r3volution 0 Posted June 28, 2009 I'm getting around 23 fps on average in the missions (as measured with fraps) but it drops down to high teens in some circumstances, which gets pretty damn unplayable. For some reason, the vast majority of the advanced video options don't seem to impact more than 1-2 fps at most on framerate, and some make no impact whatsoever (switching AF from low to high had no impact, ditto most others except for textures and shadows, which did impact). It seems like the only thing to dramatically boost framerate is dropping the render resolution dramatically but then it looks atrocious. This is on a c2d 6550 stock 2gb ddr2 800 ram 8800GTS OC 640mb Basically from what I see, shoot for over the 25 mark, if you can have 25fps as your minimum then so much the better, but otherwise averaging over 25 tends to be ok in all but the twitchiest close quarters stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedudesam 10 Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) 60fps is really minimum for fluid gaming, after 120 FPS you can feel the slowness of even 60 FPS. To gain full control over your mouse in ARMA you need to have over 100 FPS because of mouse smoothing bahh. Only if you monitor supports 100fps.. Most LCD monitors are 60-85 mhz, which is the max FPS you will see, 4million fps on a 60hz monitor will look the same as 60fps Edited June 28, 2009 by thedudesam Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leopardi 0 Posted June 28, 2009 Only if you monitor supports 100fps..Most LCD monitors are 60-85 mhz, which is the max FPS you will see, 4million fps on a 60hz monitor will look the same as 60fps Nope, there is a difference regardless your monitor being 60Hz. You will notice the difference, but with a 120Hz monitor you will have it all much more smoother, even 30 FPS is clearly more smoother, and you have way less tearing than with a 60HZ monitor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BeerHunter 0 Posted June 28, 2009 Considering the human eye sees things quit smoothly at 23 FPS (hence movies , TV's etc are shown at 23 - 24 FPS) anything much higher (ie 40 - 80) has more of a placebo effect. The user only THINKS he's seeing things smoother when in reality , he's not. 23 - 25 FPS is all you need. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dvolk 10 Posted June 28, 2009 24fps was chosen in cinema because film was expensive, and 24fps was throught to be a minimum acceptable value. Human eyes can perceive specific frames of much shorter duration (up to 300fps according to some). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eelis 10 Posted June 28, 2009 Considering the human eye sees things quit smoothly at 23 FPS (hence movies , TV's etc are shown at 23 - 24 FPS) anything much higher (ie 40 - 80) has more of a placebo effect.The user only THINKS he's seeing things smoother when in reality , he's not. So you honestly believe that in a properly conducted scientific experiment, I would be unable to consistently tell apart video fragments shown in, say, 30 and 80 FPS? I find that remarkable, because I'm perfectly confident that I would pass such a test utterly effortlessly. My best guess is that there's simply a biological and/or subjective difference causing some people to require fewer frames per second for comfort and smoothness than others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
An Fiach 10 Posted June 28, 2009 Nope, there is a difference regardless your monitor being 60Hz. You will notice the difference, but with a 120Hz monitor you will have it all much more smoother, even 30 FPS is clearly more smoother, and you have way less tearing than with a 60HZ monitor. eh it doesnt display over 60 fps/hz so how would you notice the difference? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hunin 0 Posted June 28, 2009 I think that subjective difference might be a realistic observation of what precisely is really needed instead of what feels more smooth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
