What FPS is good for Irrlicht: 24, 30 or 60?

dlangdev · Post by **dlangdev** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 12:44 am

Please look at the URLs posted below...

http://linkoramablog.blogspot.com/2008/ ... s-30p.html

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

http://www.highdefforum.com/showthread.php?t=22399

From what I gathered, it looks like 60fps is the sweet spot for 3D game I'm planning to build. Though I'm not really sure if that is even reasonable.

Just wondering what your thoughts about setting a high FPS. What would you choose if you were asked that question?

Thanks.

twilight17 · Post by **twilight17** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:08 am

I usually consider 60 FPS the absolute minimum for FPS, otherwise it seems a bit.. jumpy. Just my opinion though

Lonesome Ducky · Post by **Lonesome Ducky** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:52 pm

I usually aim for 50 as a minimum, but I would say 60 is probably the best.

xDan · Post by **xDan** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:38 pm

it seems 60 fps is good (isn't that the maximum for some/most monitors anyway??). But have motion blur! (See Shadow of the Colossus. Sometimes the FPS there is really low, but with the motion blurring you hardly notice)

Halifax · Post by **Halifax** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:47 pm

xDan wrote:it seems 60 fps is good (isn't that the maximum for some/most monitors anyway??). But have motion blur! (See Shadow of the Colossus. Sometimes the FPS there is really low, but with the motion blurring you hardly notice)

Oh yeah, Shadow of the Colossus had some amazing techniques for hiding the fact that it was running on a fairly low-end system, and the scenery was so amazing and in-depth. I love that game.

But on topic, I don't know I actually like games that at least run at 35 FPS, because I heard somewhere that 25 FPS is when your eye will notice the that there is not smooth motion, and 30 use to be the minimum, so 35 seems reasonable to me.

But yeah, for your game, dlangdev, a fighting game, I would say that it is more than reasonable that you should be able to get 60 FPS. I mean, I don't know your computer specs, but Madden 08 ran at 60 FPS on the 360 with depth of field, and motion blurring shaders.

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:49 am

Unless you're seriously planning to design your game around a particular frame rate, then this is question is as premature as me deciding what wine to drink on my date with Alyson Hannigan.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:48 am

From what I have experienced I know that though you're eyes make you think you have a movement (instead of just pictures changing) at about 25 fps it feels smoother the more fps you get. I played Quake2 on the net (back then

) with software renderer and about 35 fps and it was OK, but when I finally got my 3D card (3dfx Voodo2 ... back then) and the game ran at 100 fps it was quite another feeling ... just got smoother. Imho more fps is better, but as those flat screens only use 60 fps that is the maximum nowadays.

torleif · Post by **torleif** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:08 am

rogerborg wrote:Unless you're seriously planning to design your game around a particular frame rate, then this is question is as premature as me deciding what wine to drink on my date with Alyson Hannigan.

+1

Get the game fun first, then tinker with the fine details.

jontan6 · Post by **jontan6** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:01 pm

i have a coworker b4 who is a competitive quake 3 player. the minimum for him is 48FPS. he said FPS lower than this will greatly affect his effectiveness. tho he really aims at higher than this (60+). but 48 is the lowest that he can tolerate.

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:22 pm

Yerrrrs.

Since it takes 20-40 ms just for signals to travel from the eye to the brain, let alone the extra 160ms to respond to them, I think any difference in performance from that extra 4ms may be somewhat subjective.

lostclimategames · Post by **lostclimategames** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:54 pm

i usually just aim for around 30, to me it seems like a good spot that mixes the ability to have more going on, and still look somewhat smooth.

Insomniacp · Post by **Insomniacp** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:40 pm

I feel like I am doing quite well then with my game... I have been aiming to stay over 50 FPS we will see how well it holds up when I add some more things besides just the ground though

jontan6 · Post by **jontan6** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:41 pm

i dunnu... maybe something to do with the mouse responsiveness feeling thingy.... and also not only react to something... sometimes u also anticipate things.... i dunnu if i make any sense :p

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:40 pm

I accept that (some) people can perceive the difference between 48 fps and 60 fps, but I suggest that the major effect on their "performance" is to irritate them enough so that they distract themselves by bitching, moaning and acting out their irrational belief that it can be having an objective effect on them.

jontan6 · Post by **jontan6** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:05 pm

i really cant tell if it makes a difference, im not a competitive quake player. but i do feel sluggish when my FPS is below 20

i think gameplay also factors in. like counter strike will work ok with lower fps as compared to quake 3. because in q3 aiming is the biggest part of the game.

maybe if the game is all stealth game, then 10fps might be ok