Why 30fps looks better on Cosole than on PC

[HEXiT]

its very dependent on games. you can play counterstrike at 30 fps and ytou will get kills but playing the same game at 120 fps on a game that ties its packets to the frame rate will often make you more accurate than the guy playing at 30 fps who is getting 30 packets as opposed to your 120.
you are getting 4 times the amount of information which should result in you being able to see him first most of the time.

after reading most of this i can honestly say console players have very little idea of how hardware works. how games transfer data between host and players. this isnt there fault as its all been hidden away from them in the GUI's
console gaming isnt as smooth as pc and it isnt locked at 30 fps. if you played alan wake you would know this. its 1 of many titles that have severe jittering and thats going from 30 fps to 25. on pc you would hardly notice that 5 fps drop on a pc game running at 60 fps dropping to 55, and if your playing at the optimum settings for your card you should be getting 60 fps anyway.

sorry to say it but console gamers just dont understand gaming. like i said its not there fault because there so used to not seeing under the hood. you will see women claim the same when there cars run out of oil... uh! it needs oil... you didnt tell me that... well now she knows she still doesnt put the oil in...
consoel gamers=women... end of story 😉

Yeah you're right, I had no idea that packet data was related to graphical frame rate, that also makes zero sense, why would your graphical performance alter the network bandwidth used? I'm happy to be wrong on this, but I'm gonna call that one as rubbish.

Saying that console gaming isn't as smooth as PC is just stupid though...not implying YOU are stupid...but that statement is, because console hardware is a constant, and the games are designed to run on that specific constant...that doesn't apply to PC, unless you're saying my APU is on par with a Titan graphics card. Plus my example earlier is proof of that point, Blood Dragon is stuttery on PC (i'll define that as MY PC) compared to on console.

You don't need to understand the underlying mechanics of a game to appreciate it in a similar way that most PC users have no concept of how their computer actually works...yet they appreciate it...granted a few of the PC elitists i'm sure actually know the ins and outs of computing.

So basically what you were doing was having a dig at console gamers to defend your precious PC gaming because some of those console gamers who are trying PC gaming were confused at why games don't run as smoothly on PC as they do on console....surely you would want MORE people playing games on PC to make it more mainstream? What you are doing is attempting to alienate PC gaming by putting off console gamers (read the vast majority of gamers).....so well done you, that really is what i'd consider stupid.

i guess you thought i meant in a general sense. i meant they dont understand gaming the online aspects. generally pc gamers that come here have an idea that games have settings you can adjust to improve performance of your internet. on console all this is hidden.

 

[cats_Paw]

This is how i see it:
Consoles are an Iphone, PCs are Androide.
This means something simple:
A) Consoles run better, but you get what you are offered. You cant change this (well you can but... i hope you know what i mean).
B) PC are FAR harder to set up correctly, but once they are, they crush Consoles in every aspect.

I am a PC user, and I dont really enjoy consoles much, but i can see why console users prefer them to PCs.

Now, i dont think arguing over PC vs Console makes much sense as they are not even in the same league (how do you compare a Machine that is Designed for Gaming as its main Purpouse and has some added value to a machine that is used all over the world for thousands of applications, and, apart from that, it can also be used as a Gaming Rig?).

Personally i dont like to have to install DIrecX versions to get a game working, updating my video cards drivers only to find out ill need to wait for a hotfix, or having windows blue screens becosue my driver is incompatible with the sound card.

But all of that work, makes me enjoy the gaming expirince far more. The work pays off in this way.
Also, when you get a game running right with the mods/graphical improvments you find around there, and you play it, you feel very well about yourself knowing that you made it work.

Make a map for your favorite multiplayer game well enought, and people might be using it for years. Get that special modification for your network, and suddenly the game has no lag at all... and an extreamly long list of other possible tweaks that you simply cant do on the consoles.

 

[ColSonders]

its very dependent on games. you can play counterstrike at 30 fps and ytou will get kills but playing the same game at 120 fps on a game that ties its packets to the frame rate will often make you more accurate than the guy playing at 30 fps who is getting 30 packets as opposed to your 120.
you are getting 4 times the amount of information which should result in you being able to see him first most of the time.

after reading most of this i can honestly say console players have very little idea of how hardware works. how games transfer data between host and players. this isnt there fault as its all been hidden away from them in the GUI's
console gaming isnt as smooth as pc and it isnt locked at 30 fps. if you played alan wake you would know this. its 1 of many titles that have severe jittering and thats going from 30 fps to 25. on pc you would hardly notice that 5 fps drop on a pc game running at 60 fps dropping to 55, and if your playing at the optimum settings for your card you should be getting 60 fps anyway.

sorry to say it but console gamers just dont understand gaming. like i said its not there fault because there so used to not seeing under the hood. you will see women claim the same when there cars run out of oil... uh! it needs oil... you didnt tell me that... well now she knows she still doesnt put the oil in...
consoel gamers=women... end of story 😉

Yeah you're right, I had no idea that packet data was related to graphical frame rate, that also makes zero sense, why would your graphical performance alter the network bandwidth used? I'm happy to be wrong on this, but I'm gonna call that one as rubbish.

Saying that console gaming isn't as smooth as PC is just stupid though...not implying YOU are stupid...but that statement is, because console hardware is a constant, and the games are designed to run on that specific constant...that doesn't apply to PC, unless you're saying my APU is on par with a Titan graphics card. Plus my example earlier is proof of that point, Blood Dragon is stuttery on PC (i'll define that as MY PC) compared to on console.

You don't need to understand the underlying mechanics of a game to appreciate it in a similar way that most PC users have no concept of how their computer actually works...yet they appreciate it...granted a few of the PC elitists i'm sure actually know the ins and outs of computing.

So basically what you were doing was having a dig at console gamers to defend your precious PC gaming because some of those console gamers who are trying PC gaming were confused at why games don't run as smoothly on PC as they do on console....surely you would want MORE people playing games on PC to make it more mainstream? What you are doing is attempting to alienate PC gaming by putting off console gamers (read the vast majority of gamers).....so well done you, that really is what i'd consider stupid.

I mean coming from someone liked me who upgraded to a GTX 670 FTW (Almost a 680 stock) just to potentially see this difference, I just don't. Even a game running at 60 fps could drop into the high 30s at some intense point, especially in multiplayer games, when other players effect performance as well. I hardly notice when a game dips into the high 30s, but I do admit that there is a slight difference, but it's nothing that effect the movement of your character or the input into the game. If it dips below 30 I immediately notice that drastic dip in quality and smoothness, that's the point, it isn't apples to apples and it's not a linear gain. 60 fps is slightly smoother than 40fps, but 40fps is like an entirely different game than 20fps.

its very dependent on games. you can play counterstrike at 30 fps and ytou will get kills but playing the same game at 120 fps on a game that ties its packets to the frame rate will often make you more accurate than the guy playing at 30 fps who is getting 30 packets as opposed to your 120.
you are getting 4 times the amount of information which should result in you being able to see him first most of the time.

after reading most of this i can honestly say console players have very little idea of how hardware works. how games transfer data between host and players. this isnt there fault as its all been hidden away from them in the GUI's
console gaming isnt as smooth as pc and it isnt locked at 30 fps. if you played alan wake you would know this. its 1 of many titles that have severe jittering and thats going from 30 fps to 25. on pc you would hardly notice that 5 fps drop on a pc game running at 60 fps dropping to 55, and if your playing at the optimum settings for your card you should be getting 60 fps anyway.

sorry to say it but console gamers just dont understand gaming. like i said its not there fault because there so used to not seeing under the hood. you will see women claim the same when there cars run out of oil... uh! it needs oil... you didnt tell me that... well now she knows she still doesnt put the oil in...
consoel gamers=women... end of story 😉

Yeah you're right, I had no idea that packet data was related to graphical frame rate, that also makes zero sense, why would your graphical performance alter the network bandwidth used? I'm happy to be wrong on this, but I'm gonna call that one as rubbish.

Saying that console gaming isn't as smooth as PC is just stupid though...not implying YOU are stupid...but that statement is, because console hardware is a constant, and the games are designed to run on that specific constant...that doesn't apply to PC, unless you're saying my APU is on par with a Titan graphics card. Plus my example earlier is proof of that point, Blood Dragon is stuttery on PC (i'll define that as MY PC) compared to on console.

You don't need to understand the underlying mechanics of a game to appreciate it in a similar way that most PC users have no concept of how their computer actually works...yet they appreciate it...granted a few of the PC elitists i'm sure actually know the ins and outs of computing.

So basically what you were doing was having a dig at console gamers to defend your precious PC gaming because some of those console gamers who are trying PC gaming were confused at why games don't run as smoothly on PC as they do on console....surely you would want MORE people playing games on PC to make it more mainstream? What you are doing is attempting to alienate PC gaming by putting off console gamers (read the vast majority of gamers).....so well done you, that really is what i'd consider stupid.

i guess you thought i meant in a general sense. i meant they dont understand gaming the online aspects. generally pc gamers that come here have an idea that games have settings you can adjust to improve performance of your internet. on console all this is hidden.

What on earth has that got to do with 30 frames per second on PC looking naff compared to the same 30 frames per second on console.

All you've done is confirm that you're trying to bash console players and put them off from joining PC gaming...refer to my previous comment of congratulating you on putting potential new people off your hobby.

 

[bystander]

What on earth has that got to do with 30 frames per second on PC looking naff compared to the same 30 frames per second on console.

All you've done is confirm that you're trying to bash console players and put them off from joining PC gaming...refer to my previous comment of congratulating you on putting potential new people off your hobby.

If you really want to compare PC vs Console gaming at 30 FPS, you have to use Nvidia's Adaptive Vsync (half refresh) with a 60hz monitor. Or if you can, set your monitor to 30hz and use normal adaptive v-sync or RadeonPro with dynamic Vsync at 30 FPS.

It is a lot smoother when the FPS get capped at 30 FPS, than having FPS fluctuating all over. Consoles do this by default, PC's require you to set it that way.

 

[tadej petric]

console games are laaaaagggggy as. check out need for speed most wanted 2013 on pc then play it on console or even just watch an xbox gameplay vid on youtube (I did both) the PC version is far superior & i have a lower end card than you lol. You must have an issue with your hardware or setup is all i can suggest

Also console games are running at lots less detail, field of view and with no eye candy no vertical sync etc etc etc course they aren't gonna struggle at 30 fps whereas a pc can play games way over 30 fps with all the gubbins (eye candy)
Check out borderlands 2 on console then on pc look at the sky on console no stars & dull grey sky but on pc sky full of stars the textures on console version are lame
watch this and lol at the console versions compared to the PC version
http://n4g.com/news/1084004/borderlands-2-graphic-comparison-ps3-vs-360-vs-pc#c-6878879

I did not read the whole thread so I dont know if they already said it to you but youtube is 30FPS limited...

 

[bystander]

I did not read the whole thread so I dont know if they already said it to you but youtube is 30FPS limited...

Lag does not effect videos one bit. Lag becomes a problem when moving your mouse effects what happens on a screen. The interactive part of a game is why 30 FPS is laggy. Heck, 30 FPS wouldn't even be laggy if the input happen just before it is displayed, the problem is all that happens between input and displaying of the reaction.

 

[Mike chap]

This is all bullshit 30 fps is wank and only good for youtube. PC for the win. Your a mug if you dont switch

 

[delmetor]

FPS is FPS and is an exact messure. If a PC game runs at 30 FPS and a PS3 game runs at 30 FPS, they're running at the same speed. It's like Ml/H.

The reason you feel it smoother is because of the motion blur and the FPS lock-up, nothing else.

The motion blur gives you the impression it goes more fluid, because it makes a "phantom" between each Fotogram.

The FPS lock gives a sensation of constant and stable dynamic.

If you run a car from 0 to 60 km/h and you stay at that speed, you'll feel it a lot faster than if you go from 120 to 60 km/h.

Sorry for my bad english, i hope it helped.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

dont forget joystick lag as opposed to a high dpi mouse...

 

[bystander]

FPS is FPS and is an exact messure. If a PC game runs at 30 FPS and a PS3 game runs at 30 FPS, they're running at the same speed. It's like Ml/H.

The reason you feel it smoother is because of the motion blur and the FPS lock-up, nothing else.

The motion blur gives you the impression it goes more fluid, because it makes a "phantom" between each Fotogram.

The FPS lock gives a sensation of constant and stable dynamic.

If you run a car from 0 to 60 km/h and you stay at that speed, you'll feel it a lot faster than if you go from 120 to 60 km/h.

Sorry for my bad english, i hope it helped.

Sorry, but the input method does make a big difference for myself at least. 30 FPS locked with v-sync half refresh rate (Nvidia option) will make me sick if playing a 1st person view game with a mouse. It will not make me sick if using a controller. Due to the more realistic feeling input methods of the mouse, the latency has an effect on me similar to motion sickness.

 

[HEXiT]

FPS is FPS and is an exact messure. If a PC game runs at 30 FPS and a PS3 game runs at 30 FPS, they're running at the same speed. It's like Ml/H.

The reason you feel it smoother is because of the motion blur and the FPS lock-up, nothing else.

The motion blur gives you the impression it goes more fluid, because it makes a "phantom" between each Fotogram.

The FPS lock gives a sensation of constant and stable dynamic.

If you run a car from 0 to 60 km/h and you stay at that speed, you'll feel it a lot faster than if you go from 120 to 60 km/h.

Sorry for my bad english, i hope it helped.

Sorry, but the input method does make a big difference for myself at least. 30 FPS locked with v-sync half refresh rate (Nvidia option) will make me sick if playing a 1st person view game with a mouse. It will not make me sick if using a controller. Due to the more realistic feeling input methods of the mouse, the latency has an effect on me similar to motion sickness.

if you get motion sickness playing 3d games turn the fov down in steps of 5 degrees till it becomes comfy to watch again. i had mine set at 95' and nearly vomited on my keyboard. turn it down to 75 and im fine.

 

[bystander]

FPS is FPS and is an exact messure. If a PC game runs at 30 FPS and a PS3 game runs at 30 FPS, they're running at the same speed. It's like Ml/H.

The reason you feel it smoother is because of the motion blur and the FPS lock-up, nothing else.

The motion blur gives you the impression it goes more fluid, because it makes a "phantom" between each Fotogram.

The FPS lock gives a sensation of constant and stable dynamic.

If you run a car from 0 to 60 km/h and you stay at that speed, you'll feel it a lot faster than if you go from 120 to 60 km/h.

Sorry for my bad english, i hope it helped.

Sorry, but the input method does make a big difference for myself at least. 30 FPS locked with v-sync half refresh rate (Nvidia option) will make me sick if playing a 1st person view game with a mouse. It will not make me sick if using a controller. Due to the more realistic feeling input methods of the mouse, the latency has an effect on me similar to motion sickness.

if you get motion sickness playing 3d games turn the fov down in steps of 5 degrees till it becomes comfy to watch again. i had mine set at 95' and nearly vomited on my keyboard. turn it down to 75 and im fine.

I don't feel sick if my FPS are at 80+. I am not easily made sick at 60 FPS (takes 30-60 mins), but I get sick nearly instantly at 30 FPS. It's related to latency.

Perhaps FoV might help too, but I'd rather have full field of view if I can help it, which I can.

 

[HEXiT]

honestly mate i think your getting a placebo effect from the higher fps. its more likely horizon based motion sickness cause by a fish eve lensing effect where the edge of the screen is moving more than the middle in the vertical. this contradicts the ears signals to the brain which are saying your not moving. this imbalance causes the motion sickness.
its the complete opposite of sea sick. where your ears tell your brain your moving but your eyes see a horizontal horizon that isnt moving. but the result is the same.

anyways you dont have to take my word for it give it a try and maybe it will work for you maybe it wont. you' have to give it a go to see. it worked for me is all im saying...

 

[bystander]

honestly mate i think your getting a placebo effect from the higher fps. its more likely horizon based motion sickness cause by a fish eve lensing effect where the edge of the screen is moving more than the middle in the vertical. this contradicts the ears signals to the brain which are saying your not moving. this imbalance causes the motion sickness.
its the complete opposite of sea sick. where your ears tell your brain your moving but your eyes see a horizontal horizon that isnt moving. but the result is the same.

anyways you dont have to take my word for it give it a try and maybe it will work for you maybe it wont. you' have to give it a go to see. it worked for me is all im saying...

If it was a placebo effect, I wouldn't get sick from FPS drops without a FPS meter going. I do, often. Look up simulator sickness. There are a lot of different causes, and there is no definitive answer as to how to fix it. For some it is consistency of FPS, for others it is latency, for others it is something else.

The fact that sometimes I start playing a new FPS game, and start feeling sick just a few minutes into the game, without any sort of FPS meter going, tells me there is something there. When I then check what my FPS are, due to feeling sick, I adjust settings until I break 60, or 80. All of a sudden I can play the game without feeling sick. Are you telling me that I feel sick without cause, and knowing I have high FPS all of a sudden removes it? I wouldn't have had the symptoms to begin with if it was a placebo.

Anyways, I used to get sick playing FPS games all the time until about 5 years ago. I could play at most 30 minutes and I'd quit feeling sick, and if I played an hour, I'd have a headache as well. It wasn't until I got a powerful system that I no longer got sick very often. As time went on, I started seeing the connection to FPS and my sickness. Later, I realized I did not get sick at 30 FPS when watching cutscenes, or other people playing. I also did not get sick playing isometric games, nor consoles. I learned I only got sick in first person when using a mouse with FPS below 40 (really sick fast), I then started pushing for higher FPS, and noticed I could last 30-60 mins at 60 FPS. When I got a 120hz monitor, I learned that at 80+ FPS, I no longer got sick, even after a few hours of play.

The problem happens in all first person games that are controlled by mouse. Not every game has the same FoV problem, so it seems unlikely that is the primary cause. I might try it out, but as I explained, I already can remove any sickness with high FPS, which would suggest FoV has nothing to do with it, or I'd still get sick.

And if you bothered to look up simulator sickness, you'll see there are lots of causes and it is different for many people.

EDIT: Pcper did a review on the Oculus Rift, which also gave him a similar issue. Perhaps to different reasons, but it may be for the same exact reason, as turning his head controlled the view which also made him feel sick: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/General-Tech/Video-Perspective-Oculus-Rift-Development-Kit-Hands-Preview

 

[cats_Paw]

FPS is FPS and is an exact messure. If a PC game runs at 30 FPS and a PS3 game runs at 30 FPS, they're running at the same speed. It's like Ml/H.

The reason you feel it smoother is because of the motion blur and the FPS lock-up, nothing else.

The motion blur gives you the impression it goes more fluid, because it makes a "phantom" between each Fotogram.

The FPS lock gives a sensation of constant and stable dynamic.

If you run a car from 0 to 60 km/h and you stay at that speed, you'll feel it a lot faster than if you go from 120 to 60 km/h.

Sorry for my bad english, i hope it helped.

Actually, you couldnt be more wrong.
While i can understand that you learned over the years that this method is the correct one, its actually possible to have noticed personally that frames per second is not a reliable system.

Here are two articles that explain the reasons behind it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-benchmarking-frame-rate,3466.html
http://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

As you can see, FPS is simply put, not accurate in itself.

 

[delmetor]

FPS is FPS and is an exact messure. If a PC game runs at 30 FPS and a PS3 game runs at 30 FPS, they're running at the same speed. It's like Ml/H.

The reason you feel it smoother is because of the motion blur and the FPS lock-up, nothing else.

The motion blur gives you the impression it goes more fluid, because it makes a "phantom" between each Fotogram.

The FPS lock gives a sensation of constant and stable dynamic.

If you run a car from 0 to 60 km/h and you stay at that speed, you'll feel it a lot faster than if you go from 120 to 60 km/h.

Sorry for my bad english, i hope it helped.

Actually, you couldnt be more wrong.
While i can understand that you learned over the years that this method is the correct one, its actually possible to have noticed personally that frames per second is not a reliable system.

Here are two articles that explain the reasons behind it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-benchmarking-frame-rate,3466.html
http://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

As you can see, FPS is simply put, not accurate in itself.

Yes, you add reasons to understand why two different systems at the same frame rate could feel different from each other, and i understand that FPS is not the most accurate messure to determinate the efficiency of graphic performance.

But that doesn't make my argument wrong, because even if FPS is filtered for many other factors before it gets to screen, the speed of fotograms in time is still the same in both cases.

The difference lies in the other components and effects, not in the rate of photograms.

 

[cats_Paw]

FPS is FPS and is an exact messure. If a PC game runs at 30 FPS and a PS3 game runs at 30 FPS, they're running at the same speed. It's like Ml/H.

The reason you feel it smoother is because of the motion blur and the FPS lock-up, nothing else.

The motion blur gives you the impression it goes more fluid, because it makes a "phantom" between each Fotogram.

The FPS lock gives a sensation of constant and stable dynamic.

If you run a car from 0 to 60 km/h and you stay at that speed, you'll feel it a lot faster than if you go from 120 to 60 km/h.

Sorry for my bad english, i hope it helped.

Actually, you couldnt be more wrong.
While i can understand that you learned over the years that this method is the correct one, its actually possible to have noticed personally that frames per second is not a reliable system.

Here are two articles that explain the reasons behind it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-benchmarking-frame-rate,3466.html
http://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

As you can see, FPS is simply put, not accurate in itself.

Yes, you add reasons to understand why two different systems at the same frame rate could feel different from each other, and i understand that FPS is not the most accurate messure to determinate the efficiency of graphic performance.

But that doesn't make my argument wrong, because even if FPS is filtered for many other factors before it gets to screen, the speed of fotograms in time is still the same in both cases.

The difference lies in the other components and effects, not in the rate of photograms.

Not quite. While 30 FPS is definitly 30 frames each second, that dosent mean they are equaly spaced. This means that 2 games running at 30 FPS can have diferent feel to their fluency.

The most important factor here is frame inconcistency. This is BY FAR the hardest thing to get done properly and it also explains why its so much easier to have a fluid 30 fps on 1 hardware configuration of a console rather than many PC configurations. The main poblem here is that the human eye and brain gets used to frame consistency extreamly fast, and even if you cant react in in 1/30 fracion of a second, your brain can tell the diference between 2 frames that come very fast, and then wait longer for a third frame.

Note that movies for example are on 24 frames per second, and they seem fluid, but this is due to the fact that those frames dont move at all.

However, if you have a game randomly moving from 30-40 frames, you wont be able to play it comftably.

This is also why most hardware reviews want a minimum of 30 FPS for their games, becouse the higher the FPS, the harder it is to distinguish those jumps in performance.
While a drop from half a second from 40 to 30 frames is a huge impact, a drop from 200 to 150 probably will go unnoticed.

The easiest way to test this is to get an old game like crysis, play it for 5 minutes at max settings on a good pc, then play the same 5 minutes on minimum settings. Even thou the frame changes will still be present, the game will have a totally diferent feel to it.

I hope this clarifies waht i tried to say 😀.

 

[delmetor]

FPS is FPS and is an exact messure. If a PC game runs at 30 FPS and a PS3 game runs at 30 FPS, they're running at the same speed. It's like Ml/H.

The reason you feel it smoother is because of the motion blur and the FPS lock-up, nothing else.

The motion blur gives you the impression it goes more fluid, because it makes a "phantom" between each Fotogram.

The FPS lock gives a sensation of constant and stable dynamic.

If you run a car from 0 to 60 km/h and you stay at that speed, you'll feel it a lot faster than if you go from 120 to 60 km/h.

Sorry for my bad english, i hope it helped.

Actually, you couldnt be more wrong.
While i can understand that you learned over the years that this method is the correct one, its actually possible to have noticed personally that frames per second is not a reliable system.

Here are two articles that explain the reasons behind it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-benchmarking-frame-rate,3466.html
http://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

As you can see, FPS is simply put, not accurate in itself.

Yes, you add reasons to understand why two different systems at the same frame rate could feel different from each other, and i understand that FPS is not the most accurate messure to determinate the efficiency of graphic performance.

But that doesn't make my argument wrong, because even if FPS is filtered for many other factors before it gets to screen, the speed of fotograms in time is still the same in both cases.

The difference lies in the other components and effects, not in the rate of photograms.

Not quite. While 30 FPS is definitly 30 frames each second, that dosent mean they are equaly spaced. This means that 2 games running at 30 FPS can have diferent feel to their fluency.

The most important factor here is frame inconcistency. This is BY FAR the hardest thing to get done properly and it also explains why its so much easier to have a fluid 30 fps on 1 hardware configuration of a console rather than many PC configurations. The main poblem here is that the human eye and brain gets used to frame consistency extreamly fast, and even if you cant react in in 1/30 fracion of a second, your brain can tell the diference between 2 frames that come very fast, and then wait longer for a third frame.

Note that movies for example are on 24 frames per second, and they seem fluid, but this is due to the fact that those frames dont move at all.

However, if you have a game randomly moving from 30-40 frames, you wont be able to play it comftably.

This is also why most hardware reviews want a minimum of 30 FPS for their games, becouse the higher the FPS, the harder it is to distinguish those jumps in performance.
While a drop from half a second from 40 to 30 frames is a huge impact, a drop from 200 to 150 probably will go unnoticed.

The easiest way to test this is to get an old game like crysis, play it for 5 minutes at max settings on a good pc, then play the same 5 minutes on minimum settings. Even thou the frame changes will still be present, the game will have a totally diferent feel to it.

I hope this clarifies waht i tried to say 😀.

That's fine. I've got it.

Thanks for the information anyway.

 

[pjg]

remember The Xbox 360 and PS3 has a 2006 or 2007 video card in them still. If they had a GPU settings to UHG like a PC with BF3 with 360 or PS3 remember 2006 or 2007 video card on UHG with BF3 it is not going to last long or do 30 FPS. 6 months and 4 or 1 FPS.

but i have a 1920x1080 1080p screen, 1 Geforce GTX 550 Ti, i5 2320, 4GB of DDR3 ram, DH67BL BORED, Intel 120GB SSD, 1TB HDD and Win7. i play on max out settings and red and blue 3D. I tested out "Avatar James PC Game" 4 FPS in a water fall 5 6 8 7 9 13 it just repined on were i was, in the game but i tested out COD BO 1 the last level and it did 15 to 20 maybe 8 or 9 FPS but i love 3D so i do not care that mush about the FPS.

 

[andyridy]

okay your run at around 27 fps okay there's on point in having more because your eyes cant keep up so if you have a game at fps60 it looks the same as 30 because your eyes cant run any faster and there's no difference on pc your eyes cant see any faster okay so there is no point to have a game any faster blue ray films run at 30fps okay some people out to go back to school

 

[MajinCry]

I wonder if a 30fps screen will look the same, when having 30 frames being punted out, as a 60fps screen with 60 frames.

Might explain how GSync can make a game look much smoother at lower framerates.

Never actually found a 30fps native screen, now that I think about it. A 40fps one would be the sweetspot for me.

 

[bystander]

I wonder if a 30fps screen will look the same, when having 30 frames being punted out, as a 60fps screen with 60 frames.

Might explain how GSync can make a game look much smoother at lower framerates.

Never actually found a 30fps native screen, now that I think about it. A 40fps one would be the sweetspot for me.

No, it will not look as smooth. 60 FPS and ignoring every other frame, is the same result as 30 FPS is.

G-sync can look smoother at lower FPS, but not at half the FPS. G-sync has a few advantages, but it can only go so far. Advantages being:
- At FPS between 30 and 60, you can go have a tear free experience without judder between 16ms and 33ms frames.
- It does not add any latency, as v-sync does if you hit your refresh rate.
- The time sequence of when a frame is created and displayed is instant. This will keep the games time in sync with the displayed frames. With v-sync, some frames may wait longer than others to be displayed, creating a bit of judder.

With all those advantages, I still don't think G-sync will act like a system with twice the FPS, but it may be as smooth as one that is 50% faster.

 

[HEXiT]

okay your run at around 27 fps okay there's on point in having more because your eyes cant keep up so if you have a game at fps60 it looks the same as 30 because your eyes cant run any faster and there's no difference on pc your eyes cant see any faster okay so there is no point to have a game any faster blue ray films run at 30fps okay some people out to go back to school

that completelty wrong mate. your eyes dont see in fps they see a constant flow of light.
a typical human can see consciously between 45 and 120 fps some of us can see 350-400. it depends entirely on how fast the viewers brain is working, how well it defenestrates images and how long the image is retained as an after image.
if in that block of images you delay 1 image by just 16ms your brain will become uncomfortable and perceive a stutter.. 16 ms is the average btw and if you divide it by 1000 (1000ms =1 second) you get 62 which is very close to the 60 fps we all batter on about... and this is why pc gamers crow about the 60 fps minimum. because its naturally smoother to the eye and brain.

 

[Geek2Go]

The only one who gave the good answer was Hexit at te beggining of the topic.

It's all about having a 30Hz output + syncing the frames.

You can try with AC: Blag Flag for exemple:

1- Set your resolution in the options : 1080p @ 60Hz for exemple, then cap the frames at 30fps with a soft like riva tuner (afterburner edition).

The exeperience wont be smooth and you'll experience tearing as well.

2- The good solution is to go to the assassincreed.ini and change the 60hz output to 30hz and make sure vsync is set to "1". Cap your fps to 30 with riva tuner >>>> magic ! A smooth exeperience @30 fps like on PS4 !

So the solution is to always find a way to set your game on a resolution @30Hz + vsync in addition of the cap of 30fps.

enjoy.

 

[jordanhulett]

You usually sit closer to your monitor than to a television, games on console are from the ground up built around looking good at 30 frames (creative uses with elements like motion blurring etc), controllers are less precise than a mouse and keyboard and don't give you the same feeling of connection so you effectively dull one of your sensory avenues for estimating how smooth/fast things are happening on the screen, and the 30 fps never wavers or chugs. It is running as designed.

For all of those reasons and many more that I'm sure will get posted in this thread, you are more accepting of the 30 fps in most console games. However, if you suddenly ran a console game at 60 fps on a computer monitor that you were sitting less than 2 feet away from, it would look noticeably smoother than the same game running at its more likely 30 fps.

If you ran a pc game on a tv at 30 fps and sat 7 or 8 feet away playing it with a controller, you might not notice how crappy it is performing, despite the fact that it absolutely would be performing crappily.

In the same vein, film usually runs at about 20-25 fps equivalency, and it looks smooth when you watch it but part of that can have to do with the fact that you don't expect anything beyond what you're getting and you've never seen anything beyond what you're getting in that medium.

Film is shot normally at 24.7fps because that's the closest amount of frames the eye can see. So 24.7 fps in a film or tv is the most natural fps to the human eye.