all that much "placebo" considering the actual topic of this thread, perception of framerates.

i dont know how many times ive pointed out 2 different displays to my GF at walmart, stating "without looking at the specs on these demos. which one is the 120hz?"
and her not being able to give me an answer.
I can see it just by walking by (provided they have a proper 120hz demo video playing)
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaFox View Post

I dont think there is all that much "placebo" considering the actual topic of this thread, perception of framerates.

Hopefully you find this interesting. I didn't realize how lengthy this post would be until I started typing it.

Rarely in PC gaming is there any single thing that has a stronger placebo effect (or skewed perception if you want to consider it that way) than the fps debate. Now I'm not saying anything regarding the fastest that the human eye can see, or any of that standard-issue garbage that seeps its way into this debate via completely unqualified posters all but constantly. I'm not an ophthalmologist, and there's a good chance no one else in these sorts of threads are either so I think it's safe to leave that argument alone since everyone is just parroting what we've heard.

But like I was mentioning in an earlier post, take for example people who livestream at 60 fps on really good internet (or people who record at 60 fps and post a gameplay video somewhere that can display that ie: not youtube). You'll get a slew of responses begging to know how their game looks so smooth even though it's just recorded at 60 fps. I always suspected that the reason for this was that people are used to watching streaming video (be it youtube or otherwise) at 30 fps, which makes the 60 fps look almost artificially smooth. I decided to test this out for myself with a framelimiter in several games. I lowered my fps-cap to 30 and played that way for days. After a few days of playing my games this way (as well as playing Dark Souls at the standard 30 fps) I ditched the 30 fps-cap and went back to gaming at 60 fps (increasing Dark Souls to 60fps via DSFix as well) and lo & behold, my games looked ridiculously smooth. They looked so smooth that I almost felt twinges of simulator sickness. This feeling lasted for quite a while after I reverted to 60 fps. Eventually I was desensitized to the faster framerate and it again felt normal.

In the end it comes down to a few factors but imo two most notably. For starters, there is the question of what is the "standard". With streaming video, it's 30 fps. With gaming, it's often 60 fps (but as I mentioned above, you can lower this to 30 fps as well for the sake of testing yourself). When you experience streamed video or gaming above these norms it will feel ultra-smooth. Over time this feeling does fade out a bit, but the perspective is hard to drop altogether. In my mind I STILL feel like my games are running smoother at 60 fps now, weeks later, even though there is no logic in that whatsoever. The 60 fps I'm running now is the same as the 60 fps I was running before I ever embarked on this little personal experiment.

2nd edit- it's worth noting that during the time that I played at 30 fps frame-locked, it began to feel smoother. Particularly in games that I played with a controller it actually felt relatively normal and I believe that after the course of a week or two I probably wouldn't have felt much difference (at least when playing with a controller) between 30fps and 60fps. HOWEVER, as soon as I went from 30 fps back to 60 fps like I said, I could tell immediately. When I go from my 60hz monitor to my 120hz monitor and play a game that I can run 120fps, I can tell the difference there as well. At least, for a while. Sensitivity to these changes in framerate does seem to diminish over time, and the gameplay experience doesn't actually change that much. Personally, in the end I prefer 60hz/60fps. The jump from 30fps to 60fps really did feel dramatic after a few days of testing, but once I settle back to the 60fps norm it feels comfortable. When I play on 120hz I get twinges of simulator sickness even after time has passed, so in the end I guess it's just not for me. My scores in games like Source and BF3 don't reflect the change between 60hz and 120hz anyway.

I mentioned a couple of factors at play, and imo there is another one. Input device. When you're using an analog controller, you can notice changes in framerate and smoothness but your body doesn't have the same feeling of attachment to it that it does to a mouse, which so accurately correlates onscreen movement to hand and arm movement. Because of this, you can feel things like small frame-dips much easier when you're playing with a keyboard and mouse than you can when you're playing with a controller. This goes off on a slightly different but imo equally interesting tangent, but would probably be saved for a different thread.

Point being, you can artificially increase and decrease the sensitivity of your perception which makes the very narrow-minded techy approach of labeling everything with certainty seem, well, kind of foolish at best. Personally I think this argument mostly exists (and is so vitriol) as a result of the way monitors have been marketed to gamers on a lot of anatomical pseudo-science. A lot of gamers don't have an education focused on anything that would help them form an educated opinion of their own on the topic, so we simply listen to what is crammed down our throats and scream at each other like idiots as a result.

edit- with regard to you and your girlfriend, if I were going to build a point around the information you've given the first thing I would want to know is which of the two of you honestly spends more time using and particularly gaming on the computer.
Edited by 666lbs - 2/17/13 at 12:56am
post #28 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666lbs View Post

*snip*

edit- with regard to you and your girlfriend, if I were going to build a point around the information you've given the first thing I would want to know is which of the two of you honestly spends more time using and particularly gaming on the computer.

I will asses this first

I do tongue.gif

however! that being said, we do both game (however i do play more games more often) and i also have the more powerful computer (well the hardware shares blows back and forth, she has a better mobo, same cpu, however not OCed, i have a better gpu, whatever, not the point)
When we play the same games, i clearly get better fps, she is used to playing at stupidly low fps (less than 30 pretty much at any given time) which she is comfortable with

which supports your theory of being used to a certain framerate

however also you stated that once you jumped framerates even just to 60, it felt so artificialy smooth that you were sick.
This is where our specific scenario does not support your theory.
She hardly notices the difference in frames on my computer or at the store with different TVs even though she is used to sub 30fps, im used to ~60 fps.
so theoreticly the way you put it, i should be noticing less of a difference.

Now, im the more tech experienced one, but i know she isnt a stupid girl.
if it were up to her she would probly be fine with buying herself a standard 1080p tv or monitor and never notice a difference, not buying into the whole 120hz shinanigans.
which is fine, cause for those who dont actualy notice 120fps (or know what scenarios its appropriate for) are simply buying it for bragging rights/placebo .

for those of us who do actualy notice a difference between 60-120hz.... well thats where we are now.
getting sucked into this endless unproovable debate over whether or not "the human eye" is capable of seeing differences in framerates tongue.gif


NOW on that note, i dont belive the human eye has a "cap" for noticing frames.
we arent a machine that renders life at x amount of "frames" when we are looking at movements.
i do belive however that at a certain point you will notice diminishing returns on how high you can crank out a moving "picture"

There are many factors to consider here.
the added smoothness may come from the fact that your brain is seeing such fast motion in clarity (without blur) due to higher framerates. This may also be enhanced by the fact that you are looking at a moving "object" without actualy moving your feild of vision. This is what may cause the "faster than life" vision both you and i mentioned in our earlier posts.

Its a tangled web we weave.


I do belive that we can indeed perceive higher frames than we currently display, and unfourtunately i think the nay sayers have been veiwing non-120hz video (ie, streaming >60 ) on a 120hz display, giving them the perception of "120hz doesnt work"
at the same time as you have those who truely dont acutaly "see" the 120hz cause like above, they see a non 120hz feed but THINK they see it due to being told "YEAH this display has 120hz!!!)

this would cause war between the two sides and those of us who actualy know how to go about the < 60 land of displays get sucked into this war.


Basicly if you can truely notice the difference and find it appealing, feel free to grab yourself a 120hz monitor/tv (of course making sure you have the proper content to display it though)
if you do not notice the difference, dont bother. everyone is different


Sir, i attack your wall of text with my own, engaurd thumb.gif

Eee hehe, i love freindly debates applaud.gif
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaFox View Post

Sir, i attack your wall of text with my own, engaurd thumb.gif

Eee hehe, i love freindly debates applaud.gif

I actually don't think that we disagree a great deal. I definitely can notice the difference between 120hz and 60hz. I could probably pick them out accurately with the appropriate video streaming on them, but specifically when I sit down and interact with them (ie: play games). I may not sense any advantage from it, but the fact that it makes me simulator sick alone would indicate that I can at least perceive a difference (whether that would ever normalize for me is hard to say, since I honestly just prefer playing on my 60hz IPS monitor more than the 120hz for extended periods of time lol).

I think that last point is the most critical. If I watch a movie at 24fps, or tv at 25 or 30, that really doesn't have any bearing on the threshold of my sensitivity to framerates when I then go and play on computer. It's only from actually sitting down and interacting with monitors at different speeds.

I think the last question that I'm left asking (not only other people but myself) is, do I actually game better on 120hz? Like I said, it actually makes me feel a little sick after a while if I'm playing a game with the framerate to match, but even going beyond that I've just never noticed any real advantage. Again, that is for me; not suggesting that applies to all people equally. I'm actually glad that I went ahead and bought a 120hz monitor when I did, since it did successfully dispel a lot of the myth around them stemming from various fps communities, but also highlighted that they are not just voodoo either. You can certainly tell a difference, even if it may not be getting you (or me, really) the gameplay advantage that their reputation indicates.

Great response, too. Thanks a lot for it! thumb.gif
post #30 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666lbs View Post

I actually don't think that we disagree a great deal.

*snip snip*

Great response, too. Thanks a lot for it! thumb.gif

i think we are pretty much on the same page really ^^;

and thank you!

Even if im on the same side as the person im talking to, i still love a friendly intelligent conversation.

I do plan on grabbing a 120hz monitor in the future. will i expect my gaming score to improve competitivly? not really.
however i also wouldnt be suprised if it did. And ill be honest, im not going to say its the 120hz factor. I think if anything it would be the 2ms response time.
I just like how 120hz looks to me. The super smoothness draws me in almost hypnoticly.

---

interesting, this WAS completely unrelated, but during this post i started playing with a spare fan i had on my desk.. i was spinning it with my fingers and i kinda noticed that at a relitivly low rpm, the fins would begin to blur.
then i thought, what would that look like to me on a high fps display at the same rpm??? would the fins blur like looking at it IRL, or would somehow the added perception of video capture allow me to see it differently?

OH NOW IVE GONE DUN MADE MYSELF CURIOUS doh.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PC Gaming
Overclock.net › Forums › Video Games › PC Gaming › What is the actual cause of people seeing FPS different than others?