Inside: SereneScreen Fan Forum

Inside: SereneScreen Fan Forum (https://www.feldoncentral.com/forums/index.php)
-   Sharks: Terrors of the Deep (https://www.feldoncentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   60fps requirements??? (https://www.feldoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3212)

riz 08-27-2005 12:27 PM

60fps requirements???
 
Hey guys, just downloaded the trial and before I buy I wanted to know what it's gonna take to run this puppy @ 60fps? My favorite scene is the reef and on my 2.4ghz, ti 4800 @ 1280x1024 it runs around 37fps :( hmmm, not good as i run my MA2 screensaver full time on a dedicated aquarium PC that is a 1ghz, 512mb ram and a ti 4200... it ran right around 30fps for the same scene :(

So, what's it gonna take the top video card? i don't see a big difference in framerate with my 2 pcs and a big diff between 2.4 and 1ghz, so i presume the video card is doing all the work.. so, what's the cheapest new (or semi-new) video card I would need to get to run at 58fps locked?

- thx

GeorgeHeppelle 08-27-2005 08:42 PM

My frame rate is 37, I have a 2gb processor Pent 4 and my video card is an Nvidia GForce w/ 64mb on it - Serene runs smooth as glass on a 20" monitor 1280x1024 32bit - the secret might by my 1gig of ram - I can't imagine improving the quality or movement of the fish. I would be curious of how 60 frames would differ?

Surferminn 08-27-2005 10:39 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Aw nuts. I deleted my first reply because afterwards I noticed the thread was on sharks which I do not have. But now that I reread your post, in reference to MA2, I see I was not crazy afterall in posting a reply about MA2 in the sharks thread. :rolleyes: So here's a rendition of my reply. I used to run MA2 at about 37 fps. I upgraded my ram memory from 512mg to 1.5 gb as well as my video card to an ATI 9600 pro. Here are couple of pics of my MA2 running at 60fps in full screen mode and if you run it on windowed mode, the fps goes up to 243. Also included is a pic of the settings for MA2 for both of these pics. I have a Pentium4, processing at 2.8ghz. sorry I cannot say if it was the extra memory or the video card or both that boosted the fps. But you know, it ran pretty smoothly at 37fps too, just that the fishes do look a tad better with the new video card. Edit -- now the forum won't let me upload the same pics, it says the pics are already uploaded and stored on this thread. :rolleyes: Well, hopefully the text is helpful. edit - attachment works now even tho moot.

Edgar 08-28-2005 01:55 AM

Video Card is your bottleneck. More video memory for the textures and faster rendering will definitely increase the fps to 60fps or more.

If you don't mind turning off some features, lowering the resolution, or/and have less Sharks, you might able to achieve 60fps with your current machine.

cjmaddy 08-28-2005 03:09 AM

But shouldn't it also be stated clearly that to try to achieve a frame rate in the hundreds, is futile? - anything over say 40/50 will have no visible real world difference, - right? :)

Marian Nichols 08-28-2005 04:39 AM

right, the human eye would not see it.
Saw a Documentary on sight, and the number of lines (for TV viewing) needed to percieve movement and after that most people will not notice the different.

riz 08-28-2005 09:52 AM

I can easily discern the difference between 30fps and 60fps.. many can not but that doesn't mean the debate between 60/30fps is imaginary... to me, 30fps has a stuttery double vision effect and simply pales in comparison to 60fps... 60fps is silky smooth, simple as that...

my vid cards in both machines are similar (ti4800 versus ti4200) but the machines are 2.4ghz p4 vs p3 1ghz (both with 512mb ram) and the framerates between them are 39 and 31 so yep vid cards are the limiting factor

feldon34 08-28-2005 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marian Nichols
right, the human eye would not see it.
Saw a Documentary on sight, and the number of lines (for TV viewing) needed to percieve movement and after that most people will not notice the different.

A major misconception that I have tried to dispel everywhere I can.

The minimum frames per second needed to PERCEIVE motion is about 15-20 frames per second.

However, humans can easily see the difference in smoothness between 24, 30, 60, 75, and even 90-100 frames per second.

Otherwise why in the world would video game developers spend thousands of hours optimizing their games to get a solid 60 frames per second? Why would IMAX corporation spend millions of dollars in extra film stock to film their 3D features at 45 frames per second when 24 will do?

I pity anyone who has a regular computer monitor (CRT) set to 60 Hz (60 times per second refresh). I get a headache after about an hour of using one at that setting.

riz 08-28-2005 11:25 AM

^^^ lol, it's a futile fight... simply because many can NOT perceive the difference between 30 and 60, in their eyes (pun intended), there is no difference :( I've always said something similar to what you said... umm, why would video game forums fight thread after thread if 30fps was as smooth as 60fps? we wouldn't because it isn't!

30fps caters to many, 60fps caters to all... to some, 30fps is stuttery and has a double vision effect and basically, 60fps is silky smooth to everyone.. so i say, what the heck, lets make everyone happy and achieve 60fps in games, it certainly doesn't detract from the 30fps crowd but it certainly pulls in the anti 30fps crowd... the never ending battle continues but 60fps simply put, is enjoyable to everyone and 30fps isn't

Edgar 08-28-2005 11:46 AM

I prefer 60fps myself. The quality of the animation is better at 60fps than at 30fps. The stuttering of the animation is more abvious at 30fps. If you have a chance to compare the two, you will notice the difference.

feldon34 08-29-2005 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riz
^^^ lol, it's a futile fight... simply because many can NOT perceive the difference between 30 and 60, in their eyes (pun intended),

They may not perceive it if you just mention it to them, but I think in an A/B comparison, anyone will notice it.

riz 08-29-2005 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feldon29
They may not perceive it if you just mention it to them, but I think in an A/B comparison, anyone will notice it.

i'd mostly agree with that.. but the problem is most never see an a/b comparison... and because of that, most do not realize how much better 60fps is :(

Here's one, walk into any big office building with pc's... 80% of the pc's are running @ 60hz refresh rates... the screen is flickering all over the place and most regular folk simply don't notice it... 60hz refresh rates give people headaches but they don't know that is what is causing them :( 60 refresh rate is immediately spotted by me and raised to 85 or 100 but most, don't know any better so they accept it as normal and if you asked them "can you see the screen flickering" they mostly would say "huh?, um no"

CatLikingFish 08-30-2005 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riz
... if you asked them "can you see the screen flickering" they mostly would say "huh?, um no"

Yes, I have got this response frequently. But every time I went to their PC and switched the refresh rate to 75 they would say: "Hey, this is *much* better!" :-)

riz 08-30-2005 10:10 AM

To the devs, what vid card is recommended for maximum graphics and framerate? I have been a huge fan of marine aquarium for 4 years but the 2d background and lack of customization may make Sharks my new full time virtual aquarium! well, actually if i buy your program, i will cycle both but man, so far your sharks looks really great... I just want to know what I'm up against to achieve a better framerate.. i only have the demo and it's kinda chugging at just over 35fps with only 1 shark :o If i buy, I'm really afraid of what the framerate might be with all the sharks... but, good news, i'm always willing to buy a new vid card as long is it's under 200 hundred, so, what vid card is recommended? ati or nvidia?? <--- the age old debate!

Edgar 08-30-2005 11:23 AM

For the record, I can't run the screensaver at 60fps either. I only have a GeForce MX4. I have been waiting for the price of NVidia's GeForce 6600 GT 256Mb to get low enough for me to buy it. Now that more advance video cards are coming out, I just might get my wish.

We are not doing much video games anymore and I haven't had time to play video games so to justify buying the best video card is out of the question. This also helps to make sure that the lower end video cards can still use the screensaver.

If we raise the requirement to DirectX9 instead of DirectX7, we may be able to get a little more optimizations in the code however, the bottleneck is the amount of textures being manipulated by the screensaver. I am looking at possible solutions to speed it up as soon as I find some time for it.

Edit: I think I saw this video card in Best Buy for about $160. I am sure other places may have it too.

riz 09-03-2005 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edgar
I have been waiting for the price of NVidia's GeForce 6600 GT 256Mb to get low enough for me to buy it. Now that more advance video cards are coming out, I just might get my wish.

This may be the ticket, Nvidia GeForce 6800 128mb for $165 @ newegg.com: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814140045

256mb may not be worth it as the prices are just plain too high... my pc doesn't have pci express and the benchmarks seem to indicate that the 6800 is the king sub $200 cards: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-S...body_pagenum=2


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.