framerate and wheel [Archive]

Hasenstein

17th December 2005, 19:43

Hi,
I was just wondering if my framerate is acceptable: 1280 x 800 => about 25-30 to max. 42 fps (without other cars). Is that okay or is it not enough? I read somewhere that generally 60 fps is the desired fps - which is impossible on my system (with high details...). Any tips to get the best performance?

Other question: I want to buy a Logitech Formula Force GP and I would be thankful for any advice, cause I'm not sure whether this is a good choice.

Thanks

herki

17th December 2005, 19:55

franky500

17th December 2005, 19:58

the FFGP i have myself.. It is a good wheel. but if u have more money.. u can get better :D.

As for the frame rate. anything above 25 in multiplayer will be good enough for a nice race. i think that anything above 35? cannot be distinguished with the human eye anyway... (then again.. how many of us are human :shrug:)

Hasenstein

17th December 2005, 20:12

okay, thanks.

Plastik8

18th December 2005, 08:54

okay, thanks.

Really it's up to the individual..... I cannot stand a framerate (especially for a racing game), at anything less than 50fps.... I wack on vertical sync, which locks my frame rate at 60fps........

Try setting all details to low, and using a lower resolution, and limiting the fps to 60fps..... Do a few races and see how you like it.

I personally believe that the human eye CAN destinguish the difference in frame rate up at least 60fps.... I for one can tell the difference between 40 and 60fps.

Hope that helps :thumb:

Wakey

18th December 2005, 10:55

Plastik8

18th December 2005, 11:16

What does "vertical sync" Do??

Vertical Sync limits the FPS to the same as the refresh rate of the monitor.... For example, my LCD has a refresh rate of 60Hz, and therefore enabling Vertical Sync limits the FPS to 60fps.... This keeps the frame rate constant (whenever the framerate would be over 60, it's locked to 60), and removes "tearing", what you get when the fps is too much for the monitor..... Also, I believe a constant frame rate is very important too.... That's why LFS has an inbuilt FPS limiter....

Wakey

18th December 2005, 11:34

So if the fps limiter was set to the same refresh rate as the monitor ..............would that have the same effect as having the vertical sync turned on????????

MadCatX

18th December 2005, 12:38

Plastik8

18th December 2005, 13:14

Yup, thats it. If you wanna get some higher frames, try to set in DXDIAG Sound acceleration on Basic (the second position from the left). It can increase perf. on some systems. Also use dynamic LOD reduction and Multiplayer Speedup option. These can take some unnecessary loadement from your CPU.

If you are always getting around 40fps (for example), try limiting the frame rate to 40fps.... Many ppl believe a constant 40fps is better than a frame rate that averages 70fps, but fluctuates a bit..... from 30-100..... if you know what i mean

Wakey

18th December 2005, 14:16

:thumb: Many Thanks for your help :thumb:

XCNuse

18th December 2005, 15:53

25 fps is definetly to low to have a 'good race', anything around 35 to 40 is reasonable and you can race, but LFS will run much smoother over 50 fps (you.. really can see a difference i promise you from 40 to 50 fps)

Hasenstein

18th December 2005, 18:35

After various adjustments I have a constant fps of 42! I'm using the demo, but I want to buy a license for S1/S2. My question: if my fps / graphical performance is good in Blackwood, will it work with the other tracks too - or are they more complex (which would decrease my fps and make it impossible to race in multiplayer)?

XCNuse

18th December 2005, 19:09

all tracks are roughly the same, of course the city has the most impact, but not to much imo (unless your getting like 30 fps, then you will most likely see a big difference)

and i believe FE gets the highest FPS (since its so desolate)
but other than that, have at it, your fps pretty much remains constant no matter where you are.. give or take about 3 or 4 jumping fps

-=Macky=-

19th December 2005, 13:55

On the subject of the wheel - get the Formula Force if you don't want to shell out approaching £100 - I got mine last monthe in PC World for 50 quid, and it's great, it transforms the game. Only reservations are that the pedals are too 'floppy' and don't have a lot of resistance in them (I'm gonna stick squash balls under mine tho!) and the shifting 'paddles' aren't - they are just buttons, not as satisfying to use but still OK. If you are UK, Kelkoo have got 'em under 30 quid. Bargain

Hasenstein

19th December 2005, 14:03

yep, I bought a Formula Force yesterday.

Thanks

micha1980de

12th January 2006, 08:17

and what about the "if u have money to spend" models?
i've took a short look via google for dfp and some slightly cheaper model the name i've forgotten already :P

So once i touched a wheel (quite heavy,robust) and there was the "momo" logo on it.
but at these times it was out of the question to buy or try it out in the store...
but times changed...

So I don't like a plastic wheel, want lasting quality, to pass on to my (future) son :P

No, but quality and paddles for shifting moving WITH the wheel...

Any suggestions ?

travbrad

12th January 2006, 15:35

I personally believe that the human eye CAN destinguish the difference in frame rate up at least 60fps.... I for one can tell the difference between 40 and 60fps.

Hope that helps :thumb:

I'm wish you on that. For example, try playing Grand Theft Auto San Andreas for the PC. There is a "frame limited" mode that keeps it at a constant 30FPS, but if you disable that it's much much smoother.

P5YcHoM4N

12th January 2006, 18:34

Really it's up to the individual..... I cannot stand a framerate (especially for a racing game), at anything less than 50fps.... I wack on vertical sync, which locks my frame rate at 60fps........

Try setting all details to low, and using a lower resolution, and limiting the fps to 60fps..... Do a few races and see how you like it.

I personally believe that the human eye CAN destinguish the difference in frame rate up at least 60fps.... I for one can tell the difference between 40 and 60fps.

Hope that helps :thumb:
Vsync is great for LCD's as it means you don't need an amazing fast response time. I stick my on 75hz (as it gets rid of the blur I get with anything else), and lock vsync in the cards driver cpannel dodar.

Boris Lozac

12th January 2006, 21:13

I have a 15" LCD..
Should i use VSYNC too? And about that DXDIAG sound tweak.. what does that do? wil i suffer in some other aspects, like sound quality, or anything..
I would aprecitate if you can tell me what would be the best for my configuration, which is 15" LCD, Ati 9550 Ge.. What to turn off/on in the drivers, DXDIAG.. etc.. thanks..

P5YcHoM4N

12th January 2006, 21:55

If you change what was said in DXDIAG it will make sound quality low. Which is why a sound card helps. Takes a lot of stress off your proc. I've always used vsync with my TFT's as they don't have fast response time, and I noticed when turned on I never get ghosting or tear off people talk about.

Boris Lozac

13th January 2006, 20:02

Plastik8

14th January 2006, 02:54

I changed in the game/misc the option "full screen vertical sync" to YES(was no before), "limit frame rate in game" to YES, and "max frame rate" to 62(my LCD has 60hz).. and i was like :monkey: !!! :D
I got constant 60 frames now! and LFS run smoooth!!.. Even with the full grid, i have around 50..
So recomending everyone with LCD's to try this settings.. (and of course Vsync ON in the control panel)...

Vsync locks your fps to a max of the refresh rate (in your case 60), and so you probably wouldn't need to have LFS limiting the framerate as well (Doesn't matter though).

VSync is strange sometimes though.... If your PC can't process enough frames for it to be locked @ 60fps (for example), sometimes it won't just output it at 50fps or whatever it is capable of, it'll be strangely locked to half your refresh rate..... 30fps in this case. Just be warned that if you experience alot of this, that is the problem. But I guess it's still a very constant fps = win win:thumb:

mrodgers

14th January 2006, 04:55

Since you all are talking about framerate here and some have said they can tell the difference 40-50 while other's have said they can't tell above 35, I have a question. What's everyone's opinion on framerate vs. resolution/graphics quality? I'm sitting here with a piece of crap computer from bits and pieces old and new. The main unit is about 2 years old with a P4 2.5 GHz, 512 ram and PCI graphics (originally was onboard, but wait....) I installed a separate sound card when I got the PC and recently put in an ATI 9250 PCI 256 card. Now the killer is, my monitor is 10 years old, my original 17 inch display from my first PC, a Pentium1 75 MHz. So I have a max of 1024x768 at 32 bit that I run in. My frame rate stinks at roughly 30-35 online and occationally jumps down to a choppy 20 when passing through the front stretch of South City classic, or the Aston final chicane. With this processor and gfx card, the only way I can get better frames is by reducing to 800x600. My frame rate doesn't change whether I have options set high or low at max resolution. So, I was just wondering what everyone's opinion is on reducing to 800x600 from max 1024x768, or 32 bit to 16 bit for framerate? Anyone think the FPS benefit would outweigh the graphics quality? I've never actually switched from 32 to 16 bit and compared FPS/quality. I'll have to try that. 800x600 really looks crappy.

What's really weird is, I'll jump online and only start out with 20 FPS sometimes. I'll have to close out and reopen LFS and that resets my rate back to 30-35, or sometimes I'll have to reboot the PC to fix it. I think this computer just has a mind of it's own as I'm dialup and sometimes it will connect online at 30k, then I reboot and I'll get 43k which is normal. There's not many folks around here, so it's not like there's a traffic tie-up on the dialup connection. There's another component, the modem. I don't know where I got it, or how old it is.

bobbfwed

19th January 2006, 21:21

Even the best of humans can only see up to around 35-38 frames per second. The average human eye can only see to about 30-32. Heck, theaters show movies at 24/25fps. While 90% of videos on DVD or downloaded from the internet are show right at or below 30. The reason why people may complain about framerate issues when they are getting an average of 40 or more is because there are framerate spikes. These spikes go both ways. Maybe for 4-5 frames your video card spits out 100fps because there is no texture swaping and not much to think about. But the other end is what people usually see: when the card spikes down because it has to swap out 50MB of textures and has to render some heavy lighting; then for 3-4 frames it is at 20fps.
This all just to say, if you limit your fps to 40, and your card normally averages at 60, you should never notice the "low frames". This also allows your video card to run a bit cooler, your GPU fan a bit slower; all to help the longevity of your video card.

Personally I have my frames limited to 40. And never notice a single drop in framerate. The only downside is my friends come over and never see that I am able to get 80+fps. But that's their problem anyway.

-=Macky=-

20th January 2006, 17:08

Surely it's mostly down to personal preference?I run at about 40-50,any below about 35 and I think it's not so much what looks appealing, but you're gonna miss stuff happening at high speed.
Simple bit of maths, you're travelling at 150kmh on a straight in your FZR - thats 150,000 metres an hour,
or 2500 metres a minute,
or 41 meters a second.
So at 40fps, your screen is updates roughly once every metre your car travels.
At 20fps, you've gone a car's length before you get updated. A lot happens in a cars length at 150kmh. Higher FPS the better (duh) but no less than 30 is comfortable.

Rg7621

21st January 2006, 00:54

I think everyone can see the difference in the game WHEN your comparing a frame rate of BELOW 60 to a frame rate of 60 or above. You should be able to see the difference in any game you play, but it might be more noticeable with racing games.

The magic number IS 60. From (roughly) 30-59, you can't see much of a difference, but when you hit that magic number 60, you see it. It's hard to explain, but a frame rate of 60 or more "feels" more "real-time". The environment/road passes by much smoother/clearer. If you play at 60fps or higher, you have a certain advantage over others with a lower fps (depends on how low).

I can't stress this enough, 60 IS the ideal frame rate. Your better off turning down the graphics to get a constant 60. Take my advice or leave it.:shrug:

P.S. I have only played games on a CRT, so maybe LCD's don't show this difference, but everyone with a CRT should see it.

bbman

21st January 2006, 03:31

One question: How many Hz do you run on your monitor?

Rg7621

21st January 2006, 08:26

One question: How many Hz do you run on your monitor? Currently, 75Hz at 1600x1200 (because it's the recommended resolution/refresh rate for this monitor). I used 60Hz on my old monitor and could also see the difference of the "magical" 60fps point.

bbman

21st January 2006, 13:06

So, anything above 75 FPS (or 60, in the case of your old monitor), is just useless... ;) Maybe THAT's this magical point...

Rg7621

21st January 2006, 18:36

So, anything above 75 FPS (or 60, in the case of your old monitor), is just useless... ;) Maybe THAT's this magical point...
No, I still see this magical point at 60 even with my monitor at 75Hz. I don’t understand this. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but CRT’s have a black screen between every frame, where LCD don’t (?).

Since 30fps seems to be about the number for humans to see animation smoothly, MAYBE when you double that number you see this “big” difference. So, maybe the same thing might go for the 90fps point or the 120fps point.
Now I could be COMPLETELY wrong since this is just a “hunch”, lol.

50-3

22nd January 2006, 06:41

imo the FFGP a nice wheel to start with, but you should better go for the driving force pro - it's supposed to be a PS2 wheel, but works well with the pc. and it has 900° steering angle :thumb: (and it's not too expensive)

The best whell in the logitech seris but has krappy drivers wich arn't great with LFS if you hold you Clutch down/upshift Accelerate brake cheak you 6 and anyother motion it may lock you into it and keep you in it becuase it's waiting for info from the PS2 but get's it from the PC, so go with the MOMO they have just realesd a 900 model so you can spin your whell more wich isn't really all that usefull in LFS :P

bbman

22nd January 2006, 14:13

Can somebody translate this unknown language to english? :schwitz:

bobbfwed

24th January 2006, 00:01

No, I still see this magical point at 60 even with my monitor at 75Hz. I don’t understand this. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but CRT’s have a black screen between every frame, where LCD don’t (?).

Since 30fps seems to be about the number for humans to see animation smoothly, MAYBE when you double that number you see this “big” difference. So, maybe the same thing might go for the 90fps point or the 120fps point.
Now I could be COMPLETELY wrong since this is just a “hunch”, lol.

CRT don't necissarily have a "black screen" between each refresh, but between "scans" (you may understand what I am talking about you try to record a CRT monitor with a videocamera) it has no energy (electrons) being put to the screen. I guess this 60FPS thing may have some merit, to the fact that many people can get headaches from using a CRT monitor at 60Hz (60 scans per second) or less, while almost anything slightly above 60 does not have the same affect.
LCDs do not do this; in general refresh rates have no baring on how an LCD monitor look/feels, but rather will limit the speed at which it can display frames in a game. Both LCDs and CRTs limit their displayed frames per second by their refresh rate.
People always used to brag about getting 150fps in the old counter-strike, but most monitors only show up to 80-100Hz, which means the videocard was processing 150fps, but the monitor was only displaying 80-100fps.
All this to say, 60+fps isn't a bad thing, and on CRTs it may be much more necissary than on LCDs.