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

kornwaretm · Post by **kornwaretm** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:03 am

nowadays the worse monitor has 60 of refresh rate on 800 x 600. so if game FPS below 60 dont play it. buy new VGA first

jontan6 · Post by **jontan6** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:44 pm

generally, my point of high fps is not for visual thingy, but for responsiveness/control of mouse

DeM0nFiRe · Post by **DeM0nFiRe** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:42 am

Indeed, the human eye "refreshes" about 24 times a second. If you are above that you are usually good, although for a minimum I would say 40 at the lowest.

dlangdev · Post by **dlangdev** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:44 am

You know what, if you put a Physics Engine in, that's when that thing will show up.

There is a reason behind it, tho.

fennec · Post by **fennec** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:40 am

Also mind that you want to sell to people who have crummy machines, much worse than your test machine. These markets are even more important for indie titles.

So what FPS is best? As high as possible, while still achieving your overall program and graphical goals.

SwitchCase · Post by **SwitchCase** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:14 am

As mentioned - 25 fps (i think its actually 24.5, who cares....) is the tops the human eye technically sees. I hear the question of what's the optimal FPS quite alot - surely it's the highest you can achieve (as I keep answering lol), but it's not worth stressing about it if your hitting over 25 on your target platforms anyway. Another consideration is what your developnig for - mobile games (which I work on) rarely excede 20 fps on current hardware but since the display is relatively small, it looks alot smoother than on larger displays - 15fps seems very smooth on mobile size displays. Alot of people tend to gasp at this... here's a little secret... fps counts are usually knocked up a little to keep producers happy

All those numbers are obviously approximations - just incase anyone was feeling the need to pipe at me

JP · Post by JP » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:19 am

let's not forget the refresh rate of the display. On PCs it's mostly, if not always 60 fps so you won't actually see anything higher than that. On mobile displays it's probably even less so maybe that's why 15-20 seems ok, or just the size!

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:28 am

JP wrote:let's not forget the refresh rate of the display. On PCs it's mostly, if not always 60 fps so you won't actually see anything higher than that. On mobile displays it's probably even less so maybe that's why 15-20 seems ok, or just the size!

Mmm, "refresh" is really an analogue CRT-era term. Digital displays' refresh rate is the rate at which the display polls for and processes entire screens of video output. However, there's no guarantee guarantee that a display that's reporting a "sync" rate of 60FPS can actually update its entire screen cleanly in one operation at that rate, so you may see tearing even if you've got vsync turned on.

LCDs also add new problem, that of a delay due to processing the signal.

Dorth · Post by **Dorth** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 am

Fun stuff too about the eye. It isn't a regular tempo. What I mean is while you'll have an average of such image per second seen by the eye, the eye can see 2 of those closer by than 2 others. Also, not the whole image is taken at once by the eye, some zone updates more than other. All in all, it means that to trick a human eye, not only must you accurately emulate a lot of stuff the brain expects, but also must you do it at quite good speed unless you want the illusion to be perceivable. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy a "realistic" movie with a low framerate (Charlie Chaplin

) ^^