King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enough.

All Unidentified Forum Objects go in this area! Any fun alien talk goes in this U.F.O. Abduction Lounge, even topics other than monitors or computers.

King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enough.

Postby Haste » 01 Jan 2014, 21:53

I stumbled upon this while browsing today:

Taken from http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/sho ... st13267880

"About the "24+ FPS is too low" and it is "bad performance" issue:
It is not bad performance and not too low. If it gets below 20 FPS than it is bad performance. 24 FPS is what a human eye sees as fluid and you watch the films in the cinema with 24 FPS – do you go to cinema again and again to see bad performance and horribly low FPS?

Where you need a higher FPS are mainly the action games, particularly if you play them in multiplayer.

Generally our aim was to set the game to 24+FPS, of course after the graphical settings have been set to the specific hardware (this is what the Auto Setup does – it also recognizes other issues like driver problems and such, so if you think that the auto setup has set you lower results than your hardware would deserve, there are most likely some problems in your rig that you should find)
"



This reminds me of the "30fps cap in Need for Speed: Rivals issue" I just posted about.
See: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=93

I'm wondering what can we do to educate game developers about the benefits of targeting higher frame rates for their games in general. I read some of the members in this forum might have contacts with the gaming industry. So maybe something can be done.

It's nice to get displays manufacturers to improve motion fluidity. But the software and games need to be coded accordingly in order to take advantage of this.

What's your take on this?
Monitor: Asus ROG Swift PG278Q
Haste
 
Posts: 278
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 09:03

Re: King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enoug

Postby spacediver » 02 Jan 2014, 03:31

The only game I play is quake, so I don't have any experience with RTS, but there may be some logic to the idea that trading off frames for complexity may be acceptable in that sort of environment. I wouldn't know, but it's what the developers seem to think:

During development of King Arthur II our aim was to set the game to at least 24-30 FPS, as we felt a consistent 24+ FPS gives an acceptable baseline experience for an RTS.
spacediver
 
Posts: 476
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 23:51

Re: King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enoug

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 02 Jan 2014, 17:19

spacediver wrote:The only game I play is quake, so I don't have any experience with RTS, but there may be some logic to the idea that trading off frames for complexity may be acceptable in that sort of environment. I wouldn't know, but it's what the developers seem to think:
Although I understand a game developer's desire for consistency, I should point out that RTS involves a lot of scrolling and panning.

Which 120Hz (and strobe-backlights) benefit hugely. Pans become clearer and sharper, and you can read nametags/statistics while panning, without stopping panning first. The motion fluidity nirvana occurs at framerate==refreshrate==stroberate (e.g. 120fps@120Hz on a LightBoost monitor or other 120Hz strobe-backlight monitor such as ULMB, Turbo240 or BENQ Blur Reduction). During this, you get 100% text readability-while-panning.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enoug

Postby SS4 » 02 Jan 2014, 19:09

Film makers also believe 24 FPS is fluid enough . . . and most action movie = blur galore so you can't see the details otherwise you'd notice how inefficient most actor are at close combat and stuff.
Look at the transformer movies, some part are so fast and blurry you don't get to see the details. So at 24 FPS you need slower movement to enjoy the details, kinda like in Pacific Rim where the huge monster and mecha moves slower allowing you to enjoy the image quality and makes sense for huge things to move slower.
True RTS have lots of panning and scrolling but i guess the dev makes the game for ppl that do under 30 action per minute imo.
SS4
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 17 Dec 2013, 17:08
Location: Québec

Re: King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enoug

Postby Ahigh » 02 Jan 2014, 21:59

SS4 wrote:Film makers also believe 24 FPS is fluid enough


Let's not devolve the level of discussion. There are other places to talk about (or argue about) whether the human eye can distinguish the difference between anything faster than X frames per second.

Here's just one such place for anyone wanting to carry on with that discussion.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threa ... ity.152159

I think anyone who wants to continue along with the discussion about "XXX frames is _good enough_" can do it plenty of other places and find people willing to participate in such discussions.

Hopefully we are moving to the next level here on Blur Busters.
User avatar
Ahigh
 
Posts: 94
Joined: 17 Dec 2013, 19:22

Re: King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enoug

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 02 Jan 2014, 22:08

On Blur Busters we also encourage HFR discussions, but it really all belongs in a separate thread :)
Blur Busters welcomes such discussions -- as long as it's all civil and orderly :)

When filmmakers say 24fps is "enough", it's not because it's good enough for human eye, but some of them /want/ motion blur in their movies, because that's the way movies have felt for a long time. Often, I have a good old-fashioned preference for a good old 24fps frame rate when watching movies on televisions, rather than turning on motion smoothing (interpolation), because it was "just as the director intended". Or other reasons.

However, the new HFR work by the likes of Hobbit movies, is breaking this mold, and producing content intended by the director to have less motion blur...

There is a love-hate relationship, but I see merits of both sides of this coin.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enoug

Postby SS4 » 02 Jan 2014, 22:54

Exactly my point, like i said in my post action movie like to make everything blurry and some games do too(some ppl like this artistic touch and some dont).
I personally enjoy seeing things clearly and im glad when games and movies are clear. The hobbit is great example of breaking the mold like you said since back when movie first started there were technological limitation which arent there anymore so its only natural that movie will evolve instead of keeping the really old 24 fps custom imo.

@Ahigh, i'm sry you felt that way about my post quoting the first sentence like that but i just thought it was fitting since we were talking about 24 FPS and making a parallel to how some ppl still think low FPS are adequate when we have the means to do a better job. I myself find low FPS and artistic motion blur to be a sloppy and lazy approach.
Once again, not trying to devolve anything or offend anyone but trying to contribute as well as share my opinion :P
SS4
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 17 Dec 2013, 17:08
Location: Québec

Re: King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enoug

Postby Ahigh » 02 Jan 2014, 23:47

No worries. Sorry if I came across in any sort of a negative way. I can be stupid just like anybody else!
User avatar
Ahigh
 
Posts: 94
Joined: 17 Dec 2013, 19:22

Re: King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enoug

Postby SS4 » 02 Jan 2014, 23:52

I understand your feeling as i've been there regarding different topics. In life there will always be ppl that don't understand something that we ourselves believe should be common and basic knowledge but its the same for many in regards to different type of knowledge. I too at time have been frustrated but i know i have to deal with it. In some case yes some ppl don't really make the effort to learn anything but others want to learn and its important to make the distinction.
We all had to learn the things we know now at one points so having other ppl at a stage we were at previously is normal and discussion like the ones here on blurbusters are a good way to increase and share our knowledge. And also the fact we are human means we will always be opinionated about things no matter who's right or wrong :P


EDIT:

Lol just noticed you made your post shorter oh well il leave mine as is. I think we have a good crowd here on this board anyways so i don"t think anyone is mean or negative :P
SS4
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 17 Dec 2013, 17:08
Location: Québec

Re: King Arthur II's developer believes 24fps is fluid enoug

Postby Haste » 03 Jan 2014, 00:29

My intent with this thread was not to initiate a debate such as http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threa ... ty.152159/

I'm trying to point out that:

Part of the way to motion nirvana comes in the form of new hardware technologies ( such as high refresh rate displays, low persistence, g-sync, ... )
But the technologies are only pertinent if people develop and produce media ( games, videos, apps, ...) in a way that take advantage of those.
In other word, if they provide decent frame rates to the consumers.

In term of computer games ( since the OP is about a computer RTS game ) :
It means allowing games to run at high graphical settings above 120fps (without requiring dual gtx780ti in SLI)
It means not coding a 30fps cap into the game ( see: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=93 )

I can't talk for Mark but, after reading many of his articles I believe this is totally in the scope of this site and forum.
Success such as this: http://www.blurbusters.com/chrome-120hz ... -champion/
Is an indication that you can have a direct influence on the industry.
Monitor: Asus ROG Swift PG278Q
Haste
 
Posts: 278
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 09:03

Next

Return to Offtopic Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests