Project Gotham Racing 3 frame rate in doubt

[TomO]

A post by Chris Pickford, site admin over at the official Bizarre Creations forum has mounted speculation as to whether or not Project Gotham Racing 3 (http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/nid/752/1072/) will run at 60 frames per second.

[Vandenh]

God.. what a stupid title (straight from EG as well). The guy is a dev just telling the truth. They do NOT know the final framerate yet... there is not even final hardware. I guess being honest now is considered really bad. Next time they should release some pre-rendered movies running at 100000fps!

In other shocking news: It is still uncertain if ANY game in development will achieve 60Fps.

[TomO]

Headlines are meant to grab people's attention. The news item explains that 60 fps is the target and that the game is in its final stage of development where most of the performance tweaks and fine-tuning takes place.

[Vandenh]

>Headlines are meant to grab people's attention.

Sadly this isn't "news"... it is just a fact of developing games (and software in general).

[gravey]

Headlines are meant to grab people's attention.
As Vandenh pointed out, the headline came right from Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=60026). That's the only thing about this thread that grabbed my attention.

[TomO]

We weren't aware that Eurogamer had the same headline. Looking at that news story, the actual text is very different, while obviously covering the same story. While some people would argue about it actually being news, any comment about a next-gen game will get attention.

[Ridlin]

I don't know why people get so bent out of shape about 60 frames a second. Your eye can only see 33 1/2 a second any ways. Anything past 40 and you can't tell the difference between it and 60.

90% of the time developers are just tell people it's 60, when in reality that means it's over 40.

[RichardTowler]

from my experence, the frame rate number isn't as important compared to how the smooth the game plays, you can have a game play at 30fps that seems smooth, but a game at higher fps that doens't seem as smooth etc

A game that runs at a constant 30fps is much better and appears much smoother, than a game that runs at frame rates between 30/60fps depending on the scene.

[Frogleg Special]

Oh fuck, it's Fable again

[MStiles]

Meh, I don't care if it runs at 30. Forza runs at 30, and it "feels" much better than that for two reasons. One, locking at 30 let them have really super-consistant framerate, and consistancy is more important. Two, they sample the controller several times per frame instead of once per frame, so it's got like "100fps feel" to it. Works great. It's not like 30fps keeps Forza from being the best console car sim game yet.

I'm of the belief that a lot of the so-called journalists and game news guys that harp on and on about 60fps wouldn't really be able to tell the difference in a lot of games. The guys at Bizarre could lock them in a room with a 30fps PGR3 and say "and it's all running at 60fps!" and they'd probably believe it, and write on their sites and magazines that "you can really FEEL the 60fps."

[if76]

This site answered some questions (and raised further questions). http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
At the very bottom of the page they suggest 120fps.

[sTubbs]

I'm of the belief that a lot of the so-called journalists and game news guys that harp on and on about 60fps wouldn't really be able to tell the difference in a lot of games. The guys at Bizarre could lock them in a room with a 30fps PGR3 and say "and it's all running at 60fps!" and they'd probably believe it, and write on their sites and magazines that "you can really FEEL the 60fps."

That is probably truer than I would like to believe. It seems to me that consistency is probably more important than sheer FPS. I would much rather have a game sitting rock solid at 30 FPS than a game struggling to hold 60 FPS.

One question I do have, however, is why 30 and 60 are the only numbers that get tossed around. Why can developers not just take their game and test it for the maximum FPS that can be locked down, and run with that number? Is it a crime to run a game at a solid 47 or 51 FPS, or does it have to do with the way we percieve those frames that requires 30 or 60 FPS? I have searched for answers to these questions, but I guess I have never stumbled across the right source. So, does anyone have any answers?

[Darkman]

One question I do have, however, is why 30 and 60 are the only numbers that get tossed around. Why can developers not just take their game and test it for the maximum FPS that can be locked down, and run with that number? Is it a crime to run a game at a solid 47 or 51 FPS, or does it have to do with the way we percieve those frames that requires 30 or 60 FPS? I have searched for answers to these questions, but I guess I have never stumbled across the right source. So, does anyone have any answers?

It has to do with the refresh rate for the TV. I belive TV's run at 60Hz so your fps can be 60,30,20, or 15. Frame rates that are divisable by the Hz on the display device.

Darkman

[mister_slim]

I don't know why people get so bent out of shape about 60 frames a second. Your eye can only see 33 1/2 a second any ways. Anything past 40 and you can't tell the difference between it and 60.
It is important, actually. Your eye will notice the movements blurring together. Animation will look smoother and more dynamic. Ninja Gaiden, for example, benefited quite a bit from a higher frame rate. Racing games will look more realistic because less artificial blurring will be needed.

[gravey]

Your eye will notice the movements blurring together. Animation will look smoother and more dynamic. Ninja Gaiden, for example, benefited quite a bit from a higher frame rate. Racing games will look more realistic because less artificial blurring will be needed.
I once tried playing UT2k4 at 320x240 with most everything turned off, for that old-school feeling. But as resolution went down, frame rate went up, so I ended up with blocky pixellated guys running around with incredibly fluid animation. Needless to say, I didn't relive those Doom II memories. Also, I may be the only person on Earth who would be disappointed.

[Thenetcase]

I don't know why people get so bent out of shape about 60 frames a second. Your eye can only see 33 1/2 a second any ways. Anything past 40 and you can't tell the difference between it and 60.

Ok, granted, my doctor told me I have weird eyes because I can EASILY see a difference between a 80hz refresh and an 85hz refresh rate on a monitor while looking STRAIGHT AT IT....
But that fact aside, I can see QUITE a HUGE difference between 30 and 60fps! For crying out loud, I can see a difference between 50 and 60!

I've always thought Forza had a low frame rate and someone earlier in the thread confirmed that for me. That explains why it's a little choppy all the time. :(

Oh well.

-TNC-

[Red Cloak]

TomO, resident EA retard.

[Morrolan]

I don't know why people get so bent out of shape about 60 frames a second. Your eye can only see 33 1/2 a second any ways. Anything past 40 and you can't tell the difference between it and 60.
This is a common misconception. But it's just that. There is an enormous difference between 38 and 60 frames per second. Your eye can not see the difference, in terms of picking up individual frames. For instance, if you were to watch the screen flash from black to white 38 times per second, and 60 times per second, you would be hard-pressed to say which was faster. However, when you're viewing a game, with a lot of movement that you can track, you can very easily see that 60 frames per seconds is much, much smoother. You can't see each frame any better than you can each frame at 38 fps, but you can certainly see the difference when it's in motion.