John Carmack: Next-Gen Consoles Will Still Target 30fps

Status
Not open for further replies.

friskiest

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2011
126
0
18,680
0
There's a big difference between 30 and 60 FPS, but I do agree on jacking up the visual instead of a higher FPS. Alot of console players would probably appreciate a step-up on graphics (compared to current generation) than anything else. I don't know- maybe putting more effects/visuals is less compute-intensive than doubling the framerate especially within the price that customers expect to buy it. A decent PC won't have this problem though.
 

friskiest

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2011
126
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]supall[/nom]I wasn't aware that hz and fps were interchangeable.[/citation]
I don't think they are but for the sake of making it simple I guess they could be (occasionally).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Will stick with my gaming PC that gets 90-120 fps in current games at 2560 x 1600 res max settings with a single gtx 690. Consoles lol.
 

trumpeter1994

Honorable
Mar 27, 2012
311
0
10,810
8
Alot of the console gamers I know would side with the 30fps and better visuals, I don't think they even notice it well until I(the PC gamer) comes over and starts pointing out how I can see the lag because I'm used to 60fps.
 

burlyed

Honorable
Oct 16, 2012
5
0
10,510
0
"Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (22 February 1857 – 1 January 1894) was a German physicist who clarified and expanded James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light ... The scientific unit of frequency — cycles per second — was named the "hertz" in his honor." - Wikipedia
 
G

Guest

Guest
Yo Kevin,

"...fondled the next-generation console "...what's up with that?

 

JOSHSKORN

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
2,380
17
19,795
1
[citation][nom]rds1220[/nom]Pff consoles... 30 fps no thanks I'll keep my gaming computer that 60-130 fps.[/citation]
Have fun with that. I'm sure you'll be able to get the same titles, too. Right? Look what happened after Halo 2. No more Halos on PC. :(
 

atikkur

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2010
327
0
18,790
1
why not next-gen PC? now it's the time for PC gaming.
i think what the most important is a steady fps.. 36fps is good enough as long it's steady.
 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
947
0
18,990
1
I prefer 60fps in a game. Whoever says you can only see 24hz wasn't around in the old CRT monitor days. I could see a flicker on a 60hz monitor, and had to jack it up to 85hz to make it acceptable. FPS on an LCD monitor isn't as noticeable because of the reaction time, but I can still see a laggy kind of flicker when I play Halo on my xbox.. which is one of several reasons I only played it once.
 

rds1220

Splendid
I don't like Halo so I could could careless if it goes away. For the most part most games that you can get on consoles you can get for computers too. The problem is that they port these games for crappy consoles and then when it comes to comuters the gams perform like crap. Right now there are enough that it still makes it worth having a gaming computer especially since computers out perform consoles. I can barely stand 60 fps let alone 30 fps. As I said 30 fps no thanks I'll keep my gaming computer that will out perform any of the consoles.
 

boju

Titan
Ambassador
Copied from wiki.

Persistence of vision may also create an illusion of continuity, allowing a sequence of still images to give the impression of motion. Early silent films had a frame rate from 14 to 24 FPS which was enough for the sense of motion, but it was perceived as jerky motion. By using projectors with dual- and triple-blade shutters the rate was multiplied two or three times as seen by the audience. Thomas Edison said that 46 frames per second was the minimum: "anything less will strain the eye.
Think they're talking about shutter movies, not sure. But still, movies today with fast action sequences is quite hard to focus on surrounding objects. Have yet to see the Hobbit but have heard those blurred objects from motion blur will be extremely clear to the point it would feel uneasy at first. Just like going from a 60hz to 120hz monitor.

Games i assume would behave the same way with motion blur below 60hz
 

branflan

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2010
14
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]soldier2013[/nom]Will stick with my gaming PC that gets 90-120 fps in current games at 2560 x 1600 res max settings with a single gtx 690. Consoles lol.[/citation]

I will stick to bragging about my hardware (that I probably don't even have) on forums.
 

rds1220

Splendid
I really could careless if Halo goes away I don't like it anyway. The problem I see and I'm tired of is that game developers port these games to crappy consoles then when it comes to computers these same titles perform like crap again becaus they are ported for consoles. There are enough games out there that have titles in both consoles and computers and considering that computers easily outperform consoles I'll take a gaming computer without thinking twice. As I said 30 fps no thanks I'll keep my gaming computer that 60-130 fps.
 

rds1220

Splendid
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Have fun with that. I'm sure you'll be able to get the same titles, too. Right? Look what happened after Halo 2. No more Halos on PC.[/citation]

I really could careless if Halo goes away I don't like it anyway. The problem I see and I'm tired of is that game developers port these games to crappy consoles then when it comes to computers these same titles perform like crap again becaus they are ported for consoles. There are enough games out there that have titles in both consoles and computers and considering that computers easily outperform consoles I'll take a gaming computer without thinking twice. As I said 30 fps no thanks I'll keep my gaming computer that 60-130 fps.
 

tolham

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2009
347
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Have fun with that. I'm sure you'll be able to get the same titles, too. Right? Look what happened after Halo 2. No more Halos on PC.[/citation]
same thing can be said if you buy a ps3, right? *all* platforms have a downside of titles that are exclusive to another platform.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
Here's a subjective opinion of the benefits of 24fps vs. HFS (like 48fps):
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/12/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails/
 

the_schnebbz

Honorable
Apr 23, 2012
2
0
10,510
0
[citation][nom]soldier2013[/nom]Will stick with my gaming PC that gets 90-120 fps in current games at 2560 x 1600 res max settings with a single gtx 690. Consoles lol.[/citation]

Should I also assume you have a 120 Hz monitor so you can actually see those 90-120 FPS?
 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
947
0
18,990
1
[citation][nom]the_schnebbz[/nom]Should I also assume you have a 120 Hz monitor so you can actually see those 90-120 FPS?[/citation]Does a 2560x1440 (or 1600 as listed by mr Soldier) @ 120hz even exist? I was looking for one on NCIX and did not find one.
 

boju

Titan
Ambassador


And he has indeed accomplished that (48fps) — but in doing so, he’s killed a lot of the magic of what makes a film entrance an audience if you will, at least in my opinion
LOL so what he's saying is that with 48fps film makers/directors cant trick people with cheap directing lol. dunno how far some game developers would go with trying to hide mistakes in the rendering motion.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]supall[/nom]I wasn't aware that hz and fps were interchangeable.[/citation]
in this particular case they are. A refresh rate of 30Hz, means a frame rate of 30fps. There are other times that this is not true. For example a 240Hz TV has a refresh rate of 240 individual frames every second... however, the picture displayed may still be 24 or 30fps because that is all that the input controller can handle (or 60fps if doing 3D).
What does that higher refresh rate give you if it is only showing 30fps? Quite a few things it turns out; With a higher refresh rate manufacturers can put in panels that have more sensitivity which leads to less ghosting, and much faster transitions between colors and light-dark scenes. Another thing that happens is less input lag as the screen has more opportunities to change what is displayed, and can comply with said changes more quickly (though post-processing can still introduce plenty of lag, so there is often a 'game' mode which will turn much of that off). There is capacity for more detail on moving objects as there is less need for motion blur. And the biggest thing is smoother pans and transitions across mediums, as well as more life-like motion for high action scenes (The Hobbit HFR as an example). As an example, lets say you have an old 30Hz TV, and you are watching a 24FPS movie (DVD). These 2 frame rates are frankly not compatible, and so some frames must be duplicated in order to pad out the time because the TV is going to display a frame every .033 seconds regardless of the input. This causes things like a pan to be smooth for the most part, and then seem to studder or jump once a second. So then you upgrade to that 60Hz TV, all of your TV shows play back fine as they are 30fps, and merely duplicate each frame twice, and 24fps material has now ~2 smaller jumps every second, which is not noticeable by most people. But then you upgrade to a 120Hz TV, and now you start to understand what smooth is. for 24fps material each frame is displayed 5 times evenly, 30fps material is displayed 4 times, so that everything moves predictably, and mixed format media (specifically Anime which is notorious for using multiple frame rates for drawn vs CG content) begins to look fluid and less distracting (granted other shortcomings of the medium become more distracting). Bump it up to 240Hz, and it smooths it out even further (though I suspect it has more to do with better algorithms on the better screen than pure frame rate at this point).

At any rate, 30fps is just fine for console gaming. Consoles hook up to TVs which nativly take a 30fps input (60fps 3D), and would simply not benefit much from having a higher frame rate as the extra frames would simply be ignored. This is like telling PC gamers that anything above 60fps is useless (unless you have a 120Hz panel), because anything above 60fps is simply not displayed because the input controller cannot take it. But there is a huge and very notable difference between 30 and 60 FPS, and it is very noticeable when it comes to the clarity of moving objects. So consoles are now stuck at 1080p 30fps for the next 6-8 years, while PC gaming is moving to 1080+ resolutions and 120fps. But this has more to do with TV technology than having anything to do with console design. The consoles will have 60fps capability (3D), but the TVs simply will not accept or ignore such input, so why bother enabling it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS