60fps (and 1080p to some extent) limit GT5

[infamousDee]

FINALLY someone who isn't part of the 'bt 60 is teh Bigger Numba than 30' gang.

Too bad you're both completely wrong. The drop in fluidity and response to user input when a game drops below 60fps is obvious. Why else do you think the overwhelming majority of titles this generation uses this as its framerate?

 

[novcze]

when something is moving at high speed, things blur naturally except for what you're focused on or anything that's moving at the same pace as you.

By natural blur I meant blur caused by exposure time of the camera, check post I was reacting to.

But part of your post I've quoted is exactly why 60 fps will be always better than 30 fps. In racing game you're focused on relatively small area of the screen and I can tell you even 1080p and 60 fps is not enough to achieve same sensation as in real life.

 

[JBturbo]

Too bad you're both completely wrong. The drop in fluidity and response to user input when a game drops below 60fps is obvious. Why else do you think the overwhelming majority of titles this generation uses this as its framerate?

Because suckers buy into it and go OMFG 60FPS?

 

[novcze]

Because suckers buy into it and go OMFG 60FPS?

You have some image perception problem, don't you? And now you want to ruin the game for everyone.

 

[petalpusher6]

60 fps is roughly twice the need in computational power (gpu wise) so you are basically saying that ALL sim racing developpers aiming for fastest framerates possible (60 at least) are just waisting ressources for ages and they should stop making this worthless effort of rendering their game in 60 fps. For all the reasons, some and i, have tried to explain here.

That's awesome, you guys should really start to developp your own racing sim in 30 fps with motion blur everywhere, cause for more than 10 years, we have done it in 60fps and it's time to stop.. Even f355 on Dreamcast was at 60fps and it was a huge accomplishement at this time and the reason why the game was so stunning and the mother of all on console back in 2000.

All theses guys are just a bunch of idiots who are waisting HALF of their ressources for nothing and you know better.

 

[infamousDee]

Because suckers buy into it and go OMFG 60FPS?

What makes you think these "suckers" would be attracted to one particular title, seeing as every game is 60fps nowadays?

 

[Griffith500]

And everyone should know your LCD monitor probably doesn't refresh at over 60FPS so the 90 and 120 buttons are worthless.

Everyone should check this out

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Good link.

Seeing framewise is simply not the way how the eye\brain system works. It works with a continuous flow of light\information.

That's where the Professor went wrong. The human eye / brain combo is nothing like a camera, and she knows it!

I miss the old CRTs, where 100+ Hz was the norm; but I don't miss their bulk!

 

[damaged_case]

Too bad you're both completely wrong. The drop in fluidity and response to user input when a game drops below 60fps is obvious. Why else do you think the overwhelming majority of titles this generation uses this as its framerate?

if the framerate fluxuates, sure. you're gonna notice that what you're seeing is clearer here and not there. but the fluidity of the motion doesn't change because you can only see things move so fast.

60fps updates images at 16.667milliseconds
we can perceive updated images at around 62.5milliseconds.

yes, we can detect a scene change (proven in tests on USAF pilots) at 1/200th of a second (and i think the absolute limit was around 1/500th), but those tests aren't about seeing motion happen.
it's about looking at absolutely nothing, pitch black, then an images being shown for 1/200th of a second, then nothing again (very high contrast). it's the afterimage that the pilot is able to make out.

again.
30fps is perfectly capable of showing fluid motion. images aren't as crisp as 60fps, but that crispness is unnatural and is then made more natural by adding motion blur.
wasting resources that could be used elsewhere.

like someone else mentioned before, go back and play an older game that doesn't run at 60fps and see for yourself that the fluidity of the motion is no different than it is at 60fps.

if you want some video game proof of 60fps being pretty much useless, look at Killzone 2.
it was locked at 30fps. the motion of the game was absolutely flawless, and because the framerate was locked at 30, Geurilla Games was able to maintain a ridiculously high fidelity all throughout the game.

wasted.
resources.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

at 60fps, there's not.
not even at 30fps.
which is why games now have to incorporate Motion Blur technologies into games to make them seem more realistic. Motion Blur is the unfortunate afterbirth of high frame rates.

when something is moving at high speed, things blur naturally except for what you're focused on or anything that's moving at the same pace as you.

the higher the frame rate, the less this blur happens because images are sent faster.
it's like a high speed shutter on a camera. moving at the same rate, a high speed camera will take a cripser image, but it loses the sense of speed you get from a lower speed camera because there's less blur.

moving at 60fps, things around your car (the walls of the track, the people in the stands, etc) are clearer images than at 30fps, but that's totally unnatural. so game developers, along with other mediums who say higher frame rates are better, have to develop motion blur to make it seem more real. a resource that could be used elsewhere as well.

60fps is not better. you can't process the images that fast. all 60fps does is make the things you're moving passed more crisp. the motion will still be as fluid at 30fps.

so you're wasting resources on updating images quicker than you need to, and you're also wasting resources on Motion Blur to make the things you see more clearly at 60fps... blurry.

(edit)
when you're moving around in a 3D world (let's use Indy Speedway since i'm doing that endurance race right now), the faster you move through it, the more the other objects in that 3D world are blurred. your car is not static on the track, the track and the grandstands are static. moving around in this 3D world would have the same effects of moving around on the real thing.

This is a load of crap. Motion blur is implemented for games with lower framer rates, not higher. You are missing the whole point of 60FPS, it is to make the game look more fluid and natural, not to make it unnatural. Games at 30FPS use motion blur to make the game look smoother. The motion of things moving by are more crisp as it is more fluid and not have added motion blur. Motion blur is not used in higher FPS unless for effects such as crashing but games with lower FPS use it to smooth over the jerkiness.

FINALLY someone who isn't part of the 'bt 60 is teh Bigger Numba than 30' gang.

60FPS is better for every game. However due to console limitations most game are made to run at 30FPS to have higher graphics detail. This is why people are complaining about GT5 shadows as they had to comprise them to make it run at 60FPS.

The eyes see anything above 25 fps as motion. At 60 you arent seeing half the frames. Our eyes arent quick enough to notice the difference.

Ive never gone back to play an old game (GT1 for example) and said "OMG this is unplayable at only 50fps, it looks like it is jerking all the time."

Eyes can distinguish a difference between 100FPS to 200FPS in video game motion so anything above 25FPS will be easy to tell the difference from. GT5 the FPS is much more important as it can have life like driving physics and the game drops down to 50 at some points I believe. Anything above 40FPS will look much better than 30FPS in terms of smoothness.

Well yes, by definition it's correct but that doesn't mean much. It could be 10 x 1080 and still be 1080p but that's gravy.

I can see the benefit of 1080p over 720p but in actual gameplay GT5 doesn't even have the power to make anywhere near the most of it.

Ironically 720p would probably make the shadows look a little bit less crap

You do realise GT5 does have separate video modes, 720p and 1080p, the 720p has 2x more AA than 1080p. 1080p will look sharper on screens that have a native resolution of 1080p.

Because suckers buy into it and go OMFG 60FPS?

60FPS in console games is rare. Most games are actually 30FPS on console however due to raw power of mid to high end PCs, these games can run at 1920x108p at 60FPS full detail and AA. However on consoles due to hardware limitations, developers use 30FPS to have higher graphics fidelity. The difference of developing GT5 at 30FPS, is better weather effects, 3D trees, better textures, more AA and no fuzzy shadows but PD made the compromise to get 60FPS as people who will play this game as a sim will be calling for PD’s heads (Not literally) if they did make it at 30FPS.

On a side note, this whole discussion about there being no difference between 30FPS and 60FPS is one big face-palm. It is a no-brainer for most, but some are trying to make others deluded about the issue. There is a huge difference; if you can’t see it then you may have problems with perceiving motion.

I don’t mind the fact the graphics had to be compromised as I would much prefer 60FPS. I am also happy that PD took the decision to go to such detail on Premium cars as they will ready for PS4 and PS5 gen. If they can render them at 18MP and look very good at the moment then they will not get outdated in terms of graphics quality for any gen, unless TV screens have super high-res displays in the future 15-30 years time.

 

[chromatic9]

Problem with GT5 is how often it drops way below 60FPS, so if you haven't noticed then you obviously can't tell anyway, "lock it at 50" is not an option PD can have. Kaz has stated its important and that's what they aim for but for me failed a bit here with GT5. GT5P runs mostly at 60FPS.

 

[Mugenjin]

if the framerate fluxuates, sure. you're gonna notice that what you're seeing is clearer here and not there. but the fluidity of the motion doesn't change because you can only see things move so fast.

60fps updates images at 16.667milliseconds
we can perceive updated images at around 62.5milliseconds.

yes, we can detect a scene change (proven in tests on USAF pilots) at 1/200th of a second (and i think the absolute limit was around 1/500th), but those tests aren't about seeing motion happen.
it's about looking at absolutely nothing, pitch black, then an images being shown for 1/200th of a second, then nothing again (very high contrast). it's the afterimage that the pilot is able to make out.

again.
30fps is perfectly capable of showing fluid motion. images aren't as crisp as 60fps, but that crispness is unnatural and is then made more natural by adding motion blur.
wasting resources that could be used elsewhere.

like someone else mentioned before, go back and play an older game that doesn't run at 60fps and see for yourself that the fluidity of the motion is no different than it is at 60fps.

if you want some video game proof of 60fps being pretty much useless, look at Killzone 2.
it was locked at 30fps. the motion of the game was absolutely flawless, and because the framerate was locked at 30, Geurilla Games was able to maintain a ridiculously high fidelity all throughout the game.

wasted.
resources.

KZ2 has massive amount of blur though. That's why it seems fluid, but it's clearly distinguishable from a game which has more FPS and your very eyes create the blur effect, which result in a difference of image quality.


If GT were to implement that you could barely recognize the track

 

[Devedander]

if the framerate fluxuates, sure. you're gonna notice that what you're seeing is clearer here and not there. but the fluidity of the motion doesn't change because you can only see things move so fast.

60fps updates images at 16.667milliseconds
we can perceive updated images at around 62.5milliseconds.

yes, we can detect a scene change (proven in tests on USAF pilots) at 1/200th of a second (and i think the absolute limit was around 1/500th), but those tests aren't about seeing motion happen.
it's about looking at absolutely nothing, pitch black, then an images being shown for 1/200th of a second, then nothing again (very high contrast). it's the afterimage that the pilot is able to make out.

again.
30fps is perfectly capable of showing fluid motion. images aren't as crisp as 60fps, but that crispness is unnatural and is then made more natural by adding motion blur.
wasting resources that could be used elsewhere.

like someone else mentioned before, go back and play an older game that doesn't run at 60fps and see for yourself that the fluidity of the motion is no different than it is at 60fps.

if you want some video game proof of 60fps being pretty much useless, look at Killzone 2.
it was locked at 30fps. the motion of the game was absolutely flawless, and because the framerate was locked at 30, Geurilla Games was able to maintain a ridiculously high fidelity all throughout the game.

wasted.
resources.

Completely don't agree. The difference I see between 30 and 60 fps (assuming no motion blur added) is a level of stuttering or gaps visible between items during movement simlar to what you might see with a very fast strobe light.

Reduction of this is very important to the eye as THESE are unnatural.

In real life things do not jump discrete amounts between being visible however when a computer draws them they do. The ideal solution is that the framerate is so high there is no gap between frames when an item moves no matter how fast it moves (this is how it happens in real life) and the higher the framerate, the less of these gaps you see.

Conversly motion blur covers this unatural "stepping" movement that is the way computer rendered scenes work.

While 30FPS framelocked can seem very smooth and fluid, I garauntee all by those with the worst eyes would easily notice a difference going to 60FPS and an even more jarring difference going BACK to 30FPS.

This is easy to replicate, go get an older PC game your computer can totally handle (I would use the original Counter Strike as I am familiar with it and know it has no mtion blur added in and the FPS lock can be changed in teh console without having to jump thorugh menus which can detract from your ability to easily compare) frame lock it at 60FPS and play for about half an hour.

Now drop the frame lock to 30FPS.

You WILL notice a significant difference.

 

[Griffith500]

if the framerate fluxuates, sure. you're gonna notice that what you're seeing is clearer here and not there. but the fluidity of the motion doesn't change because you can only see things move so fast.

60fps updates images at 16.667milliseconds
we can perceive updated images at around 62.5milliseconds.

yes, we can detect a scene change (proven in tests on USAF pilots) at 1/200th of a second (and i think the absolute limit was around 1/500th), but those tests aren't about seeing motion happen.
it's about looking at absolutely nothing, pitch black, then an images being shown for 1/200th of a second, then nothing again (very high contrast). it's the afterimage that the pilot is able to make out.

again.
30fps is perfectly capable of showing fluid motion. images aren't as crisp as 60fps, but that crispness is unnatural and is then made more natural by adding motion blur.
wasting resources that could be used elsewhere.

like someone else mentioned before, go back and play an older game that doesn't run at 60fps and see for yourself that the fluidity of the motion is no different than it is at 60fps.

if you want some video game proof of 60fps being pretty much useless, look at Killzone 2.
it was locked at 30fps. the motion of the game was absolutely flawless, and because the framerate was locked at 30, Geurilla Games was able to maintain a ridiculously high fidelity all throughout the game.

wasted.
resources.

Unnatural? Maybe for cinema, but real life is pretty damned crisp the last time I looked! It's amazing what our vision can do sometimes. I'm amazed by world cup downhillers, riding as fast as they do in ridiculous terrain. If their vision is only 30 "fps", like that YouTube video, I'd be stunned.

Console shooters are fine at 30 fps because you're looking with analog sticks, and the game is paced to account for that - plus Killzone 2 has artificial motion blur. If you've ever tried an instagib match in Unreal Tournament (an old PC game) you'd know that frame rate (after ping) is king!

 

[Devedander]

Unnatural? Maybe for cinema, but real life is pretty damned crisp the last time I looked! It's amazing what our vision can do sometimes. I'm amazed by world cup downhillers, riding as fast as they do in ridiculous terrain. If their vision is only 30 "fps", like that YouTube video, I'd be stunned.

Console shooters are fine at 30 fps because you're looking with analog sticks, and the game is paced to account for that - plus Killzone 2 has artificial motion blur. If you've ever tried an instagib match in Unreal Tournament (an old PC game) you'd know that frame rate (after ping) is king!

Yes unnatural. In the real world items do not jump through multiple positions in discrete steps as they do in a computer generated world (well I guses they do but those steps are infitessimally small).

Basically as a corner of a building whips by your view in the real world there is no position between where it started and where it ended that it didn't occupy for some moment in your view. However with compter generated graphics, there are numerous locations at which that corner was never drawn at all. In one frame it was here, the next frame it was an inch over. In that gap the corner never existed. In real life the corner smoothly occupied every single spot in that inch.

This is why reproducing motion with static images that have no motion blur is flawed unless you can get ridiculously high framerate. It's not about what you can visually make out, it's about what you can discern is missing.

Much of the argument about framerate comes from a blurring of the difference between what you can visually understand and what you can visually percieve.

It's similar to the differnece between how long you must be able to see a picture of a flower to recognize it's a flower and how long you must be able to see a picture of a flower to know you saw something...

As for 30FPS being fine in FPS shooters, there is again a difference between what's functiona and passalbe and the upper limit of having any value.

As an avid counterstrike player for years I can firmly attest that 30FPS was completely playable and nowhere near as good as 90FPS. Your mind grew accustomed and compensated but ultimately again, go play at 90FPS for half an hour and drop to 30 and tell me there is no discernable difference.

 

[petalpusher6]

KZ2 (and 3) use real "camera blur" with z-depth for every object and they are targeting a unique video look, lots of post processing, lots of lights with a deferred engine.

The context and the goals are completely different from a game as GT or other sim racers, in KZ they try to caricature a sci fi world.

Sim racing looks to recreate the real world accurately, they don't want a race on TV look, they want the perception you actually get on a circuit in real life.
There s no question you need the 60 fps for visual, physics and the highest possible resolution for precision.

 

[Griffith500]

Deve, I wasn't quoting you...

 

[Devedander]

Deve, I wasn't quoting you...

Ooops!!! My bad...

BTW for the others here is an example (the youtbue cmmpression actually reduces the ability to notice the difference as the very way compression works eliminates small jumps between frames by reusing and moving a previous frames elements but you will get the idea)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_B0f3Dlz6w

Watch it 720p full screen.

 

[drivatar]

This pretty much sums up my feelings:

VG247:You were pretty slavish as regards hitting 60fps, and did receive some criticism from the community for apparently trading off some poly budget to achieve it. In retrospect, are you glad you stuck to the 60 frames goal, or could you have created something more visually attractive if you’d lowered the target to, say, 30?

Dan Greenawalt:We get asked this question a lot by the press and my answer hasn’t changed much from Forza 2 to Forza 3. The reality is that racing games running at 30fps have to deal with visual shuttering artifacts in the environment and backgrounds that fly by your field of view when the car is traversing at high speeds. So you then go and mask that using motion blur for your environments, which end up eating into your GPU cycles, which take up resources from other features you want on-track.

It really turns into a trade-off for the type of visual direction you’re trying to achieve, and with Forza Motorsport, the visual style is clear, crisp graphics, and highly-detailed environments and textures. But in truth, the decision is less about graphics than feel. We prioritize 60fps as an important feature because it gives the games a feel you just can’t achieve at 30; for instance, the responsiveness and feedback of the controls, or physics calculations and visual manifestation of that on how we model our tire flex and body roll. While those calculations are decoupled from the graphics and run as high as 360 frames per second, we found that graphical framerate impacts the feel of those systems as well. Simply put, we couldn’t have achieved the experience we wanted if the game only ran at 30fps. I’m sure you would get a similar response from Infinity Ward regarding Call of Duty.

http://www.vg247.com/2010/02/03/interview-forza-motorsports-dan-greenawalt/

BTW for the others here is an example [...]

Youtube doesn't support 60fps. So it's a bit pointless.

 

[damaged_case]

so then... Gran Turismo 5 is more fluid than F-Zero?
because i highly doubt that F-Zero got anywhere close to 60fps.

 

[damaged_case]

i suppose a better example would be Burnout: Paradise at 60fps vs NFS: Hot Pursuit locked at 30.

notice a difference between the two?

 

[JBturbo]

This pretty much sums up my feelings:

http://www.vg247.com/2010/02/03/interview-forza-motorsports-dan-greenawalt/


Youtube doesn't support 60fps. So it's a bit pointless.

That made me laugh.

Plenty of people saying that 60fps is so much smoother.

Um....

 

[petalpusher6]

the decision is less about graphics than feel. We prioritize 60fps as an important feature because it gives the games a feel you just can’t achieve at 30; for instance, the responsiveness and feedback of the controls, or physics calculations and visual manifestation of that on how we model our tire flex and body roll. While those calculations are decoupled from the graphics and run as high as 360 frames per second, we found that graphical framerate impacts the feel of those systems as well. Simply put, we couldn’t have achieved the experience we wanted if the game only ran at 30fps.

/Thread

 

[JBturbo]

/Thread

Yeah.......no.

 

[petalpusher6]

Yup. That will be all for me, cause you are obviously don't want to understand.

Good night.

 

[Devedander]

That made me laugh.

Plenty of people saying that 60fps is so much smoother.

Um....

The irony being that you can clearly see the difference betwen 24 and 30 fps even on youtube and the 60fps is also differnet looking (in a similar way that you can tell a source was 1080 vs 480 even if the final display is 480 only).

BTW I thought 720p/60 was officially supported on youtube now?

Either way... watch it all the same...

/Thread

The interesting thing is that Forza 1 took a lot of heat for being only 30FPS (in large from the GT crowd) and it was constantly brought up that 60 FPS is necessary to really get a fluid sense of speed (I hold you need more but that's another story).

It's funny how opinions change...

 

[Mugenjin]

That made me laugh.

Plenty of people saying that 60fps is so much smoother.

Um....

So you're saying that the Game Director of FM is full o **** because what he's saying contradict your opinion.
No point arguing with someone who does not want to understand...

 

[JBturbo]

So you're saying that the Game Director of FM is full o **** because what he's saying contradict your opinion.
No point arguing with someone who does not want to understand...

Yes, because you can clearly notice the delay of 16 milliseconds, 1/18 of the time it takes you to blink

Don't be so catastrophically stupid.

A game designer saying that his game is good?

No **** sherlock.

 

[Devedander]

Yes, because you can clearly notice the delay of 16 milliseconds, 1/18 of the time it takes you to blink

Don't be so catastrophically stupid.

A game designer saying that his game is good?

No **** sherlock.

All these guys bringing the math of the eye into it remind me of this

Seriously, go test it yourself. I honestly can't believe someone wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 60 FPS and 30 FPS...

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Yes, because you can clearly notice the delay of 16 milliseconds, 1/18 of the time it takes you to blink

Don't be so catastrophically stupid.

A game designer saying that his game is good?

No **** sherlock.

So PD and T10 are idiots and every PC / Console sim racer for trying to make the game run at around 60FPS according to your opinion. You say yourself there is no difference between the two. I don't know if you are deluded or just plain trolling. Hopefully it is the latter, otherwise you have some issues in perceiving motion.

 

[JBturbo]

So PD and T10 are idiots and every PC / Console sim racer for trying to make the game run at around 60FPS according to your opinion. You say yourself there is no difference between the two. I don't know if you are deluded or just plain trolling. Hopefully it is the latter, otherwise you have some issues in perceiving motion.

It's basic human physiology.

We've been studying it for a few thousand years now.

Catch up.