Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

New FPS Option (30, 60) [1.19] QuestionFollow

#1 Oct 06 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
*
141 posts
Hmm I just saw they added that option to select your fps limit at 30 or 60

Can someone explain the topic to me? I also would like to know on which setting the game will run better? (any tests already running on that?)
#2 Oct 06 2011 at 3:22 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
I'm not sure why anyone would limit thier PC FPS to 30, but I guess at least it's another option.

I suppose you could crank the settings up a bit higher if limited to 30, but being locked around 30 means you're more likely to run into stutter and other performance issues if you limited to 30 for the purpose of cranking UP other settings.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#3 Oct 06 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
***
3,962 posts
Perrin, ****** Superhero wrote:
I'm not sure why anyone would limit thier PC FPS to 30, but I guess at least it's another option.

I suppose you could crank the settings up a bit higher if limited to 30, but being locked around 30 means you're more likely to run into stutter and other performance issues if you limited to 30 for the purpose of cranking UP other settings.


Some (strange) people (like me) actually prefer 30 FPS. To me, watching something move at 60 fps looks odd, unless it's moving very fast. Movies after all run at 24 FPS, and TV at 30, and if you suddenly bump up the frame rate it looks odd to us.

So, unless I'm playing Sonic and running at 60+ mph, I don't actually like seeing 60 FPS, though it tends to depend on the game. I hadn't noticed this option yet or tried it out, but I'm happy it's there.

Also, for the sake of consistency, it may be nice. My PC jumps around between 30-60 fps in game usually, depending on what's going on. If you cap yourself at 30, you should have a consistent frame rate, and for me that's something that I definitely appreciate.
#4 Oct 06 2011 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
**
374 posts
RamseySylph wrote:
Perrin, ****** Superhero wrote:
I'm not sure why anyone would limit thier PC FPS to 30, but I guess at least it's another option.

I suppose you could crank the settings up a bit higher if limited to 30, but being locked around 30 means you're more likely to run into stutter and other performance issues if you limited to 30 for the purpose of cranking UP other settings.


Some (strange) people (like me) actually prefer 30 FPS. To me, watching something move at 60 fps looks odd, unless it's moving very fast. Movies after all run at 24 FPS, and TV at 30, and if you suddenly bump up the frame rate it looks odd to us.

So, unless I'm playing Sonic and running at 60+ mph, I don't actually like seeing 60 FPS, though it tends to depend on the game. I hadn't noticed this option yet or tried it out, but I'm happy it's there.

Also, for the sake of consistency, it may be nice. My PC jumps around between 30-60 fps in game usually, depending on what's going on. If you cap yourself at 30, you should have a consistent frame rate, and for me that's something that I definitely appreciate.


Wasn't there some cap like this on FFXI?

I liked how even crappy computers could play that game.
#5 Oct 06 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,148 posts
The variance in fps bother people most

30 fps 100% of the time would seem better than varying wildly between 40-90 fps

The cap in ffxi I believe for other reasons (game timing)

Edited, Oct 6th 2011 9:28pm by Levish
____________________________
Mishana: DRG | THF | RDM | NIN
#6 Oct 06 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
513 posts
I played around with the cap for a while. At first you notice a lot of flickering with capped FPS but you get used to it over time. Still, switching back to 60 makes the game suddenly seem really smooth. Jumping between 30 and 60 a lot due to performance issues can be annoying, though.

RamseySylph wrote:

Some (strange) people (like me) actually prefer 30 FPS. To me, watching something move at 60 fps looks odd, unless it's moving very fast. Movies after all run at 24 FPS, and TV at 30, and if you suddenly bump up the frame rate it looks odd to us.

TVs have a kind of motion blur effect that smoothes out the frames, though, so it's not the same. Also, your eyes see at a much higher refresh rate than 30 FPS. Does everything outside TVs and movies look odd to you?

Edited, Oct 6th 2011 10:06pm by Omena

Edited, Oct 6th 2011 10:07pm by Omena
____________________________
#7RamseySylph, Posted: Oct 06 2011 at 8:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Gee, I wasn't aware of that.
#8 Oct 06 2011 at 10:15 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Where exactly do I go to change FPS? I didn't see it in FFXIV config file.
____________________________
Bartel Hayward--- Ultros Server
The Kraken Club <ZAM>
50 WAR • 50 MNK • 50 MIN • 50 GSM • 50 ARM • 50 LTW • 50 CUL • 50 WVR
thekrakenclub.shivtr.com
#9 Oct 06 2011 at 10:42 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,962 posts
BartelX wrote:
Where exactly do I go to change FPS? I didn't see it in FFXIV config file.


It's in game.
#10 Oct 07 2011 at 12:54 AM Rating: Excellent
BartelX wrote:
Where exactly do I go to change FPS? I didn't see it in FFXIV config file.


It's in...

Patch 1.19 Notes wrote:

[dev1171] The following options have been added to the Configuration menu and its sub-menus:
System------>Frame Rate Limit
Toggle between an in-game frame rate of 60fps and 30fps.
* The default setting is 60fps.


For me, locking the FPS @ 30 is far more convenient when I'm recording with FRAPs, since I play windowed and FRAPs auto-records at 30 regardless of current FPS...may as well save some processing power :p


Edited, Oct 7th 2011 2:59am by GuiltyBoomerang
____________________________
FFXIV

Estur Leone - Gysahl

#11 Oct 07 2011 at 6:03 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
513 posts
RamseySylph wrote:

Insinuating that I don't know that our eyes operate at higher speeds than 30 frames per second, and that reality operates faster, and there for I should find everything in reality strange looking compared to a 30FPS video is well... Kind of ridiculous?

You quite literally said that watching 60+ FPS looks odd to you and that you're more comfortable with the 30 FPS of your TV programs. I don't see how I could possibly arrive at a different conclusion than that reality, which operates at a faster frame rate than 30 FPS, must also look odd to you. You even described yourself as "strange" because of this.

I just don't see how it being on a screen makes a difference. Your eyes see everything the same way regardless.

Edited, Oct 7th 2011 8:05am by Omena
____________________________
#12 Oct 07 2011 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
**
374 posts
Omena wrote:
RamseySylph wrote:

Insinuating that I don't know that our eyes operate at higher speeds than 30 frames per second, and that reality operates faster, and there for I should find everything in reality strange looking compared to a 30FPS video is well... Kind of ridiculous?

You quite literally said that watching 60+ FPS looks odd to you and that you're more comfortable with the 30 FPS of your TV programs. I don't see how I could possibly arrive at a different conclusion than that reality, which operates at a faster frame rate than 30 FPS, must also look odd to you. You even described yourself as "strange" because of this.

I just don't see how it being on a screen makes a difference. Your eyes see everything the same way regardless.

Edited, Oct 7th 2011 8:05am by Omena


Why do you guys waste your time arguing such trivialities? (Why do I waste my time questioning you wasting your time is the natural rebuttal.)
#13 Oct 07 2011 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Quote:
Your eyes see everything the same way regardless.


Actually, they don't. Your eyes don't see reality at XX FPS. That is why reality would NOT look "weird" to him. If everything in the real world WAS based on FPS you'd have a point... but it's obviously not. =P
____________________________
Bartel Hayward--- Ultros Server
The Kraken Club <ZAM>
50 WAR • 50 MNK • 50 MIN • 50 GSM • 50 ARM • 50 LTW • 50 CUL • 50 WVR
thekrakenclub.shivtr.com
#14 Oct 07 2011 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
*
141 posts
So, where the game will look better and runs faster? 30 or 60fps? I don't know what that term FPS (Frame Per Second) actually do, that's where this came from. As well as i don't understand what is better cuss there is something on the net about FPS that seems like "The bigger the **** you get, the better..." like you know, people are all around FPS that higher the better without eventually explaining what the **** is it, how doest it affect game performance etc... especially when it's comes to limit. Is limiting it a good thing, game will run smother and will have more performance, or is it the other way... that hasn't been explained as well.

PS: Any examples of game running at 30 and at 60? Any differences?
#15 Oct 07 2011 at 1:51 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,153 posts
Quote:
Why do you guys waste your time arguing such trivialities? (Why do I waste my time questioning you wasting your time is the natural rebuttal.)

Because that's what internet forums really are for.
#16 Oct 07 2011 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,949 posts
EmiyaShirou wrote:
So, where the game will look better and runs faster? 30 or 60fps? I don't know what that term FPS (Frame Per Second) actually do, that's where this came from. As well as i don't understand what is better cuss there is something on the net about FPS that seems like "The bigger the **** you get, the better..." like you know, people are all around FPS that higher the better without eventually explaining what the **** is it, how doest it affect game performance etc... especially when it's comes to limit. Is limiting it a good thing, game will run smother and will have more performance, or is it the other way... that hasn't been explained as well.

PS: Any examples of game running at 30 and at 60? Any differences?

More frames per second = smoother animations and especially screen pans and such.

If your computer can run 60 fps constantly, it's better than 30 fps, for sure. People are debating, however, should you cap it at 30, to have an overall more "stable" experience, or do you prefer to keep it at 60, and risk noticing when it drops to 40 or 50 or whatever.

We can't answer that question for you, so the real answer is: Try 30 fps, and if you don't notice anything wrong with it, I suggest you stay that way (Chances are you don't see the difference between 30 and 60 -- many regular human don't). If you somehow feel like you prefered the setting at 60, crank it back up.

I _usually_ agree with Ramsey that I prefer a consistant framerate (so setting it to 30), but I _also_ prefer the smoother framerate (so setting it to 60). So essentially I want my cake and eat it too, and I'll live with the downsides of keeping it at 60. Just my decision for the moment.
____________________________
FFXIV: Cloe Delisle Scholar, officer of the SWAGGER Free company, Sargatanas server.
#17 Oct 07 2011 at 2:34 PM Rating: Default
**
557 posts
The bigger question is why are graphics options suddenly being moved in game?

Is this going to be something the PS3 players can change? If so, why?
____________________________


#18 Oct 07 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,962 posts
yfaithfully wrote:
The bigger question is why are graphics options suddenly being moved in game?

Is this going to be something the PS3 players can change? If so, why?


They're not being "moved" in game, some graphics settings simply cannot take effect while the engine is running, for various reasons. In most PC games this takes the form of "this setting will update when you re-open the program" for whatever reason, SE prefers to just make it external. FPS is something that the engine can easily adjust, so it's put in game. It's very unlikely PS3 players will have this option.

Omena wrote:
RamseySylph wrote:

Insinuating that I don't know that our eyes operate at higher speeds than 30 frames per second, and that reality operates faster, and there for I should find everything in reality strange looking compared to a 30FPS video is well... Kind of ridiculous?

You quite literally said that watching 60+ FPS looks odd to you and that you're more comfortable with the 30 FPS of your TV programs. I don't see how I could possibly arrive at a different conclusion than that reality, which operates at a faster frame rate than 30 FPS, must also look odd to you. You even described yourself as "strange" because of this.

I just don't see how it being on a screen makes a difference. Your eyes see everything the same way regardless.

Edited, Oct 7th 2011 8:05am by Omena


Our eyes are trained to be used to different things in different situations. It just looks weird to me, I prefer 30 fps in many cases. There's really no reason for you to try to understand.
#19 Oct 07 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Decent
**
557 posts
I haven't had to restart a game to change its graphics options in years. Some sound options, sometimes, yeah, but I've been able to change graphical quality and resolution in-game without a restart for a long time for the vast majority of games I've played. SE is obviously doing things differently with FFXIV, and I thought it was because those were options that would be unavailable to PS3 players, and they wanted the in-game PS3 and PC clients to be as identical as possible. Logically, I would have expected an FPS cap option to go with the rest of the graphical options--out of the game--but it's not. I find that curious.
____________________________


#20 Oct 07 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,962 posts
yfaithfully wrote:
I haven't had to restart a game to change its graphics options in years. Some sound options, sometimes, yeah, but I've been able to change graphical quality and resolution in-game without a restart for a long time for the vast majority of games I've played. SE is obviously doing things differently with FFXIV, and I thought it was because those were options that would be unavailable to PS3 players, and they wanted the in-game PS3 and PC clients to be as identical as possible. Logically, I would have expected an FPS cap option to go with the rest of the graphical options--out of the game--but it's not. I find that curious.


Sorry, but that's really just not why. It comes down to how the engine handles these graphical settings, even in games like World of Warcraft, some changes will -not- take effect until you reboot, and other games as well. Not resolution, but often things like lighting and texture changes.

It's likely that the engine SE built, simply doesn't have the proper hooks to adjust some of the settings that are commonly able to be adjusted in game, in other engines. And honestly, their priorities need to be elsewhere, so I don't care either way.
#21 Oct 08 2011 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Omena wrote:
You quite literally said that watching 60+ FPS looks odd to you and that you're more comfortable with the 30 FPS of your TV programs.
Before this goes any further, time for a refresher course. The difference between 30 FPS from a camcorder* and 30 FPS from a video game:

Camcorder - Records the incoming light in the lens for a period of 1/30th of a second before moving onto the next frame. Any fast motion within view of the lens is captured and represented as a blur, as the object will spend parts of that 1/30th of a second in different locations in the recorded frame.

Video game - Renders a picture of the state of the game at an explicit point in time every 1/30th of a second. Each frame is completely still and no motion is recorded or implied from one frame to the next. There are techniques such as motion blur to force scenes in motion to render blurred to simulate the effects of an actual camcorder, but this is only an advanced, often optional function of a graphical engine.


In short, the 30 fps when recorded with a camera is a far different effect than 30 fps rendered in a computer. The video recording will look far smoother than the computer rendering when there is no implied motion rendered into each frame on the fly.





*NTSC standards for TVs specify a framerate of 29.97 frames per second. Films (i.e.: in theaters) traditionally run at 23.976 frames per second. Displaying films on home televisions requires a 3:2 pulldown to sync properly to the 60hz scanning rate of the NTSC TV. This results in odd interlacing problems every few frames, which is another issue entirely.



Edited, Oct 8th 2011 11:38am by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#22 Oct 08 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
It's also worth noting that even though interlacing is traditionally defined as breaking up a single frame into odd- and even-scanline fields, it's been found that interlacing actually looks better if each field has the proper temporal spacing. I.e. instead of seeing (on NTSC broadcast) 29.97 frames per second split up into 59.94 fields per second, you actually see 59.94 frames per second, with each frame being only the even or odd scanlines of that frame - interlacing has actually been done this way for decades. Basically, it was found that displaying half of a frame then displaying the other half of that same frame 16.7 ms later produced noticeable stuttering, especially in the case of rapid motion, while temporally-offset fields instead produce comb artifacts under the same conditions.

This method has better temporal resolution than traditional interlacing, and is not prone to "stuttering". It also has better vertical resolution than half-resolution progressive scan (which is the signal generally output by pre-3D consoles), while still using the bandwidth of traditional interlaced video.

In chart form, showing the time-stamp for each frame/field:
 
Frame/   Theoretical     Interlacing     Progressive 
Field    interlacing     modern usage    Scan 
1        0 ms (odd)      0 ms (odd)      0 ms (full) 
2        0 ms (even)     16.7 ms (even)  16.7 ms (full) 
3        33.3 ms (odd)   33.3 ms (odd)   33.3 ms (full) 
4        33.3 ms (even)  50.0 ms (even)  50.0 ms (full) 
5        66.7 ms (odd)   66.7 ms (odd)   66.7 ms (full) 
... 


Time-stamps assuming nominal 60 fps, i.e. close enough for government work. NTSC video is officially 59.94 fields per second (in color; black and white NTSC is exactly 60 fields per second), with a tolerance of plus/minus 1% or so. NES and SNES video signals run at 60.18 fps in progressive-scan mode (very few games used interlaced mode). Other consoles use different, slightly varying frame rates.
#23 Oct 09 2011 at 2:48 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
3,226 posts
Docent42 wrote:
I suggest you stay that way (Chances are you don't see the difference between 30 and 60 -- many regular human don't)

Posting this again to educate and amaze:

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

____________________________
w(°o°)w
#24 Oct 09 2011 at 5:00 AM Rating: Good
**
863 posts
Almalexia wrote:
Docent42 wrote:
I suggest you stay that way (Chances are you don't see the difference between 30 and 60 -- many regular human don't)

Posting this again to educate and amaze:

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html



Lol, scrolled down to see if anyone had posted this and didn't see it at first. Then after pressing reply and about to link to it I saw your post. Good stuff :)
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 17 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (17)