Very sorry but can someone explain what FPS is?

[Archived Post]

Topic
Thank-you

[Archived Post]

FPS = Frames per second. It's how fast the image is rendered on your monitor, or how smooth the gameplay is. Higher numbers are better, but anything over 60 FPS is basically overkill because the human eye can't see a difference over 60 FPS. Also a lot of people label FPS as lag, I have no idea where this came from but it's wrong as they are two different things.

[Archived Post]

i just saw a LOT of topics saying there was FPS problems

[Archived Post]

anything over 60 FPS is basically overkill because the human eye can't see a difference over 60 FPS.

Correction the human eye cannot render anything above 30fps, there are certain exceptions but factually it states nothing over 30fps. Basically meaning if magically you had a solid 30fps no matter which would be awesome you would see not a single hitch

[Archived Post]

Correction the human eye cannot render anything above 30fps, there are certain exceptions but factually it states nothing over 30fps. Basically meaning if magically you had a solid 30fps no matter which would be awesome you would see not a single hitch
Well I was talking in video games, it's basically impossible to tell a difference between 60 FPS and 100 FPS.

[Archived Post]

Well I was talking in video games, it's basically impossible to tell a difference between 60 FPS and 100 FPS.

Well the higher the fps the better i mean it would be lovely to play at 60fps in Champions Online, but i got a feeling this fps issue will not be resolved so quickly. Its not such an easy fix and other games have struggled with these issues for quite some time following launch. Hope this game wont do the same, because it really does hurt gameplay satisfaction =(

[Archived Post]

A small correction to Zoey and Bait12:


The human eye is able to recognize and identify a frame played for only 1/220th of a second. The "limits" come in to play when considering smoothness of motion. The average human eye cannot discern a difference in smoothness of motion above roughly 30FPS.

There are, however, a small percentage of people with more sensitive eyes who can. I am one of those people. I notice a very large difference between 30 and 60FPS in regards to motion fluidity.

[Archived Post]

A small correction to Zoey and Bait12:
The human eye is able to recognize and identify a frame played for only 1/220th of a second. The "limits" come in to play when considering smoothness of motion. The average human eye cannot discern a difference in smoothness of motion above roughly 30FPS.


Thank you for that correction Helios.

30 FPS is considered the standard frame rate that produces a smooth image when progressively scanned (every line displayed in order every frame). 60 FPS is standard when displaying an image that is interlaced (every other line drawn on the screen every frame) because you are only displaying 1/2 the image every frame.

Back to the issue at hand. The higher the FPS the better. I think I get between 25-40 FPS in-game depending on how much is around me.

[Archived Post]

Topic
Thank-you

FPS - First Person Shooter

Yeah.. I went there! :p

[Archived Post]

There is no known maximum for human visual tasking. The illusion of motion sets in at 12-15 Hz, but reflexes can operate much faster. Granted our input latency (visual lag, motor handing, network, etc) is going to mean you are looking at 50ms delay at best, so much over ~20FPS probably won't help too much. </cognitive modeling geek>

[Archived Post]

There is no known maximum for human visual tasking. The illusion of motion sets in at 12-15 Hz, but reflexes can operate much faster. Granted our input latency (visual lag, motor handing, network, etc) is going to mean you are looking at 50ms delay at best, so much over ~20FPS probably won't help too much. </cognitive modeling geek>

It makes me wonder then, why, if I'm not moving and resting at say...22 fps, am I noticing visual hitching?

[Archived Post]

There is no known maximum for human visual tasking. The illusion of motion sets in at 12-15 Hz, but reflexes can operate much faster. Granted our input latency (visual lag, motor handing, network, etc) is going to mean you are looking at 50ms delay at best, so much over ~20FPS probably won't help too much. </cognitive modeling geek>
It may not change the controllability of the game, but it DOES change the perceptual quality of the game. Anything below 30-35fps is going to LOOK "off", regardless of it's effect on our ability to recognise and react to in-game cues.

Remember, it's not just about lag-time for a single frame ... it's also about how the wondrously-effective pattern-finding (and analysing) organ we call "the brain" perceives the total, continuous stream of inputs taken as an aggregate whole. Long before we lose the ability to process and react to individual inputs in a timely manner, our visual percetion will "notice" the teeny, TINY "stutter" of a framerate around, say, 20-25 per second.

And what's worse ... low framerates are not just an aesthetics issue, it's also a real health problem for some people.

Playing at 10fps induces full headaches in both myself, and my g/f - and 10fps is my average in CO; I've actually seen it drop to below ONE per second while travelling. As such, I have been unable to actually take advantage of the Qularr Invasion headstart event; aftr 20-30 minutes, I have to log off, and go take an advil (or five).

[Archived Post]

It may not change the controllability of the game, but it DOES change the perceptual quality of the game. Anything below 30-35fps is going to LOOK "off", regardless of it's effect on our ability to recognise and react to in-game cues.

Remember, it's not just about lag-time for a single frame ... it's also about how the wondrously-effective pattern-finding (and analysing) organ we call "the brain" perceives the total, continuous stream of inputs taken as an aggregate whole.

Low framerates are not just an aesthetics issue, it's also a real problem. Playing at 10fps induces full headaches in both myself, and my g/f - and 10fps is my average in CO; I've actually seen it drop to below ONE per second while travelling. As such, I have been unable to actually take advantage of the Qularr Invasion headstart event; aftr 20-30 minutes, I have to log off, and go take an advil (or five).

I have the same problem, but for me it's 25-30 FPS giving me headaches.

[Archived Post]

Well, Helios .. I'll get a very mild tension headach after maybe three quarters of an hour of ~25fps, and it'll take another hour or two at that speed to become a true problem.

But at 10FPS, I go right past mild and into "hmm, where did I put the aspirin, again?" pain, in under 15 minutes.

My lady-love is even worse: perhaps ninety seconds of <30fps, and she's turning the computer off and reaching for the extra-strength headache meds. :(

There is a really good and solid reason why Televisions and Monitors tend to have a very high refresh rate, for example: the faster the cycling of images, the less out-of-synch our brains will feel. As such, the less we're likely to get hedaches.

...

And it occurs to me: I really WORRY what might happen to a borderline Epileptic, if they tried to play past the "this is uncomfortable" stage, the way CO's framerates are right now.

[Archived Post]

Well, Helios .. I'll get a very mild tension headach after maybe three quarters of an hour of ~25fps, and it'll take another hour or two at that speed to become a true problem.

But at 10FPS, I go right past mild and into "hmm, where did I put the aspirin, again?" pain, in under 15 minutes.

My lady-love is even worse: perhaps ninety seconds of <30fps, and she's turning the computer off and reaching for the extra-strength headache meds. :(

There is a really good and solid reason why Televisions and Monitors tend to have a very high refresh rate, for example: the faster the cycling of images, the less out-of-synch our brains will feel. As such, the less we're likely to get hedaches.

...

And it occurs to me: I really WORRY what might happen to a borderline Epileptic, if they tried to play past the "this is uncomfortable" stage, the way CO's framerates are right now.

I find myself reaching for the bottle of Excedrin extra strength fairly frequently these days.

I also find myself forcing myself not to reach for the bottle of Excedrin extra strength out of concern I'm taking too much.

Having hypersensitive eyes sucks.

[Archived Post]

There is no known maximum for human visual tasking. The illusion of motion sets in at 12-15 Hz, but reflexes can operate much faster. Granted our input latency (visual lag, motor handing, network, etc) is going to mean you are looking at 50ms delay at best, so much over ~20FPS probably won't help too much. </cognitive modeling geek>

Great, now can you explain how we can actually achieve 20FPS? All I get is 5-10 and my computer is pretty nice. 2x 8700m (I don't have it running in SLI) dual core 2.33 laptop. Please help I'd really like to play the game instead of getting a slide show.

[Archived Post]

There is no known maximum for human visual tasking. The illusion of motion sets in at 12-15 Hz, but reflexes can operate much faster. Granted our input latency (visual lag, motor handing, network, etc) is going to mean you are looking at 50ms delay at best, so much over ~20FPS probably won't help too much. </cognitive modeling geek>

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Are you honestly saying anything over 20fps is pointless?

I certainly hope not, because that doesn't make the outlook good for fixing the FPS issues if you consider 20 acceptable...

I can easily see the difference between the game running at 30fps and 60fps.

It's smooth enough at 30fps, but that's still too low - especially when it dips below this, but it's noticably smoother between 45 and 60fps which is the minimum I would expect this game to run at considering the PC I have, and even higher for other people based on the specs I've seen people posting.

[Archived Post]

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Are you honestly saying anything over 20fps is pointless?

I certainly hope not, because that doesn't make the outlook good for fixing the FPS issues if you consider 20 acceptable...

I can easily see the difference between the game running at 30fps and 60fps.

It's smooth enough at 30fps, but that's still too low - especially when it dips below this, but it's noticably smoother between 45 and 60fps which is the minimum I would expect this game to run at considering the PC I have, and even higher for other people based on the specs I've seen people posting.

Sounds like you and I belong to the same small percentage of humans with above-average eyes.

[Archived Post]

I certainly hope not, because that doesn't make the outlook good for fixing the FPS issues if you consider 20 acceptable...
Jesus, yes.

...

Evey hour, I inch closer to uninstalling CO and cursing my stupidity for spending so much on it - including the lifetime subscription.

[Archived Post]

Many people like to brag about how many FPS they get in their 'rig'. Even though there is virtually no difference between 30 FPS and 50 FPS, to many 30 is unacceptable because their 'rig' can do '45 FPS in game X', regardless that really, they don't notice a difference, except for the little number on the screen that shows the FPS. Just stop being a FPS slave and remove that from the UI, you'll be much better without it.
But if you do get less than 20 FPS constantly then yes, that is a problem. Either your video card is very old, your computer is slow, maybe you have lots of background things running (stop that torrent client!), maybe you have malware/virus, maybe you need an updated video driver, etc. There are many possible sources (outside the game) that can be the culprit.

[Archived Post]

Many people like to brag about how many FPS they get in their 'rig'. Even though there is virtually no difference between 30 FPS and 50 FPS, to many 30 is unacceptable because their 'rig' can do '45 FPS in game X', regardless that really, they don't notice a difference, except for the little number on the screen that shows the FPS. Just stop being a FPS slave and remove that from the UI, you'll be much better without it.
But if you do get less than 20 FPS constantly then yes, that is a problem. Either your video card is very old, your computer is slow, maybe you have lots of background things running (stop that torrent client!), maybe you have malware/virus, maybe you need an updated video driver, etc. There are many possible sources (outside the game) that can be the culprit.

Way to completely ignore several posts.

[Archived Post]

It makes me wonder then, why, if I'm not moving and resting at say...22 fps, am I noticing visual hitching?

Because that's not what's actually happening. You're staring at the showfps figure as if it really means something, when it's almost completely irrelevant to what you're seeing here - it's a handy diagnostic tool, but as usual, users are misapplying it.

The figure displayed there is the average over time - 22Hz being about 45ms per frame. What's usually happening is frames are coming in like this (numbers are invented for the convenience of an example):

30ms 30ms 30ms 30ms 150ms 30ms 30ms 30ms

That's an average of 45ms, hence this sequence is considered to be 22Hz. You're seeing precisely one glitch on the slow frame, because it's slow enough to interrupt the illusion of motion, but it's happening about three times per second so you think it's a continuous problem. If that one frame wasn't delivered hopelessly late, then the whole sequence would be considered to be an average of 33Hz and nobody would be complaining about it being too slow.

Higher framerates are mostly useless for games. People tend to confuse this with the vertical refresh rate of CRTs, which is an entirely different problem and needs to run over about 75Hz to appear flicker-free. TV and cinemas run at between 24Hz and 30Hz and nobody ever complains about them flickering - because the technology used never delivers frames late. (On an unrelated note, there are some interesting reasons to push film rates up to around 75Hz, but they aren't relevant here)

Gamers invariably believe that higher framerates matter because what they observe is that by increasing the overall system performance so that the average frame rate is up in the 100Hz range, they get this behaviour:

6ms 6ms 6ms 6ms 30ms 6ms 6ms 6ms

So that one late frame is so fast that it doesn't bother them - their experience is roughly equivalent to a steady rate of 33Hz. But this sort of "bigger hammer" approach to the problem is gratuitously inefficient. All that really needed to happen was for the late frame to be fixed. Tracking down the cause and fixing it is invariably a huge pain in the arse though, since it tends to be related to the details of the hardware involved, and could be something annoying like IO delay.

When you observe that 60Hz looks clean while 30Hz looks shaky, all you're really doing is indirectly measuring the duration of the late frame. Gamers would probably be less clueless if more games showed the minimum and maximum frame delay over the measurement period, instead of just the average.

(Caveat lector: people with average frame rates in the 5-10Hz range have a different problem. Don't misapply this. You can't always diagnose the difference just based on the frame rate - but a visual inspection makes it obvious if you know what you're looking for, and this problem is vastly more common in production games since the other kinds are easier to fix)

[Archived Post]

The brain is actually the part that is perceiving and understanding what the 'eye' sees, and that is where the problem is occuring. Miiru is correct on the visual hitching, and it is your brain that is confused by the interuption of the continuous images. There are many additional factors that affect how you perceive motion. Anyone that works in computer animation will realize very early that for motion to look natual you need motion blur.

Motion blur is used alot in film and in numerous games, but not in Champions. When working with computer models I noticed very early that when I render a moving object at 23.97 fps the movement does not look very smooth and definitely not natural, and when I render over film (23.97 fps) it can look out of place with the real footage. BUT apply motion blur and suddenly it will look fine. Even is the option of motion blur was available in Champions I would wager a bet that most people would play with it off as it can make it much harder to target objects compared to the unrealistic crisp rendering we have become so used to.

Without motion blur, you need much higher fps to overcome the hitching that Miiru is talking about, and yes extremely high fps is an overkill as it technically isn't required but I would prefer to have the images rendered faster then I need them. Having frames rendered faster then I need them and making them sit in the front buffer will help overcome for the occasional hickup that WILL always occur on general purpose computers.

The simple pattern is arising though, Champions is not appearing to play smoothly on many computer systems, and work does need to be done to optimize the game.

Cheers

[Archived Post]

But if you do get less than 20 FPS constantly then yes, that is a problem. Either your video card is very old, your computer is slow, maybe you have lots of background things running (stop that torrent client!), maybe you have malware/virus, maybe you need an updated video driver, etc. There are many possible sources (outside the game) that can be the culprit.

No, if it's below a minimum of 30fps then it's a problem.

If 30 is considered the max the standard human eye can see, then it should be above 30 to ensure it is completely smooth.
Being an MMO with many variables that cause the FPS to drop, then having it at a set 30fps isn't enough because it will constantly drop below that - hence why people here are saying they want it running at 40/50/60 fps.

Do you really think that we have all been here complaining since closed beta, through open beta and now into Early Access becase we have old video cards, viruses, drivers, slow processors or torrents running?

Have you taken even a single minute to read any of these posts before posting your ignorant comment?

There are people here with rigs that cost several thousand pounds, and components that are far from old.
We have had these issues for several months, and tried pretty much everything we can on our side - drivers, overclocking (in some cases), completely formatting PC's and installing different OS's etc etc etc - the list goes on and on.

Trust me - if it was something as simple as you have posted this would no longer be an issue.

However, it is still an issue - if it's not one for you, please don't make the people who are genuinely experiencing serious issues look like idiots by posting any more nonsense without reading everything so far.

[Archived Post]

if you play first person shooters like call of duty 4, crysis, you notice the diffrence between 30 fps and 60 fps and above.

[Archived Post]

I guess all those people claiming to have eyes so sharp they notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps will never be pilots or atleast train using actual world simulation software. The government and most business's only requires 30fps to run any training software and most real time simulators only get 30fps depending on what they're simulating anyway.

No offense I really dont believe people can tell a difference between 30 and 60 I do how ever believe people trick their mind into believing it they see a visual difference.

[Archived Post]

I guess all those people claiming to have eyes so sharp they notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps will never be pilots or atleast train using actual world simulation software. The government and most business's only requires 30fps to run any training software and most real time simulators only get 30fps depending on what they're simulating anyway.

No offense I really dont believe people can tell a difference between 30 and 60 I do how ever believe people trick their mind into believing it they see a visual difference.

I know what I see - what you believe is of no importance to me.


Hey I'm a poet and didn't know it. :o

[Archived Post]

Sounds like you and I belong to the same small percentage of humans with above-average eyes.

I'm one of those people too. The difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is as clear as night and day to me. 30 FPS doesn't really bother me since most console games run at 30 FPS, but I can tell it's not near as smooth as 60 FPS.

[Archived Post]

I guess all those people claiming to have eyes so sharp they notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps will never be pilots or atleast train using actual world simulation software. The government and most business's only requires 30fps to run any training software and most real time simulators only get 30fps depending on what they're simulating anyway.

No offense I really dont believe people can tell a difference between 30 and 60 I do how ever believe people trick their mind into believing it they see a visual difference.

Yeah, and I'm sure they run at a constant 30fps, not dip to 5 or 10 at times, then bounce back to 30 before dropping again to 15.

As I said in my post, THAT is why this game should be running at anywhere from 40-60 - because of the constant fps dips.
If it was running higher than 30, then the dips wouldn't be as bad because you may still be above 30fps when it drops.
Staying at 30, and then having drops below that, causes a very noticable difference and makes the game choppy.

[Archived Post]

Well I was talking in video games, it's basically impossible to tell a difference between 60 FPS and 100 FPS.

I dunno about you , but i can tell the difference between 60 & 70. The whole 60 fps max is simply a misunderstanding of the facts.

[Archived Post]

In cinema its about 24 fps and you guys can tell the difference between 30 and 60 :eek:
Gj folks

[Archived Post]

In cinema its about 24 fps and you guys can tell the difference between 30 and 60 :eek:
Gj folks

While you are correct that cinema runs at 24-30 fps you are forgetting that everything in cinema has motion blur. Someone above explained why motion blur lets you be comfortable at 24 fps.

[Archived Post]

How do you show the fps in the game?

[Archived Post]

There is no known maximum for human visual tasking. The illusion of motion sets in at 12-15 Hz, but reflexes can operate much faster. Granted our input latency (visual lag, motor handing, network, etc) is going to mean you are looking at 50ms delay at best, so much over ~20FPS probably won't help too much. </cognitive modeling geek>

Except the lower your fps, the worse it gets during stutter situations.

And won't help with reflexes, but aesthetically, 60 fps looks much smoother when moving or looking around than 30fps.

[Archived Post]

In cinema its about 24 fps and you guys can tell the difference between 30 and 60 :eek:
Gj folks

god why do I reply? you won't even come back here and read this. It's the only explanation for why you are uneducated is because you must not read, only instead decide to write. Love to be heard but not to learn, that's how it is these days.

If you did decide to come back and read, then READ CAREFULLY. In cinema, they work around the limit of 24fps, but I assure you it is on their minds. Movies with a lot of panning and pivoting have noticable stutter and it looks awful. Movies compensate a HUGE amount with motion blur. Blur so bad that you couldn't even put it in a game or people would just turn the option off.

Hard to believe? Consider that when you watch 480i analog television that the 'graphics' on it look better than a video game in 1080p. That doesn't mean that people can't tell the difference between different resolutions does it?

It's the same kind of deal with fps. Games can't make use of the same effects that film and movies do.

[Archived Post]

A small correction to Zoey and Bait12:


The human eye is able to recognize and identify a frame played for only 1/220th of a second. The "limits" come in to play when considering smoothness of motion. The average human eye cannot discern a difference in smoothness of motion above roughly 30FPS.

There are, however, a small percentage of people with more sensitive eyes who can. I am one of those people. I notice a very large difference between 30 and 60FPS in regards to motion fluidity.

Yep, this is so true. Be glad that some of you have eyes that can't detect any further than 30 FPS. I am a long time FPS (first person shooter) gamer and my eyes can detect anything that drops below 60 FPS. So you people whose eyes can see 30 FPS and smooth that's great for you. I see 30 FPS as unsmooth and jerky/choppiness and not as fluid. I prefer and consider 70-120 FPS smooth. It's hard for me to play this game with 30-40 FPS because I can tell it's not smooth. When the game hits about 75-80 FPS then it is smooth for me, 60 is still a little bit choppy/jerky for me.

[Archived Post]

I can play comfortably with 18FPS but I try to make it at least 25. If I see it's over 30 I go and raise some more graphic quality variables like shadows, anti-aliasing, etc.

[Archived Post]

How do you show the fps in the game?

Use the command /showfps 1

[Archived Post]

The human eye can see at average up to about 60fps.. some people can see higher and some lower.

I know for a fact that I can see a difference between 40fps and 60fps.

My friend was claiming to have champions running sikly smooth on his computer.. when I looked into it he was averaging about 30fps.

To me 30fps looks like crap. I am either just picky or I have better eyes than him, either way I can confirm what science already has... people definitely see above 20fps.

[Archived Post]

There is no known maximum for human visual tasking. The illusion of motion sets in at 12-15 Hz, but reflexes can operate much faster. Granted our input latency (visual lag, motor handing, network, etc) is going to mean you are looking at 50ms delay at best, so much over ~20FPS probably won't help too much. </cognitive modeling geek>

I'll have to disagree with this. The human eye can easily see differences up to around 50-60 Hz. I'd say 60 FPS is the holy grail in FPS but back when I had a CRT, I found anything less than 75 Hz, preferably 85Hz, annoying. 60 Hz on a CRT is pure nightmare on the eye.

Anything over 60 FPS won't really help, but anything over 20 and below 60 will. Naturally this varies between people though. As a sidenote, I think Champions might be affected by this more than many other games due to the fast motions possible. When you run with max rank superspeed you move fast, which would make 20 FPS appear very clunky.

[Archived Post]

In cinema its about 24 fps and you guys can tell the difference between 30 and 60

In addition to already mentioned montion blur, very sudden movement in movies in a theatre, is usually very noticeably chunky. This is best visible with strong turning movements but not only.

[Archived Post]

Many people like to brag about how many FPS they get in their 'rig'. Even though there is virtually no difference between 30 FPS and 50 FPS, to many 30 is unacceptable because their 'rig' can do '45 FPS in game X', regardless that really, they don't notice a difference, except for the little number on the screen that shows the FPS. Just stop being a FPS slave and remove that from the UI, you'll be much better without it.


Are you serious? You don't notice a difference between 30 FPS and 50 FPS? I must be in the minority then... because whenever I teleport, I feel it get a bit laggier. I turned on the FPS display and saw that I was dropping from 30 FPS to 26 FPS (which turns red btw - perhaps to mean it's below their standards). 30 FPS is the absolute minimum I consider playable. 60 FPS is the goal, but I wouldn't be upset if I got 50 FPS.

No matter what I turn off, I just can't seem to get beyond ~35 FPS. And it feels just a bit too unstable. I need some buffer room so when dips occur, they don't turn the game into a slideshow.

[Archived Post]

You people comparing looking at a video game and watching a movie are ignoring one massive detail: recorded images pick up motion blur, generated ones do not. The reason why 30 fps in film is not as bad as 30 fps in a game is because cameras pick up motion blur as they are recording (regardless of whether or not they are digital) and transfer that to the projected image. There is no motion blur for a 3d rendered object unless it is included in the rendering engine. This makes "chop" or "hitching" much less noticeable when watching a movie than when playing a game.

And yes, there are people who can notice differences between 30 and 60 fps. I'm one of them, and it's more of a curse than a blessing. Especially on a tight computer budget.

[Archived Post]

Many people like to brag about how many FPS they get in their 'rig'. Even though there is virtually no difference between 30 FPS and 50 FPS, to many 30 is unacceptable because their 'rig' can do '45 FPS in game X', regardless that really, they don't notice a difference, except for the little number on the screen that shows the FPS.
That is not universally true. I do notice a difference between (say) 30fps and 45 fps. I can't point out any one specifi detail, but 45fps is simply more comfortable than 30fps. 30fps feels ... how cn I explain it ... rough, like visual sandpaper. 45fps is smoother than that.

Just stop being a FPS slave and remove that from the UI, you'll be much better without it.
Some of us, though, are actually getting only FIVE TO TEN[/b] fps. This isn't a problem that will be solved by hiding our heads in the sand.

But if you do get less than 20 FPS constantly then yes, that is a problem. Either your video card is very old, your computer is slow, maybe you have lots of background things running (stop that torrent client!), maybe you have malware/virus, maybe you need an updated video driver, etc. There are many possible sources (outside the game) that can be the culprit.
Let's see.

Brand new GeForce GTS 250 (1GB) - card is not old t all.

Dual-core P4, 2.8GHz per core, backed up by 2.5GB of RAM - this machine is not particularlyslow (not blindingly fast either, but not "slow").

Background tasks ... there's the "Gigabyte Gamer HUD Lite" (temp readout and overclocking controls), my firewall, AVG, and that's it. So no, I don't have lots running. (Besides, I can run all that, AND FireFox, and still run WoW at across-the-board max settings and get NO visual stutter.)

There's no malware on this machine, I scan it frequently with AVG. I also, incidentally, use Uniblue Registry Booster to clean out, and even optimise, my registry.

As for the video driver - again, brand new card, using drivers downloaded from nVidia's website less than a week ago.

...

And yet, I've actually dropped to 0.72 frames per second while using a travel power. Go figure.

[Archived Post]

can someone tell me y whenever i try to log in the sever is always down??

[Archived Post]

any one? plz help me

[Archived Post]

You people comparing looking at a video game and watching a movie are ignoring one massive detail: recorded images pick up motion blur, generated ones do not.
Indeed, major computer-effects and computer-animation studios like Pixar have gone to great lengths - and great EXPENSE - to develop ways to add motion-blur to their digital animations, simply because it causes a tremendous improvement in perceived image quality, even with a motionless "Camera", at a theater-standard 24 frames per second.





can someone tell me y whenever i try to log in the sever is always down??

Why don't you try POSTING IN THE APPROPRIATE TOPIC?

any one? plz help me

And then, try waiting an appropriate length f time, for a response. This is a FORUM ... not a chat-room.

[Archived Post]

I dunno if its been said or not, Its also worth noting that the FPS number that the game gives you is an average, so going higher than 30 or 60 FPS can make the game noticibly less choppy. Suppose that for about the first 1/5 of the second, the game chugs along at 10 FPS, then for the next 1/5 20, then it kicks up to 40 FPS for the last 3/5ths. Your eyes will "notice" choppiness at that first 1/5th of a second even if the average is 30 FPS ish. So naturally, going higher than 60 FPS (or as high as you can!) will still produce "visible" results.

edited for math fudging

[Archived Post]

We really don't need to argue what we can see or not see, we all seem to be in agreement that the game preforms poorly and is PERCEIVED by many to be running poorly with respect to how it should run.

I am in complete agreement that Champions runs quite poor. While it is still playable by no means is it optimized and by no means am I completely satisfied with how it runs.

The FPS number measured by the game is hugely flawed if you are trying to understand the problem. With my current settings CO reports a near constand 50 FPS in CO, with occasional dips to mid 30s, it stutters and it bothers me and all everyone wants is for Cryptic to acknowledge that there is a performance issue, and that they are working on it.

For those of you that want to know how you should measure game performance head over to HardOCP (http://www.hardocp.com/article/2008/02/11/benchmarking_benchmarks), it is an old article about how and why they changed there methodology for benchmarking. Then read some of the new reviews, you will find many video cards that number wise were performing very well, BUT as subjective reviewers they report annoying stuttering.

It is this suttering that is ****ing everyone off, if you can't see it great, if your FPS is so high that even the occasional stutter is unnoticable then great, but for a vast majority of players we are simply putting up with it, and its annoying and many what it know if they are working to optimize and fix the game engine.

Cheers, and stop the damn arguement about the human eye, its the game that has issues not your eyes.

[Archived Post]

Yep, this is so true. Be glad that some of you have eyes that can't detect any further than 30 FPS. I am a long time FPS (first person shooter) gamer and my eyes can detect anything that drops below 60 FPS. So you people whose eyes can see 30 FPS and smooth that's great for you. I see 30 FPS as unsmooth and jerky/choppiness and not as fluid. I prefer and consider 70-120 FPS smooth. It's hard for me to play this game with 30-40 FPS because I can tell it's not smooth. When the game hits about 75-80 FPS then it is smooth for me, 60 is still a little bit choppy/jerky for me.

I take it you don't use a standard LCD then? Those only go to 60 FPS... 60 Hz (some a tiny bit higher like 70). Recently 120 Hz LCD monitors have started to appear (as used by the Nvidia Shutter glasses), but that is only this year or so.

Of course if you are using a High Quality CRT (hard to get these days) then 120 FPS is quite possible as well.

Also, why movies don't appear to be as jerky is bacuse they are succesive images with dark in between. The brain interprits this differently then a solid image that just changes (it inserts the missing information). A solid image needs a much higher refresh rate to compensate.

The inserting of missing information by the brain is quite an interesting phenomenon, some composers of clasical music have played around with this and there are pieces where you hear notes that are actually left out :D.