*DAMN R6 Forum

Played a couple of missions at my friends house and it looks great.

Things added in for multiplayer:

2 new guns,:flame-thrower and a fuel rod gun
New kind of warthog: Instead of a machine gun it has a rocket launcher for anti-air

The demo is out now for PC. If you have a PC I suggest giving it a try. The demo also can be played online.

 Nothing looks great at those framerates. Christ, even on my computer they're shit.  

Typhy don't care about Frames Per Second on games please.  I mean what's the big deal.  If your FPS are 30 or higher the human eye doesn't recognize a change, so who cares if you get 500fps!  If below 30fps you can see a change.

 Who cares if you get 10 FPS in a firefight with a 256MB NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra? Just ask any of us who have PCs: Halo has "problems".  

I spent 50 bucks on a game that runs beautifully on my xbox, and now 2 years later I get 5 frames per sec on my GeForce FX 5600.

It has nothing to do with bitching about frame rates, it's almost unplayable on nvidia cards. MS game studios fucked up big time.

it is not really better on ATI Cards.

I have a 9600Pro 128RAM and RvS runs very nice all other games too. but Halo goes down in some very simple situations.

BTW the netcode seems to be shit - more shit then the code of RvS.

But I played only the DEMO it could be a DEMO problem

btw i think you definatly can notice a differnece over 30fps with graphics - some peoples eyes are just more sensitive than others....

At least we may live in the knowledge that westlake is doing everything they can to get decent playability and nice frame rates - anyone see the little video of one of the westlake guys running halo? not much admitedly but i think people might be very plesently surprised.

Why blame MS Studio Ultimo? they didn't do the port!

Yeah, I can definitely notice changes in frame rate until it hits about 70-80.

     The "human eyes can't see more than 30 FPS" is a myth, or at best, an inaccuracy. The actual statistic is that 30 FPS is a baseline for the illusion of fluid motion (yes, yes, movies run at 24 FPS, but they use photographic tricks to supplement). More than 30 FPS is not directly perceivable--nobody's going to look at a screen and say, "I see you're getting 46 frames per second these days." However, framerates greater than 30 do appear smoother, up to a limit where the returns diminish into insignificance (there's probably a noticeable difference between 100 FPS and 200 FPS, but not between 190 and 200).

     So anyway, stop saying that no game really needs more than 30 FPS, because it's a damn lie.

 Fucking finally, :looks at Loth:, someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Just tested this on my PC: Counter Strike, capped at 60 FPS. Looks perfect.

However, then compared to UT 2003 at 275FPS; you can see an improvement.

The difference between 60 and 275 isn't nearly as big as the difference between 20 and 30, however, it's noticable.  

Exactly.

Like i said before... U can see a difference with FPS over 30

You can pre-order Halo for mac at the apple store. it said its supposed to ship in december

I never heard the 30fps myth before.  I remember in a film class they said 60fps was about perfect, and that any higher was a waste.  That was talking about film technology and such, not the actual 24 and 48fps of  projectors (iMax uses 48fps, one more reason it's superior).

In any case, there is a minimum FPS for games to look smooth.  People's standards differ, but if it isn't 40ish, it's probably not that smooth.  After 60 or so, it really doesn't matter much.