frame rate limiting in games

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I know the concept sounds ridiculous... at first. But I think the idea
has alot of merit. Yet few PC games use frame rate limiters.

The whole idea of frame rate limiting is that it's not the upper maximum
framerate that matters, but having a consistant framerate overall, since
changes in framerate can be even more annoying than low framerate. Look at
movies or TV video- it only runs 24-30 frames per second. Many games on
consoles have frame rate limiting, and some of the PC ports and a few native
PC games do as well.
24 answers Last reply
More about frame rate limiting games
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:46:14 -0400, "Magnulus"
    <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    > I know the concept sounds ridiculous... at first. But I think the idea
    >has alot of merit. Yet few PC games use frame rate limiters.

    Enabling V-Sync, problem solved.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
    news:3hk9e19ltflsrmgn4uu90vuqehbgpha4ea@4ax.com...

    > Enabling V-Sync, problem solved.

    Not really, because in modern games even cards like the GeForce 6600
    cannot pull off even 60 frames per second on average.

    Personally, I think in many games more than 30 frames per second is pretty
    much a waste. I don't think many strategy games need more than 30 frames
    per second, for instance, neither do most RPG's. And even many action
    games don't need that many. But what they do need is a framerate that stays
    consistant. With inconsistant framerates you can get mouse lag and other
    effects.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:50:12 -0400, "Magnulus"
    <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    > Personally, I think in many games more than 30 frames per second is pretty
    >much a waste.

    Well I am glad games developers don't share your view of things.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Why? Would you honestly know a game like Halo was running 30 frames per
    second unless somebody told you? Or that GTA is running only at 24-25
    frames per second?
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Magnulus wrote:
    > I know the concept sounds ridiculous... at first. But I think the idea
    > has alot of merit. Yet few PC games use frame rate limiters.
    >
    > The whole idea of frame rate limiting is that it's not the upper maximum
    > framerate that matters, but having a consistant framerate overall, since
    > changes in framerate can be even more annoying than low framerate. Look at
    > movies or TV video- it only runs 24-30 frames per second. Many games on
    > consoles have frame rate limiting, and some of the PC ports and a few native
    > PC games do as well.
    >
    >

    1) V-Sync.

    2) There is no similarity between frame rates for movies and those for
    games : movies have blurred frames which lend to better/smoother image
    at lower frame rates.

    --
    Walter Mitty
    -
    Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
    " Format wars could 'confuse users'"
    http://www.tinyurl.com
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Walter Mitty" <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3kk8rbFtsr53U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > 2) There is no similarity between frame rates for movies and those for
    > games : movies have blurred frames which lend to better/smoother image at
    > lower frame rates.

    Film only blurs if it is slow by nature, there are high speed films that
    won't have blurring. Usually, the motion blur in film is an artifact of the
    persistance of vision. Just consider that most cartoons usually run at
    much less than 30 frames per second, yet most people see fluid motion
    (especially if keyframing is used, as in many prime time cartoon shows).

    Look at Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas or Halo on the PC. Both of them
    have framerate limiters (GTA appears to be around 25 fps based on FRAPS, and
    Halo is 30 fps), and it really doesn't affect the game alot. In the case of
    San Andreas, it is necessary for the way the game engine works- it has to
    have enough time to do calculations for LOD on distant objects. If you turn
    it off, you can get very stuttering framerates.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Quoth The Raven "Magnulus"<magnulus@bellsouth.net> in
    Ko3Fe.29116$TU.24429@bignews1.bellsouth.net
    > I know the concept sounds ridiculous... at first. But I think the
    > idea has alot of merit. Yet few PC games use frame rate limiters.
    >
    > The whole idea of frame rate limiting is that it's not the upper
    > maximum framerate that matters, but having a consistant framerate
    > overall, since changes in framerate can be even more annoying than
    > low framerate. Look at movies or TV video- it only runs 24-30 frames
    > per second. Many games on consoles have frame rate limiting, and
    > some of the PC ports and a few native PC games do as well.

    so what's the merrit?

    --
    An Argument needs no reason; Nor any friendship. - Ibycus

    Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Highlandish" <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:42e4c616$0$18636$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
    > so what's the merrit?

    Well, for starters, it keeps the framerate consistant. Many games the
    graphics card cannot run consistently at 60 frames per second, or the
    refresh of the monitor, not without some very high end hardware (think
    GeForce FX 7800, and maybe SLI at that even).

    And secondly, it will mean the graphics cards will have spare power. This
    means you could theoretically devote more of the power to image quality
    enhancements such as anti-aliasing, pixel shading, or anisotropic filtering,
    because the game would only be rendering at less than full capacity.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:07:37 -0400, "Magnulus"
    <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    > Why? Would you honestly know a game like Halo was running 30 frames per
    >second unless somebody told you? Or that GTA is running only at 24-25
    >frames per second?

    Assuming you are talking to me, yes I can tell the difference between
    10,20,30,40,50 and 60 fps. My brain max's out at about 70. The brain
    works differently between first person and third person perspectives
    and framerate doesn't need to be as high in third person games like
    GTA. I don't use the framerate limiter in any of the GTA games.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
    news:Ko3Fe.29116$TU.24429@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
    > I know the concept sounds ridiculous... at first. But I think the idea
    > has alot of merit. Yet few PC games use frame rate limiters.

    Few PC games (that were written in the modern era) _need_ frame rate
    limiters.

    Assuming you have a modern (3 ghz or so) CPU, get a copy of GTA2 and disable
    the framerate limit. Witness the results, and you might understand why ports
    _resort_ to the use of framerate limiters.

    > The whole idea of frame rate limiting is that it's not the upper maximum
    > framerate that matters, but having a consistant framerate overall, since
    > changes in framerate can be even more annoying than low framerate.

    Ok, so say I am playing some 3d game. An uncapped framerate is 120 fps most
    of the time. But then there's an area where the framerate drops to 10.
    You're saying that if I capped the framerate, this would make things more
    consistent. So now, I am playing at 30 fps (which has the same feel as 120
    fps), and then I get to that nasty zone. The framerate drops to 10 again. In
    other words, regardless of whether the cap is on or off, the game feels the
    exact same way -- smooth in the good zones, 10 fps in the bad zones. It's
    not like the GPU can "save up" on fps and then apply them to low-fps zones.
    Calculations are done in real-time, yes? So a complex zone is going to be
    slow (inconsistent) regardless of whether there is a cap.

    > Look at
    > movies or TV video- it only runs 24-30 frames per second. Many games on
    > consoles have frame rate limiting, and some of the PC ports and a few
    native
    > PC games do as well.
    >

    There is a reason why ports tend to have limiters, and native PC games tend
    not to. Also, you might want to look into "tickrate" to further understand
    this issue. Most "framerate" limiters are, in fact, tickrate limiters. It is
    necessary to limit tickrates because of the varying degree of CPU power in
    PCs. You want a game to run in real-time, not processing time. It so happens
    that with the right combination of computational complexity and
    computational power, real-time = processing time. But this is a rare case in
    PCs. In consoles, it's actually quite normal, since the hardware is known,
    the developer can simply adjust complexity to match it. But when it comes
    time to port the game, you are taking 700 mhz worth of software and putting
    it on 3ghz worth of hardware. Without a limiter, the tickrate is going to
    fly.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    That's why graphics cards have multiple buffers. While its rendering one
    frame it's working on another. I don't know exactly if that's "saving up",
    but it's probably close. I doubt though, if a game drops from 120 to 10
    frames per second, that a frame limiter is going to help. More likely
    there's some kind of bug in the game or the CPU is waiting on some kind of
    I/O access with the hard drive if that happens.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Quoth The Raven "Magnulus"<magnulus@bellsouth.net> in
    _16Fe.26605$dz.13753@bignews4.bellsouth.net
    > "Highlandish" <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:42e4c616$0$18636$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
    >> so what's the merrit?
    >
    > Well, for starters, it keeps the framerate consistant. Many games
    > the graphics card cannot run consistently at 60 frames per second, or
    > the refresh of the monitor, not without some very high end hardware
    > (think GeForce FX 7800, and maybe SLI at that even).
    >
    > And secondly, it will mean the graphics cards will have spare power.
    > This means you could theoretically devote more of the power to image
    > quality enhancements such as anti-aliasing, pixel shading, or
    > anisotropic filtering, because the game would only be rendering at
    > less than full capacity.

    so if I locked the frame rate to NTSC or pal, I could get more power towards
    prettiness?

    --
    I bought an audio cleaning tape. I'm a big fan of theirs. - Kevin Gildea

    Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Highlandish" <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:42e57ff9$0$18649$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
    > so if I locked the frame rate to NTSC or pal, I could get more power
    > towards prettiness?

    Maybe- in theory.

    What's even worse than no frame rate limiter- the fools who think turning
    V-Sync on hurts performance. It doesn't, at least not in any way you can
    see. Your monitor just cannot display anything more than its refresh rate,
    even if the video card can render more. What's even worse is when it causes
    texture thrashing. V-sync off is great for benchmarking, but for everything
    else it should be on.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
    news:HhiFe.1359$8g5.1137@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "Highlandish" <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:42e57ff9$0$18649$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
    >> so if I locked the frame rate to NTSC or pal, I could get more power
    >> towards prettiness?
    >
    > Maybe- in theory.
    >
    > What's even worse than no frame rate limiter- the fools who think turning
    > V-Sync on hurts performance. It doesn't, at least not in any way you can
    > see. Your monitor just cannot display anything more than its refresh
    > rate, even if the video card can render more. What's even worse is when
    > it causes texture thrashing. V-sync off is great for benchmarking, but
    > for everything else it should be on.
    >
    Interesting read here.
    http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=928593&highlight=vsync
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    This sounds fishy, because according to the article with a 60Hz refresh
    and Vsync enabled, you should never get 25 frames per second. You should
    get 20. Well, according to FRAPS, in Grand Theft Auto I get 25 frames per
    second rather consistantly. So unless the way FRAPS works is wrong, the
    explanation is incorrect. And at any rate, triple buffering uses extra
    memory for the extra buffer, though it is useful for producing more
    cosistant framerates. But not every game supports triple buffering.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:28:27 -0400, "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net>
    wrote:

    > That's why graphics cards have multiple buffers.

    The multiple buffering is only meant to support getting an image rendered
    without having the user see filckering, or the drawing process.

    > While its rendering one frame it's working on another. I don't know
    >exactly if that's "saving up", but it's probably close.

    Not quite...

    In triple buffering, there are three frames in memory - one is on the
    screen, and the other two are somewhere else.

    In the game cycle, work is done on the second buffer. When done, it queues
    that beffer to be put on dioplay, advances time by 1/60th of a second (or
    any other desired time), and renders the next frame on the third buffer.
    The thirh buffer then gets queued, and work starts back on the first frame.

    If rendering time is slow, it will interfere with the FPS no matter what.
    The only thing buffering helps is the rendering of frames during a VSync
    wait.

    >I doubt though, if a game drops from 120 to 10
    >frames per second, that a frame limiter is going to help.

    True, but it will help if there is a drop from 75 to 60 - which is much
    more noticable.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> Spake Unto All:

    > This sounds fishy, because according to the article with a 60Hz refresh
    >and Vsync enabled, you should never get 25 frames per second. You should
    >get 20. Well, according to FRAPS, in Grand Theft Auto I get 25 frames per
    >second rather consistantly.

    Actually you should get 30 fps. And you probably do. Fraps isn't 100%
    accurate, as it also says in its documentation.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Magnulus wrote:
    > "Walter Mitty" <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:3kk8rbFtsr53U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    >>2) There is no similarity between frame rates for movies and those for
    >>games : movies have blurred frames which lend to better/smoother image at
    >>lower frame rates.
    >
    >
    > Film only blurs if it is slow by nature, there are high speed films that
    > won't have blurring.

    Rubbish.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Walter Mitty wrote:
    > Magnulus wrote:
    >
    >> "Walter Mitty" <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:3kk8rbFtsr53U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >>
    >>> 2) There is no similarity between frame rates for movies and those
    >>> for games : movies have blurred frames which lend to better/smoother
    >>> image at lower frame rates.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Film only blurs if it is slow by nature, there are high speed films
    >> that won't have blurring.
    >
    >
    > Rubbish.

    Sorry, got cut off there.

    A) Film is slow by nature. High speed film is not a good movie filming
    medium.
    B) The blurring is a good thing : reduces frame rates requirements.
    C) QED

    --
    Walter Mitty
    -
    Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
    " Format wars could 'confuse users'"
    http://www.tinyurl.com
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Magnulus wrote:
    > That's why graphics cards have multiple buffers. While its rendering one
    > frame it's working on another. I don't know exactly if that's "saving up",

    No. One buffer is switched to the front while the hidden one is rendered.

    > but it's probably close. I doubt though, if a game drops from 120 to 10
    > frames per second, that a frame limiter is going to help. More likely

    Erm, correct. You can hardly "limit" a framerate of 10 back up to 50.

    > there's some kind of bug in the game or the CPU is waiting on some kind of
    > I/O access with the hard drive if that happens.

    Or the scene has more calculations. Which is reason other than
    stuttering generally, as you correctly say, due to some peripheral
    interface going tits up.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    perhaps turning on the V-Sync /frame limiter video setting would reduce the
    work the Video card has to do and reduce overheating problems .....
    e.g perhaps a Video card could be overclocked higher with V-Sync on ????
    Any bunny know??
    Luv mouse
    @@@@
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Trimble Bracegirdle" <NOspam@spam.not> wrote in message
    news:42e81796$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
    > perhaps turning on the V-Sync /frame limiter video setting would reduce
    the
    > work the Video card has to do and reduce overheating problems .....
    > e.g perhaps a Video card could be overclocked higher with V-Sync on ????
    > Any bunny know??
    > Luv mouse
    > @@@@
    >
    >

    But what would be the point of o/c if you are capping the fps? So, you
    increase the clock rate just to fill it with an idle process?
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Kevin C. wrote:
    > "Trimble Bracegirdle" <NOspam@spam.not> wrote in message
    > news:42e81796$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
    >
    >>perhaps turning on the V-Sync /frame limiter video setting would reduce
    >
    > the
    >
    >>work the Video card has to do and reduce overheating problems .....
    >>e.g perhaps a Video card could be overclocked higher with V-Sync on ????
    >>Any bunny know??
    >>Luv mouse
    >>@@@@
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > But what would be the point of o/c if you are capping the fps? So, you
    > increase the clock rate just to fill it with an idle process?
    >
    >

    Never be surprised at the stupidity of a lot of PC Hardcore "Gamerz".

    --
    Walter Mitty
    -
    Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
    " Format wars could 'confuse users'"
    http://www.tinyurl.com
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    For me The practical issue here is re: increasing framerate
    smoothness...and improving the MINIMUM frame rates
    @@@@@@@@@@@
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games Framerate Video Games