200FPS in COD yes it is possible

[Vrait]

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

200 FPS

I am Not a technical person, but I thought that:

1. The human eye can't discriminate/appreciate anything over 72-75FPS; some say 60FPS is limit

2. The limit for the normal LCD monitor is 60FPS...and I'd guess that 95% of folks these days have 60Hz LCD's.

3. I've read that there is absolutely no visible difference between 60 and 200FPS, if you have a 60Hz LCD monitor.

Sooooo...if I am even close to understanding those three matters, I have NO idea what your 200 FPS achievement actually means........?!?

Can you explain?

Its a technical achievement. With 60fps your fps could easily still dip to 20-30s. But with 200fps that won't happen. 200fps > 60fps. Now of course monitors can't show 200fps, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it.

[SQB]

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

200 FPS



1. The human eye can't discriminate/appreciate anything over 72-75FPS; some say 60FPS is limit

Not quite true, the eye can tell the difference between 50 and 200hz, although most people can't place what it is that is different, most say that 200hz looks more "real".

An article I read about a year ago was exploring the possibilities of 200hz gaming computers and monitors but came up with the fact that only older games would actually run at 200fps and as such the extra money spend would be superfluous

/ramble

[Hatch]

Having the ability to play at 200 fps would imply your CPU has this overhead as well.

So it's a good thing.

In simracing you really do notice this in your laptimes ( up to a point, then talent or lack thereof kicks in ).

Especially if you use FFB.

I'm assuming capping the framerates only influences the graphics?

[FS~Phat]

Heres the settings and some screen shots.




Straight and level free flight England.





Approaching Coast free flight England.





Rooftop free flight England.




Bomber Intercept Hawkindge

[FS~Phat]

Oh and I get almost no screen tearing, certainly not enough that I notice it. I would have to look for it intentionally to see it.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

200 FPS

I am Not a technical person, but I thought that:

1. The human eye can't discriminate/appreciate anything over 72-75FPS; some say 60FPS is limit

2. The limit for the normal LCD monitor is 60FPS...and I'd guess that 95% of folks these days have 60Hz LCD's.

3. I've read that there is absolutely no visible difference between 60 and 200FPS, if you have a 60Hz LCD monitor.

Sooooo...if I am even close to understanding those three matters, I have NO idea what your 200 FPS achievement actually means........?!?

Can you explain?

yes and no

You can easily tell the difference between 30, 60 70, 80, 90, and 100hz. You might even be able to place them in ascending order if your eye is sharp. After 100-110 you're getting into the realm of diminishing returns. Back when I had a top of the line NEC CRT monitor I had to run it at 100hz because anything else seemed to flicker. I could take it all the way up to 120hz, but could notice any improvement past 100hz. Maybe if you had two monitors side by side with each refresh rate you could tell, but not by looking at one then the other.

FPS above your monitor's refresh rate is a waste, unless the game is like CLOD and you need that much overhead to stay above your monitor's RR during intense parts.

[FS~Phat]

On a static image, less than 1 frame per year would be sufficient.
On a static background with slow to medium speed object with a few pixels movement per second, 30 FPS is sufficient as the human brain can automatically fill in the gaps.
On a panning background with static objects the human brain can sometimes fill in the gaps and sometimes not which is why 60FPS or 60Hz is used as the so called benchmark.

On a panning background with fast moving objects the human eye cannot fill in the gaps so frames above 60FPS are useful as the extra frames will fill in the missing info that the brain cannot fill in.

Ever noticed stutter at the cinema or on a TV broadcast??... there is insufficient intermediate detail per frame in a lot of panning shots or fast action so the brain sees a stutter.

This is why above 60FPS even at 60hz looks smoother, because there are more frames available to fill in per screen refresh so the motion looks smoother and more fluid and natural as there are more pixels per inch available to render for panning and moving objects.

I will try to find a graphic to illustrate this.

[roadczar]

Are you getting 200 fps + using Eyefinity (5760x1080) with everything on high?
What RadeonPro settings/tweaks are you using?

Could you do me a favor and run an average fps using the "The Black Death.trk" on very high? Thanks.

I'm currently getting 53 fps average on very high at 5760x1080.

Beta ATI 8.86 drivers here:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=345525

[FS~Phat]

Originally Posted by roadczar

Are you getting 200 fps + using Eyefinity (5760x1080) with everything on high?
What RadeonPro settings/tweaks are you using?

Could you do me a favor and run an average fps using the "The Black Death.trk" on very high? Thanks.

I'm currently getting 53 fps average on very high at 5760x1080.

Beta ATI 8.86 drivers here:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=345525

Havent tried eyefinity res with the new radeon settings but will give it a try tonight. At work at the moment for another 4 hours! I dont have the frame buffer of the newest cards (only 1GB cards) so I dont expect to get great FPS at 5760x1080.