Improving framerate + new graphic drivers

[.vooDoo.]

Yes, i recieved your email. :-)

 As I replied, you are free to collect the beer anytime. I have a few good subjects to talk of, while we down those pints.

Is it a joke / fake ?

Your comp, graphic card, and driver.

Conditions for the screenie.

are u able to get 61 and above often - or was it just this once ?

You might find it funny that I dont want to talk about girls or cars, when drinking beer. but as a matter of fact your experience is so peculiar, that it makes me (amongst others, I guess) very interested.

So you got my full attention Sturm !  
I would gladly open the discussion even before beers arrive.

Best regards
[EUR] Flies

I too have hit 61fps but never above that. There is deff. a cap.
G4/1.2ghz/512ram/ati 8500w/64mb

[*DAMN Mauti]

Indeed now I even managed to achieve 61fps on my iMac on embassy but not higher than that so there is a limit, grrr.

Bye,

Mauti

[BTs_STuRM]

Hi all,

        I have pulled 62 fps here and there but not consistently--so I have also broken the 61 fps wall!!! I have screenshots (both singleplayer and multiplayer on Gameranger).  But I must say-- 62 fps is my wall so far--but I will see what I can do to penetrate the magic wall,

                  BTs_STuRM

[BeefyFigure]

Mauti: how on earth did you get 61 FPS?

[*DAMN Mauti]

Watching a replay on embassy  

[BeefyFigure]

Seriously?

[*DAMN Mauti]

Yes!

[[[EUR]] HoloGram]

the barier is only really broken when we can reach over 60 konstantly, not only once for 1 or two sec.

@Radeon 8500

It is now running under a new label 9100 - b/c of it faster speed and more rendering piplines. And it is definatly much faster then the 9000Pro! esp. much fast  then the 9000. The Rad 9000 is an absolute lowend Videocard. Nothing for gamers - normaly. Good for Notebooks.

[BTs_STuRM]

I am at a point now, where i feel like i returned to starting point:
Quote from [EUR] Flies (originator of this thread) "
I asked so many ppl - and noone has experienced framerate over 60 pr.sec.
i mean noone - period.

So this leads to:

A: I buy a beer to the one who first experience fps over 60 on mac, and make a ss.

B: I am back at my suspicion that its limited by the driver in some sence."

Please review the entire thread before negating anyone's input.  A wall or barrier or ceiling is a supposedly impossible threshold to break.  Breaking it is breaking it.  That is the first step to consistently achieving framerates          above 60 fps.  

Hologram, Do you have anything constructive to add pertinent to this pursuit?  I'm all eyes,

               BTs_STuRM

PS - Ill try to come to Denmark for that pint Flies!!!



 

[Nobody99]

Ok,

You people are obsessed with this fps thing.  

Unless you are a superman or an alien from another planet, you will have a hard time benefiting anything over 24 frames per second.  That's the reason why most Hollywood feature film was shot at 24 frames per second.

For the sake of the argument, you are from another planet, and you can differentiate between 24 frames per second and 30 frames per second.  I doubted you can tell the difference between 60 fps and 70 fps.  So stop obsessing about it.  To your human eye, 60 fps and 70 fps are absolutely the same.  You cannot tell the difference.  70 fps will not be any smoother than 60 fps to you.  No need to envy your PC friends.

And yes, I do have a Ph.D. in Biology.  I am not bull-shitting you.

Logan

[BTs_STuRM]

Yes, But the computer is quicker than the eye--the cpus can tell the difference and it does translate into better gameplay, this is not about asthetics, but your point is well taken as I know these biological and FILM facts already--start a new thread about all your trivia-this is about improving framerate thank you,

                  BTs_STuRM

[Whale]

I think Logan has a point (although I am no scientist).  I learned in high school that human cannot tell the difference above 24 fps (that's why movie was shot at 24 fps, as Logan has suggested).  I think it may be a good idea to put a cap on the frame rate, so that there will be less lagging when intensed battle is coming up all of a sudden.  I know computer can tell the difference, but human can't.  So really, what is the point of putting more fps if it doesn't translate into better gameplay?  Personally, I have a crappy old computer and a newer computer, one plays Duke nukem at something like 30 fps, and the other plays at some 60-70 fps (forget the real number).  I swear I can't tell the difference personally.  Maybe I have bad eyes

On the other hand, I understand how you feel.  My PC friends always have a faster fps in any game I play.  But anyway, the new G5 should kick their ass!

Maybe you should ask the author why such limitation is put there in the first place.

Whale  

[Priss]

Hi all - I have never heard of the 24 fps rule.  Thanks for the info.  I don't feel so bad now.  I am able to tell the difference between 5 fps and 20 fps, he he.  I have a powerbook, and it has 8mb video card only (I think).  So even though I put everything to low, I can only get about 5-20 fps top (depends on the mods).  Some IT and Frostbite level is plain horrible.  So all of you lucky guys getting 60fps, don't complain Priss

[*DAMN Mauti]

Logan that's not entirely true. Yep the eye can't realize more than 24fps(the 25fps marketing trick prooved that were they inserted a 25th frame showing a Coke) The user didn't saw it but the sub consciousness saw it and after the movie almost 50 percent wanted to buy the shown coke. Nevertheless for Computer games you realize a difference until 60fps. It's not that you can see and realize more but the picture is more smooth because you add more transisitons that's the reason why we have old 50Hz(25full frames/sec) televisions and supersmooth and eye friendly 100Hz(50full frames/sec) televisions. You notice a difference you can also compare LCD screens with CRTs or low end 80Hz CRTs like my iMac screens and high end ones with 100+ Hz. You don't get more information: A user with 25fps and a user with 60fps gets the same information/sec but the later one seems to run better.

To sum up you note a difference and although higher fps than 60 doesn't improve the feeling much you know that if you can achieve 120fps in a game it will probably keep up playable 25fps in CPU heavy situations and further you know you can even try out higher settings than the default settings.

Bye,

Mauti

[Fefe]

Mauti,

I am not sure if it is fair to compare the rate of games to refreshing rate of TV.  TV scans from top left to bottom right, and people have a much lower tolerance for that (the so-called flicker effect of how fast light is flashing at you).  The flicker effect also depends on how bright you set your monitor, so it really has many factors.  I also read that most people cannot tell the difference higher than 60-72 Hz for TV anyway.  Remember, even though the game is running at 10 fps, the monitor is still refreshing the same rate (70Hz or what not).  That's why you don't feel like killing your eyes when the game runs at 10 fps.  Cos those 2 rates are completely 2 different things.  Like apple and orange.

In any case, I absolutely do not believe you can tell the smoothness between 30fps and say 60 fps.  And to try to improve a 60 fps to 62 fps makes me sick to my stomach, cos I can only get 15 fps on a good day

peace,

fefe

[*DAMN Mauti]

Of course the rates are completly different in the meaning but I wanted to point out that although the sent information stays the same(still only 24fps)  on a 60HZ and 100HZ TV you can tell a difference.

Same in games: may you have Gran Turismo 1 for the PSX. If you play through the Arcade modus you get as bonus a 60Hz modus(30fps) and the difference is amazing!

That's also the reason why US games seem to be faster and smoother for europeans because NTSC works with 60Hz and PAL only with 50Hz.

Well you can't tell a difference between 60 and 100 but the subconsciousness will probably note a difference between 24 -  60. Your eyes stop realising more than 24frames but the feeling of 60 is much better! That's my point.

Bye,

Mauti

[fefe]

>Of course the rates are completly different in the meaning but I wanted to point out that although the sent information stays the same(still only 24fps)? on a 60HZ and 100HZ TV you can tell a difference.

As I mentioned before, some people have optimal at around 72 Hz scanning rate.  So of course some people can tell that 100Hz is better than 60Hz.  So I guess your point is: you agree with me.

>That's also the reason why US games seem to be faster and smoother for europeans because NTSC works with 60Hz and PAL only with 50Hz.

Again, 50Hz is crappy because it is lower than most people's optimal rate.  So you are once again just agreeing with what I said.  No agrument here.


When you see somone move in real life, it is a continuous motion.  So of course we would think it perceive it as smooth.  But in a movie, it only appears at 24fps.  But it still appears to be smooth as we see a real person move right in front of us?  Why?  

Because our eyes are not gathering data in an infinite rate.  (it would sensory overload, and most importantly, impossible).  The neuron is fooling us that it is receiving data at an infinite rate, but it fact, it is not.  As it turns out 24 fps in a motion picture will fool just about everyone.  Now, you can argue that someone may have a higher or lower tolerance, but jumping from 24 to 60, well, let's say if you have such data, you will be pretty famous.

I do agree with you on the feeling better aspect.  Knowing you can perform above 60 fps does help you to feel better about your system.  And I think it is useful to know that info, cos it will help you on changing your system detail level (as you point out earlier).

But I think some of you is correct by saying that people put a limit at 60fps for a reason.  Since human can't tell the difference after that point, why stress your computer to put out so much info?  Maybe it is more important to save some cpu cycle for occasion when battle is intensed?

That's my 2 cents of thought

[[[EUR]] HoloGram]

improving the FPS in the game is the key in this Threat, not the biological facts of the 25 pic per sec human beings can realize. Most of knew that.

But we simply try to find out how to break this damn 60fps barrier. Thats all. If u dont know anything usefull to this, plz dont post - if u know we will be glad to have u heat. When u want to talc about the 24 FPS phenomenon then open a threat.

It is curiosity that made us searching for the solution.

[Anthony B]

I've been following this topic with great interest and I wonder if you all have overlooked the obvious.  The Mac version of Ghost Recon was simply ported over from the PC version, no?  

I also think many of you are correct in determining a driver issue.  I just don't think ATI and Nvidia put that much effort into their Mac drivers simply because there's less demand.  The video cards are more expensive and they sell fewer of them.  Apple could make a better driver for there OEM cards but let's face it, Macs aren't considered great gaming machines to begin with so there's less incentive to do so.  

I run GR on an 800/G4 iMac and get between 5 to 29 fps depending on the expansion pack.  Island Thunder is the worst for game play and that's with all the settings set to the  lowest.  Unfortunately, GR just isn't as much fun with everything set so low and I find myself playing less frequently over all.  

I'd like to get some benchmark scores with a new high end G5 just to see how many more fps are possible.  Hopefully the G5 will turn everything around for us Mac users.  

Rebel T

[fefe]

Dear [?EUR*] Flies,

A.  Don't we all want to win?  

I think how fast your computer know where you enemy is (which depends more on the cpu) and how fast it is drawn to your screen so you can react (which depends more on the video card) are 2 different things.  In any case, the screen drawing is the bottlenet.  Reaction time for human being is about 0.1 second.  The difference between 60 fps and 90 fps is 0.0055 sec.  You do the math.

Bad ping is much worse than slow computer in any case.  A 250ms lag (which is not a bad connection) give you a handicap of 0.25 sec, which is 45 times worse than the 0.0055 sec difference between a PC machine and mac machine.  So if you are the host, you will win even if you have a mac.

B. To address your point about OmniMax.  Just because they film the movie at 80-90 fps doesn't mean it is played at 80-90 fps.  When you match hockey on TV, sometimes they replay a slow-mo, but it still remains to be smooth.  Why?  Because it was shot at much higher framerate, so it can replay smoothly even at slow-mo (which requires more frame to make it smooth).

FYI, Omnimax is played at 24 fps.  Read the follow spec:
(http://www.glsc.org/geninfo.php3?class1=OmniMax&class3=Facts)
And I quote:

"The OMNIMAX projector is the largest projector ever made, advancing super-sized 70mm images horizontally through the projector at 24 frames, 5.6 feet of film per second."

C. Don't we all want the latest toy?  Actually I want a porche.  A friend of mine got a bmw, and I am so jealous

The thing is, is this really a bug?  Or is it a software feature?  Does putting a limit on fps helps one to maintain a lower but more steady framerate?  I have no idea.  Maybe we should ask the developer.  

To Anthony B:
I think GR is a port.  I am not sure, ask mauti about that.  Actually I have a follow up question: Does anyone know if GR take advantage of the velocity engine in G4?

Ya, G5 will be cool.  1 GHz bus.  Eat that intel!  

I wonder if G5 will have the same 60 fps limit.

Have you tried the following trick to make your machine faster?  I copied it earlier from the forum (from [EUR] Flies):

"For those who are forced to run GhR on its lowest settings for the extra speed might not know about this one trick: Open the "options.xml" file located in the data folder with TextEdit or SimpleText. Scroll down until you see:
<UseEAX>True</UseEAX>
Change this to:
<UseEAX>FALSE</UseEAX>.

EAX is an enhanced sound output for PCs with soundcards and suroundsound speakers (which we don't have), so turning it off will take some strain off the processor and your sounds will still sound the same."
I hope others have a few tips to share, for the common good of gameplay on GameRanger.
If we all improve -  we all be happy - and gaming will be more fun :-)
Best regards
[EUR] Flies "

And I think Mauti gave this tip:

In single level,  try to press <enter>, then enter the code <togglemovetrees>.

Tree won't move.  It takes less cpu cycle.

You can do this for multiplayer too.  Just type the code in single player first, and then start Multiplayer.

For multiplayer to work, you have to type in single player first every time you restart the application

Thanks to [?EUR*] Flies  and Mauti (love your work; by the way, are you gonna port the frostbite new version to mac?  ) for all the contribution.  It is certainly very informative and educational.  

fefe