Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (
More info?)
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:37:36 GMT, John Green <johngreen@notmail.com>
wrote:
>carl wrote:
>> re: I'm interested to know how the higher end ATI cards are performing on
>> this.
>>
>> I think that we are all victims of the marketing department. The human eye
>> cannot see past 24fps (tv). But I'll admit I was impressed going from a 9700
>> Pro to a 6800GT.
>>
>>
>it doesnt make a difference whether we can see it or not... the game
>goes on your fps for a lot of stuff... such as bullets. a higher fps
>will give u a (small) advantage
Yeah ... things will be simulated faster and better the higher the
frame rate goes. The pooter will be free to do other things if it
doesn't have to spend so much effort on the graphics and sound. Things
like weapon effects (ballistics), AI and network traffic.
And it'll be quicker taking the control inputs as well ... FPS's
aren't as good an example here as driving games and flight sims are
.... but if you have a flight sim that goes down to 4fps when it's busy
(from a nominal 30odd), then at 120kts landing speed, you're going
about 67 yards per second, so the control inputs only hit every 16-17
yards. Not much time for corrections.
Translating that across to the fps world and you get a faster frame
rate translating into a better ability to track moving targets as the
control inputs will be smoother.
I agree though - for sheer visuals, the human eye and brain don't
update that quickly.
Pete Lilleyman
alishas.dontspam.addict@blueyonder.co.getrid.uk
(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram