Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FlexibleDogma]

Splitting hairs:  If your monitor is at 60hz, having over 60fps won't matter in terms of visuals.  Your monitor is refreshing 60 times a second no matter what your FPS is.

Quake 3 had it's physics model tied to each time the screen was rendered, so you could actually jump further depending on your FPS.  They fixed this eventually.
http://ucguides.savagehelp.com/Quake3/FAQFPSJumps.html

[Mithaldu]

@Duke: Animations do not have any user input and as such are, compared to any game, static. I still stand firm that you should never even try to compare these.

Not because you don't know what you're talking about, but because you know too much about it and (understandably) do not take the time to explain so everyone else can understand what you're talking about. Result: People who have next to no clue snatch up what they CAN understand and start preaching "24 frames is enough for everyone!" as gospel.

You are uninentionally spreading half-knowledge. (I should maybe mention here that my ire towards such things is caused by me working in mmo support and having to deal with people who "read about it on the internet" daily. Yes, even this issue sometimes comes up, even within the team.)

---

As far as DF goes: I notice the lag caused by capping it at 30 on every user interaction. I simply mentioned lists as the most prominent and easiest noticeable example.

If DF would work optimally, it would switch dynamically between two different GFPS levels depending on whether it is paused or not.

[Puzzlemaker]

I found that 100FPS site very very interesting; I have always wondered at what "frame rate" your eyes see at.  That answered all my questions nicely.  Thanks for the link!

[LeoLeonardoIII]

i beliv it more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message#Visual
but no offense

I take both with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia is editable by anyone with an Internet connection. This means to trust Wikipedia as a source, I must be willing to trust everyone with an Internet connection. If there is one person with an Internet connection whom I do not trust, there is a chance this untrustworthy person could be the source of the information. I trust less than a hundred specific people, and theoretically perhaps another few thousand experts, in this world of 6.6 billion. The chances that one of these trusted people is the source of that information is nil.

Snopes is run by a couple who provide all the information on their site. Their analyses are well considered, their sources are adequate and cited faithfully, and in every single case so far (I've read about 3/4 of the site over the years) they pass the common sense bullshit test.

I would edit the Wikipedia entry and screencap it for your edification, but you know that's how it works anyway so I won't bother. Between the two, it's pretty obvious I would trust Snopes over Wikipedia. The Wiki is a good source of general information and answering of quick questions, but if the information really matters to you at all you need to back it up with research elsewhere.

That said, I looked at each of the sources cited in the Wikipedia entry and found them to be solid. Additionally, there would be little financial reason for anyone to lie about this issue. Snopes covered just one failed test of subliminal advertising, and so if anything we can fault them for not researching enough.

I don't like that the Wikipedia article had just five lines of vague criticism from one source in a 13 page entry. It does mention Vicary's deceit, and that sleeping tapes failed to work under scientific testing conditions.

TL;DR - The Internet is a poor source for reliable information, unless nobody would have anything to gain through lying to you, but Wikipedia is a particularly poor source

The issue of whether subliminal messages are a secret way into our minds is pointless; you would make people hungry if you flashed a 10 second still picture of a juicy hamburger with the word BEEF on the bottom. And we typically ignore advertising unless we're actively thinking about it.

If anything, the subliminal visual argument supports that humans actually can perceive images faster than 30 fps.

[Draco18s]

TL;DR - The Internet is a poor source for reliable information, unless nobody would have anything to gain through lying to you, but Wikipedia is a particularly poor source

And despite that, it is possible to find reliable information.  I don't know the process or much about it, but there was a group of people who managed to find a way to get verifiable accurate data when their only sources were known unreliable sources.  It's a bit extreme, but it does work.

[Erk]

Wow, Mithaldu really considers how many FPS a person can interpret to be Serious Business...

Interestingly, this 100fps site linked earlier doesn't back up your earlier statement. It argues two things important to the world of computer gaming and dwarf fortress:
1) framerates that are synched to monitor refresh rates appear much smoother - so on a 60hz monitor, 30 or 60fps is much cleaner-looking than even, say, 80; and,
2) there's no call for a high refresh rate on a nonmoving object. Dwarf fortress at a GFPS of 5 looks quite all right, and because very little tends to happen from frame-to-frame, there's little chance anyone could spot the difference between 20 and 500 GFPS.

It's not about some "interactive" and "static" frame rates, a distinction I couldn't find (after a couple google searches) any compsci studies in or really any reference to but yours. Which doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean you shouldn't go around calling people bullshitters and downtalking to them for not bobbing their heads in agreement with you. Now, that said, if you have some legitimate studies to point at about those things, I'd love to read them as this stuff is pretty interesting.

Cheers.

[Angellus]

OMG, I so want to start a quoting pyramid with the first post '')

[Yammo]

Splitting hairs:  If your monitor is at 60hz, having over 60fps won't matter in terms of visuals.  Your monitor is refreshing 60 times a second no matter what your FPS is.

Quake 3 had it's physics model tied to each time the screen was rendered, so you could actually jump further depending on your FPS.  They fixed this eventually.
http://ucguides.savagehelp.com/Quake3/FAQFPSJumps.html

That was an interesting post... thanks.
(Although, having always used a CRT-monitor, I shudder at the idea of having it run at 60 fps.)

[E-mouse]

200? And here I thought the refresh rate of the human eye was about 60 FPS...

What would be at such a high graphical framerate, for comparison?

[Jay]

200? And here I thought the refresh rate of the human eye was about 60 FPS...

What would be at such a high graphical framerate, for comparison?

It's all in the type of medium used.
Reality doesn't have an FPS, thus you can easily get 200 there, and you won't notice any differences because it's a static number.
If you're playing a game like Dwarf Fortress though, you're not going to see a difference in a GFPS of 190 and a GFPS of 200, because the monitors don't refresh fast enough.

[Draco18s]

If you're playing a game like Dwarf Fortress though, you're not going to see a difference in a GFPS of 190 and a GFPS of 200, because the monitors don't refresh fast enough.

Also given the internal game logic fps cap of 100...there is, in fact, no difference.

[Morberis]

i beliv it more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message#Visual
but no offense

Then pay attention to this part

Criticism

The effectiveness of any subliminal message has been called into question time after time and has led many to come to the conclusion that the technique does not work. As Anthony R. Pratkanis, one of the researchers in the field, puts it: “It appears that, despite the claims in books and newspapers and on the backs of subliminal self help tapes, subliminal-influence tactics have not been demonstrated to be effective. Of course, as with anything scientific, it may be that someday, somehow, someone will develop a subliminal technique that may work, just as someday a chemist may find a way to transmute lead to gold. I am personally not purchasing lead futures on this hope however.” [2


And yes if you want I can show you my university textbook and the email addresses to my psychology profs (Don Read), several of which have been expert witnesses in several famous courtcases involving subliminal messages (one of which was the Judas Priest court case involving suicide and the alleged message `do it`). Subliminal messages are false and not once has there been evidence to prove them that has stood up to stand scientific investigation.

[Draco18s]

Of course, as with anything scientific, it may be that someday, somehow, someone will develop a subliminal technique that may work, just as someday a chemist may find a way to transmute lead to gold.

Actually, we can do that now.  It just takes a particle accelerator and a hell of a lot of money.

[Kittah_Khan]

Actually, we can do that now.  It just takes a particle accelerator and a hell of a lot of money.

Chemist.

[Dr. Melon]

I prefer to use Partial Print. Works wonders, I was running at 45fps, max, before, and now I have to cap it at 200, otherwise it blazes off into the sunset.

Actually, we can do that now.  It just takes a particle accelerator and a hell of a lot of money.

Actually, it can be done with a Tunneling Electron Microscope. However, shifting atoms one by one with a nanoscopic laser takes a while, and you can't do much at one time. Also, lots of electricity needed: around 3,000,000 volts, to be precise.