Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is the minimum fps for games?

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 29, 2004 11:53:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Hi!

I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually based
of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not seeing
"lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and average
40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
lagging?

Many thanks for your help!!!

--
Daniel

www.dromadaire.com/cimetiere/ouonsenva (français)
ou/or
www.dromadaire.com/cimetiere/english (english version)

More about : minimum fps games

Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 30, 2004 4:39:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Well, I was just listening to a couple of programmers discuss this
yesterday. One of them said that the human eye can only see around 30-40
fps; anything over this is overkill. So I don't know the exact answer to
your first question but it should be within this range.

cimetière wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually based
> of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not seeing
> "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
> minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and average
> 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
> lagging?
>
> Many thanks for your help!!!
>
July 30, 2004 4:39:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <6NgOc.1999$Jp6.440@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
bubba_sort@earthlink.net wrote:

> Well, I was just listening to a couple of programmers discuss this
> yesterday. One of them said that the human eye can only see around 30-40
> fps; anything over this is overkill. So I don't know the exact answer to
> your first question but it should be within this range.
>
> cimetière wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually based
> > of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not seeing
> > "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
> > minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and average
> > 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
> > lagging?
> >
> > Many thanks for your help!!!
> >

I think one of the review sites uses min >= 30 FPS as acceptable.
30 FPS is enough to give the illusion of motion, but won't please
everybody.

Paul
Related resources
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 30, 2004 12:29:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

> I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually
based
> of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not
seeing
> "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
> minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and
average
> 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
> lagging?
>
> Many thanks for your help!!!
>
> --

FPS is frames per second, which is an indicator of how smoothly the graphics
move on the screen. As others have said 30FPS is a reasonable rate.

Lag is the appearence of slowness when you are playing a network or online
game. Your signal from your PC to the game server takes a finite time. The
longer this signal takes the slower your player reacts to your input, and
hence he 'lags' behind what you whant him to do. The measure of your signal
to the server (and back) is called the ping, where the lower ping is better,
or quicker.

Adam S
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 30, 2004 1:06:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Adam is confusing the issue of internet response with the issue of video
card performance.

Increasing the resolution to high levels like 1600x1200, or increasing
the smoothing levels (such as 4x AA or 8x AA) can bring video cards to
their knees. Newer cards such as the latest from nVidia and ATI make
this less of an issue but they too can be slowed to the point that game
play can look "choppy".

New comers to the computer world can't remember how difficult and
expensive it was to put together a computer capable of displaying a
decent picture and keeping it moving. The break through came with the
Voodoo cards but the ram was still measured in numbers like 4MB and 8MB.
Then came the ability to use two video cards on the PCI buss tied
together with a short ribbon cable and one output to your monitor. This
ruled because AGP wasn't invented and PCI Express wasn't even a dream.
Many computers used an 8Mhz buss and video ram might be something like
512k up to one MB.

Adam S wrote:

>
> FPS is frames per second, which is an indicator of how smoothly the graphics
> move on the screen. As others have said 30FPS is a reasonable rate.
>
> Lag is the appearence of slowness when you are playing a network or online
> game. Your signal from your PC to the game server takes a finite time. The
> longer this signal takes the slower your player reacts to your input, and
> hence he 'lags' behind what you whant him to do. The measure of your signal
> to the server (and back) is called the ping, where the lower ping is better,
> or quicker.
>
> Adam S
>
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 30, 2004 3:27:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Bubba Sort wrote:

> Well, I was just listening to a couple of programmers discuss this
> yesterday. One of them said that the human eye can only see around 30-40
> fps; anything over this is overkill. So I don't know the exact answer to
> your first question but it should be within this range.

There is a difference between the illusion of motion, which you have at
least around 25 fps and higher (like in tv, video and so on), and the
quickness you could see a thing the first time. So some of the following
will be a little bit theoretical for the most people (and also for me), but
gamers still are believing in this:

In a 3D-Shooter: If you have 100 fps, and at 0.59 sec a new enemy appears,
then you can see this enemy exactly at 0.49 sec. If you have 25 fps you
will see this enemy later, exactly at 0.52 sec. According to the enemy's
time to react you will be dead at 25 fps or alive at 100 fps ;) 

As conclusion for the original poster: It's not important to see a "smooth"
game, but to have enough time to react. So i can give only one answer to
gamers: Higher (fps) is always better.

regards, Jens

--
Die o.a. Adresse ist OK, wird aber nicht gelesen. Für Mails an mich bitte
"spamtrap" durch "jens.nixdorf" ersetzen.
July 30, 2004 3:27:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Jens Nixdorf" <spamtrap@trackpoint.de> wrote in message
news:ced4rq$mtg$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> Bubba Sort wrote:
>
> > Well, I was just listening to a couple of programmers discuss this
> > yesterday. One of them said that the human eye can only see around 30-40
> > fps; anything over this is overkill. So I don't know the exact answer to
> > your first question but it should be within this range.
>
> There is a difference between the illusion of motion, which you have at
> least around 25 fps and higher (like in tv, video and so on), and the
> quickness you could see a thing the first time. So some of the following
> will be a little bit theoretical for the most people (and also for me),
but
> gamers still are believing in this:
>
> In a 3D-Shooter: If you have 100 fps, and at 0.59 sec a new enemy appears,
> then you can see this enemy exactly at 0.49 sec. If you have 25 fps you
> will see this enemy later, exactly at 0.52 sec. According to the enemy's
> time to react you will be dead at 25 fps or alive at 100 fps ;) 
>
> As conclusion for the original poster: It's not important to see a
"smooth"
> game, but to have enough time to react. So i can give only one answer to
> gamers: Higher (fps) is always better.
>
> regards, Jens

I'm not certain what your proposed timing numbers are intended to exemplify,
but .03 seconds difference is interesting. Most "online game servers" run a
game refresh rate of 20-25 fps (in terms of time, a 50 millisecond or 40
millisecond update interval rate), so once your vid card equals or surpasses
this value or speed, little is gained by a higher fps. An analysis of
reaction time versus fps should include a consideration of the timing
related to data received from a game server. This example assumes 2 players
receive data from the server with the same ping/delay. Using a 30 fps vid
card, a first computer requires 33 mS to render a new image based on newly
received game data. At 50 fps, a second computer requires 20 mS to render
the image. Any advantage enjoyed by the player using a faster vid card is
in the 13 mS time difference. In essence, there will be a 13 mS time
advantage on every rendered frame, but never any more. I would estimate
that any delay less than 40 mS will be negligible in impact on a player
given typical human reaction times.

More importantly is the ability of a vid card to deliver at least 30 fps
under the most demanding conditions, such as when there are a large number
of moving or animated actors on the computer screen, a large number of sound
effects playing simultaneously, and a large quantity of data flowing over
the network connection. These factors along with the response time to a
game server are the most critical.

I offer these comments in view of my experiences of moving up to faster vid
cards, yet seeing no improvement in my ability to react once my vid card fps
exceeded a minimum of 30 fps, since the on screen animations are still time
locked to the rate at which data from a game server arrives at my computer.
--
Best regards,
Kyle
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 30, 2004 10:54:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Kyle wrote:

>
> I'm not certain what your proposed timing numbers are intended to
> exemplify, but .03 seconds difference is interesting.  Most "online game
> servers" run a game refresh rate of 20-25 fps (in terms of time, a 50
> millisecond or 40 millisecond update interval rate), so once your vid card
> equals or surpasses this value or speed, little is gained by a higher fps.
>  An analysis of reaction time versus fps should include a consideration of
> the timing related to data received from a game server.  

Youre right, but that affects mostly Internet-gamers, not LAN-gamers, maybe
with a 1 Gbit-LAN.

> More importantly is the ability of a vid card to deliver at least 30 fps
> under the most demanding conditions, such as when there are a large number
> of moving or animated actors on the computer screen, a large number of
> sound effects playing simultaneously, and a large quantity of data flowing
> over the network connection.  These factors along with the response time
> to a game server are the most critical.

Also true, but I only want to give a hint into the difference between smooth
visuals (which are not really important for gaming, only for the look) like
in films or cut-scenes and the need for more fps if you want to play
shooters or such games.

regards, Jens

--
Die o.a. Adresse ist OK, wird aber nicht gelesen. Für Mails an mich bitte
"spamtrap" durch "jens.nixdorf" ersetzen.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 31, 2004 3:44:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

30 fps is considered the minimum useable rate, at which you don't have
screen lag during motion.

--
DaveW



"cimetière" <cimetiere@dddt.com> wrote in message
news:N5gOc.25403$9Y2.255592@wagner.videotron.net...
> Hi!
>
> I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually
based
> of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not
seeing
> "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
> minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and
average
> 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
> lagging?
>
> Many thanks for your help!!!
>
> --
> Daniel
>
> www.dromadaire.com/cimetiere/ouonsenva (français)
> ou/or
> www.dromadaire.com/cimetiere/english (english version)
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 31, 2004 3:55:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"John Smith" <lrrollin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D coOc.3048$9Y6.1724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Adam is confusing the issue of internet response with the issue of video
> card performance.
>
> Increasing the resolution to high levels like 1600x1200, or increasing
> the smoothing levels (such as 4x AA or 8x AA) can bring video cards to
> their knees. Newer cards such as the latest from nVidia and ATI make
> this less of an issue but they too can be slowed to the point that game
> play can look "choppy".

Let me summarize the reasons why I am not goot at online games (Radeon 9600)

- internet response time
- high resolution
- smoothing levels
- only see 30 - 40 fps
- refresh difference of about .03 seconds

Its not my reaction time!!!!
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 31, 2004 3:44:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"cimetière" <cimetiere@dddt.com> wrote in message
news:N5gOc.25403$9Y2.255592@wagner.videotron.net...
> Hi!
>
> I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually
based
> of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not
seeing
> "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
> minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and
average
> 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
> lagging?
>
> Many thanks for your help!!!
>

well, coming back to the original poster's question, it's a matter of visual
perception only.... TVs are around 25 (give or take a few),... so,
somewhere in that neighborhood for standard TV quality,... for a more
accurate answer, consult animation specialists, cartoonists, TV effects
specialists, or video recording crews... basically it's practical applied
science for them...
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 31, 2004 3:52:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Kyle" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2mv31cFr2pnjU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> "Jens Nixdorf" <spamtrap@trackpoint.de> wrote in message
> news:ced4rq$mtg$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> > Bubba Sort wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I was just listening to a couple of programmers discuss this
> > > yesterday. One of them said that the human eye can only see around
30-40
> > > fps; anything over this is overkill. So I don't know the exact answer
to
> > > your first question but it should be within this range.
> >
> > There is a difference between the illusion of motion, which you have at
> > least around 25 fps and higher (like in tv, video and so on), and the
> > quickness you could see a thing the first time. So some of the following
> > will be a little bit theoretical for the most people (and also for me),
> but
> > gamers still are believing in this:
> >
> > In a 3D-Shooter: If you have 100 fps, and at 0.59 sec a new enemy
appears,
> > then you can see this enemy exactly at 0.49 sec. If you have 25 fps you
> > will see this enemy later, exactly at 0.52 sec. According to the enemy's
> > time to react you will be dead at 25 fps or alive at 100 fps ;) 
> >
> > As conclusion for the original poster: It's not important to see a
> "smooth"
> > game, but to have enough time to react. So i can give only one answer to
> > gamers: Higher (fps) is always better.
> >
> > regards, Jens
>
> I'm not certain what your proposed timing numbers are intended to
exemplify,
> but .03 seconds difference is interesting. Most "online game servers" run
a
> game refresh rate of 20-25 fps (in terms of time, a 50 millisecond or 40
> millisecond update interval rate), so once your vid card equals or
surpasses
> this value or speed, little is gained by a higher fps. An analysis of
> reaction time versus fps should include a consideration of the timing
> related to data received from a game server. This example assumes 2
players
> receive data from the server with the same ping/delay. Using a 30 fps vid
> card, a first computer requires 33 mS to render a new image based on newly
> received game data. At 50 fps, a second computer requires 20 mS to render
> the image. Any advantage enjoyed by the player using a faster vid card is
> in the 13 mS time difference. In essence, there will be a 13 mS time
> advantage on every rendered frame, but never any more. I would estimate
> that any delay less than 40 mS will be negligible in impact on a player
> given typical human reaction times.
>
> More importantly is the ability of a vid card to deliver at least 30 fps
> under the most demanding conditions, such as when there are a large number
> of moving or animated actors on the computer screen, a large number of
sound
> effects playing simultaneously, and a large quantity of data flowing over
> the network connection. These factors along with the response time to a
> game server are the most critical.
>
> I offer these comments in view of my experiences of moving up to faster
vid
> cards, yet seeing no improvement in my ability to react once my vid card
fps
> exceeded a minimum of 30 fps, since the on screen animations are still
time
> locked to the rate at which data from a game server arrives at my
computer.
> --
> Best regards,
> Kyle
>
>
>

once you do in fact visually see an object on screen, you still have to take
into account the time it takes to mentally perceive that object as to
whether or not it's a threat, and then press a button on a keyboard, mouse,
joystick, controller, etc., to respond appropriately...
July 31, 2004 5:45:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Hi,

I watched an interesting program on BBC the other night where neuro
scientists discussed the roles of different parts of the brain and cognition
in general. There is increasing evidence that the conscious thinking brain
has a reaction time not in the order of 0.2 seconds as is commonly believed,
but closer to 1.5 seconds. What we perceive is actually 1.5 seconds behind
time. Now, before you rubbish the idea and point to interactive timing
exercises of which games are a good example, the point they were making was
that it is the subconscious that is reacting, the conscious mind is merely
becoming aware of it afterwards in the misguided belief that it actually
controlled the reaction!

2 cents.

- Tim



"Jens Nixdorf" <spamtrap@trackpoint.de> wrote in message
news:ced4rq$mtg$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> Bubba Sort wrote:
>
>> Well, I was just listening to a couple of programmers discuss this
>> yesterday. One of them said that the human eye can only see around 30-40
>> fps; anything over this is overkill. So I don't know the exact answer to
>> your first question but it should be within this range.
>
> There is a difference between the illusion of motion, which you have at
> least around 25 fps and higher (like in tv, video and so on), and the
> quickness you could see a thing the first time. So some of the following
> will be a little bit theoretical for the most people (and also for me),
> but
> gamers still are believing in this:
>
> In a 3D-Shooter: If you have 100 fps, and at 0.59 sec a new enemy appears,
> then you can see this enemy exactly at 0.49 sec. If you have 25 fps you
> will see this enemy later, exactly at 0.52 sec. According to the enemy's
> time to react you will be dead at 25 fps or alive at 100 fps ;) 
>
> As conclusion for the original poster: It's not important to see a
> "smooth"
> game, but to have enough time to react. So i can give only one answer to
> gamers: Higher (fps) is always better.
>
> regards, Jens
>
> --
> Die o.a. Adresse ist OK, wird aber nicht gelesen. Für Mails an mich bitte
> "spamtrap" durch "jens.nixdorf" ersetzen.
July 31, 2004 5:45:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Leave it to the Brits to tell me I don't have cognitive realization to see
my hand moving in front of me to get that beer bottle into my mouth, lol. I
am fairly certain that were the delay 1.5 seconds I'd be dumping the beer
down the front of me. If what I see is 1.5 seconds behind reality, then how
could I have sensory perception in my hands and mouth to know I should tip
the bottle immediately as it hits my mouth? hehe.

--
Best regards,
Kyle

"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:ceetg9$h5e$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Hi,
>
> I watched an interesting program on BBC the other night where neuro
> scientists discussed the roles of different parts of the brain and
cognition
> in general. There is increasing evidence that the conscious thinking brain
> has a reaction time not in the order of 0.2 seconds as is commonly
believed,
> but closer to 1.5 seconds. What we perceive is actually 1.5 seconds behind
> time. Now, before you rubbish the idea and point to interactive timing
> exercises of which games are a good example, the point they were making
was
> that it is the subconscious that is reacting, the conscious mind is merely
> becoming aware of it afterwards in the misguided belief that it actually
> controlled the reaction!
>
> 2 cents.
>
> - Tim
>
August 1, 2004 4:30:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In N. America, Mexico, etc, TV uses the A/C 60 hz frequency divided by
2 to yield 30 fps. The horizontal lines are interlaced meaning that
1/2 of the horizontal lines are displayed for every vertical frame so
it takes 2 vertical frames to show the maximium horizontal lines. No
TV shows the maximum 525 horizontal lines because some of them are
used for things like sync pulses. TV's have a relatively slow picture
decay which allows us to perceive a better picture than is broadcast.
HDTV doubles the number of scan lines and thus can double the picture
resolution.

Europe uses 50 hz A/C so I do not know if that means that the PAL TV
system is based on 25fps.

arthur
----------
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:44:35 -0500, "Bx.Cornwell" wrote:
>well, coming back to the original poster's question, it's a matter of visual
>perception only.... TVs are around 25 (give or take a few),... so,
>somewhere in that neighborhood for standard TV quality,... for a more
>accurate answer, consult animation specialists, cartoonists, TV effects
>specialists, or video recording crews... basically it's practical applied
>science for them...
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
August 1, 2004 11:44:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Kyle wrote:
> "Jens Nixdorf" <spamtrap@trackpoint.de> wrote in message
> news:ced4rq$mtg$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> In a 3D-Shooter: If you have 100 fps, and at 0.59 sec a new enemy
>> appears, then you can see this enemy exactly at 0.49 sec.

0.1seconds before it appears?

Surely you mean 0.595 seconds, ±0.005s

> If you have 25
>> fps you will see this enemy later, exactly at 0.52 sec.

Still 0.07s before it appears?

Oh I see... The enemy appeared at 0.48s, right? (I hate it when people move
the keys!), so the delay was 0.01s and 0.04s, a difference of 0.03s.

> According to the
>> enemy's time to react you will be dead at 25 fps or alive at 100 fps ;) 

Well reaction time ain't gonna get much quicker than around 1/6 of a second.
So thats, say 0.17s for reaction, and between 0.04 and 0.01s for screen
update. Not much, I'd say, but I see your point. A difference of 0.03s
could be as much as say 20% additional reaction time.

>> As conclusion for the original poster: It's not important to see a
>> "smooth" game, but to have enough time to react. So i can give only one
>> answer to gamers: Higher (fps) is always better.
>>
>> regards, Jens
>
> I'm not certain what your proposed timing numbers are intended to
> exemplify, but .03 seconds difference is interesting. Most "online game
> servers" run a game refresh rate of 20-25 fps (in terms of time, a 50
> millisecond or 40 millisecond update interval rate), so once your vid
> card equals or surpasses this value or speed, little is gained by a
> higher fps. An analysis of reaction time versus fps should include a
> consideration of the timing related to data received from a game server.
> This example assumes 2 players receive data from the server with the same
> ping/delay. Using a 30 fps vid card, a first computer requires 33 mS to
> render a new image based on newly received game data. At 50 fps, a
> second computer requires 20 mS to render the image. Any advantage
> enjoyed by the player using a faster vid card is in the 13 mS time
> difference. In essence, there will be a 13 mS time advantage on every
> rendered frame, but never any more. I would estimate that any delay less
> than 40 mS will be negligible in impact on a player given typical human
> reaction times.

Well if the 20-25 updates per second is true, then for online gaming at
least, a frame rate above 30fps ain't gonna much for ya, in terms of
reaction times.

> More importantly is the ability of a vid card to deliver at least 30 fps
> under the most demanding conditions, such as when there are a large number
> of moving or animated actors on the computer screen, a large number of
> sound effects playing simultaneously, and a large quantity of data
> flowing over the network connection. These factors along with the
> response time to a game server are the most critical.

Indeed. Pings are gonna have the biggest factor, I'd have thought. Thats
another advantage of broadband, ping tends to be much lower than dialup.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
August 1, 2004 11:51:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Tim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I watched an interesting program on BBC the other night where neuro
> scientists discussed the roles of different parts of the brain and
> cognition in general. There is increasing evidence that the conscious
> thinking brain has a reaction time not in the order of 0.2 seconds as is
> commonly believed, but closer to 1.5 seconds. What we perceive is
> actually 1.5 seconds behind time. Now, before you rubbish the idea and
> point to interactive timing exercises of which games are a good example,
> the point they were making was that it is the subconscious that is
> reacting, the conscious mind is merely becoming aware of it afterwards in
> the misguided belief that it actually controlled the reaction!

That totally makes sense. Your reaction of shooting enemies becomes a
subconscious task. It's a very clever mechanism that tends to keep you
alive. You simply cannot consciously take on board enough information and
process it in time to realise that you need to shoot (or get out of the way
or whatever). It's easy to shoot everything in sight, but add in hostages
or friends and the task becomes MUCH harder as you have to use your
conscious to decide whether to shoot or not.

I thought that the distinction between reaction time in terms of conscious
and subconscious processes were well known. I seem to recall the
distinction being made in a neural networks course I did a couple of years
ago.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
August 2, 2004 6:40:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Ben Pope wrote:

>>> In a 3D-Shooter: If you have 100 fps, and at 0.59 sec a new enemy
>>> appears, then you can see this enemy exactly at 0.49 sec.
>
> 0.1seconds before it appears?
>
> Surely you mean 0.595 seconds, ±0.005s
>

No, i mean 0.49sec in both cases

regards, Jens

--
Die o.a. Adresse ist OK, wird aber nicht gelesen. Für Mails an mich bitte
"spamtrap" durch "jens.nixdorf" ersetzen.
!