Support NeoGAF

[Gek54]

m0dus: Everyone is different, everone's brain operates differently. Your threshold might not apply to mine. Hell I could play at 15fps with out too much problem. Everyone I have observed playing a 60fps game, in one particular case Tony Hawk 3, experienced severe disorientation when switching to Grand Theft Auto 3 which is 30fps. After awhile they were able to adjust to the lack of frames and were able to train their brain to operate the game with the lack of visual updates. The players were very familiar with GTA3 but everytime they started the game after a long TH3 sesion, their ability to anticipate movement was deminished. I noticed this too with people playing PGR1 and 2. The problem with 30fps is not too different than if you had a 1 second delay between when you press left and when your car actualy begins to turn left. Sure you adjust and learn to anticipate needing to input sooner but you are at a dissadvantage if anything unexpected happens to which you might not be able to correct your car soon enough.

 

[Gek54]

gmoran nailed it.

 

[gmoran]

Here is some information the doubters might want to check:

10 separate frames must be sent every second to give an illusion of movement.
But you need around 50 FPS to stop very noticeable flickers. This is why 24 FPS movie projectors use 2 blades to show the same frame twice; and why TV sets send at least 50 fields per second.

 

[Vennt]

I guess this thread proves m0dus's brain works slower than everybody elses.

 

[gmoran]

Sure you adjust and learn to anticipate needing to input sooner but you are at a dissadvantage if anything unexpected happens to which you might not be able to correct your car soon enough.

Burnout 3, when you are driving the circuit racers and boosting: you are reacting to stimuli you are not aware off, you have to zone out, else you can't compete.

 

[gmoran]

the problem is this: Your reasoning applies to framerates LOWER than 24, because at those rates, movement is not accurately percieved, and subtility is missed. ABOVE 24, your brain has reached its threshold of what it needs to process what is happening in realtime, and what it is realistically capable of reacting to.

24?

 

[gmoran]

Modus

I'm asking you to explain that strange statement of yours, the one I quoted. The one where you are using the image change frame rate (24) of a movie camera to explain the brains ability to resolve visual data; you know the threshold you mention.

At that point, your brain is not taking great strides in filling the gaps--IE, you're *not* missing B,D, and F. A through F are simply moving at a rate that is percieved as less smooth. you're not missing any of the necessary information to realize, for example, that you just scraped a railing, or your rear just shifted left, or someone is about to attempt to pass you at the next turn. That's the nature of a threshold--its all or nothing. Period.

I think this is nonsensical; I don't think it helps your case: and was superfluous to the point I was making.

 

[Blimblim]

Isn't smoothness of movement more a thing of retinian persistency (if that's the correct word, I just translated the french word) ?

 

[gmoran]

sorry if it wasn't clear enough--hell yes you can resolve information at a higher framerate. that's why the movement looks smoother. point is you aren't missing anything you can react to at 24 or 30, compared to 60.

If you can resolve data at higher than 30FPS, then of course you will react to it faster, because your starting point is earlier.

Imagine it's a race: when you see the chequered flag you will react at the same rate to press the accelerator; but at 60FPS you will see the flag earlier. Everything else being equal at 60FPS you will start quicker than at 30FPS. The logic is inescapable.

 

[gmoran]

Isn't smoothness of movement more a thing of retinian persistency (if that's the correct word, I just translated the french word) ?

No that's a misconception from the 19th century. The term persistence of vision is actually false as it was originally intended, but is a useful term to explain the phenomenon whereby separate images appear to be a moving image.

 

[gmoran]

closure is a wonderful thing. I can get on with some work now.

Edited 15:26

Tut, tut: you've done quite a bit of back editing here. Not quite the statement I agreed closure on. Still I think the difference between our views is now very transparent; logic does the rest.

As Duane used to say: peace

Edited 15:50

with the way things are going, you don't see the flag as appearing .017 seconds sooner

Of course you do? Unless you blink. Or the laws of physics momentarily stop working.

Edited 16:06

the point is, that 0.0173 seconds doesn't provide any input you can realistically react on. IMO. hence, "negligable".

It's just one guy's perspective. again, take it or leave it.

Your perspective is very clear, I'm more than happy to take it.

 

[Gek54]

If you are looking for a pattern of movement, the more points of reference that you have the better you are able to predict what will happen. This is true for framerate. I can judge movement or play a racing game at 30fps, 15fps or 8fps but every time you cut the frame rate your ability to accurately anticipate movement deminishes. Hell I made it around Laguna Seca in TOCA at 2fps. It was hard as fuck but I did it.

the point is, that 0.0173 seconds doesn't provide any input you can realistically react on. IMO. hence, "negligable" in reaction time (which is a power of ten longer, by standard).

This is wrong. When creating a light gun game we would flash the screen white with boxes for one frame. This white screen was only visible for a 60th of a second but it was long enough for everyone in the class to see. Everyone saw it which means everyone could react to it. They might not have been able to react in a 60th of a second but they did in fact react to it. Oh and we did try a black screen and it was visible, incase you try to take some kind of luminescence angle.

 

[AlphaSnake]

Gmoran: I'd shower you with gold if I could. Your posts are fantastic.

 

[gmoran]

and that the essential timing percieved between both framerates is the same, even though 60 is definitely smoother

You definately are a slippery customer on this aren't you Modus? More back editing, which I think has softened some of your previous "acceptance".

You seem to have reverted to the mantra that 60 FPS is smoother but not does provide an increase in information on which you can react? This despite stating earlier in the same post:

you do indeed see it 0.0173 seconds 'sooner'

Gek54

Modus understands this:

the more points of reference that you have the better you are able to predict what will happen.

Given his back editing, I can understand that you don't realise that Modus has conceded that 60 FPS allows you to perceive more data (see the example in earlier posts about the flag). He has now shifted to the position that "processing" negates the advantage of receiving data earlier - although I confess I can't penetrate his "logic" on that one. He may explain, but he has understandably become tired of the thread; hence my intercession on his behalf.

 

[Gek54]

He has now shifted to the position that "processing" negates the advantage of receiving data earlier - although I confess I can't penetrate his "logic" on that one.

Same logic woudlnt put buffers on HDD or cache on processors. :lol

 

[Gek54]

If the visual stimulus appears sooner then yes, you would be able to react faster but this is not the only reason why 60fps is better for racing games. The more reference points you get with 60fps is just as, if not more, important than the increased speed in which you recieve the updates. Any kind of lag no matter what you are talking about is not benificial. Deminishing returns hardly peaks at 24fps.

 

[Gattsu25]

m0dus, face it. 60fps does make a big difference in racing games…you're just incapable of realizing that.

 

[Gek54]

There's been no shift in anything, my friend. That 'processing' (that's neural processing, Gek, not CPU :lol ) is precisely the nature inherent in the delay of the reaction time that keeps popping up. Something that has been at the core of this little debate.

You would be surprised how well the process of how our brains work can be related to how a computer works. The brain does cue up information to be processed by other parts fo the brain. Reaction time doesnt negate the need for faster stimulus. An elderly person, who's reaction time might be 10 times as slow as a teenager, would still benefit from 60fps.

 

[Gek54]

I was not comparing processing speed, rather HOW information is processed. You keep missing everyone's point by a mile. I suggest you come back later and reread everyone's counter arguement.

 

[Gek54]

Becuase your visual cortex acts similar to a buffer or cache in a computer.

 

[Gek54]

And yes, I just wrote in this thread so I use the words and it was fun. ^_^

Fixed.

 

[Caddle]

Who the F&*K cares. Enough of this bullshit, talk about the features of the game instead of this 30 or 60 shit. I came into this thread thinking I would see some new screen shots or info about the game, but oh no we get this shit instead. Am so sick of this shit get back on topic already.

 

[gmoran]

If the visual stimulus appears sooner then yes, you would be able to react faster but this is not the only reason why 60fps is better for racing games. The more reference points you get with 60fps is just as, if not more, important than the increased speed in which you recieve the updates. Any kind of lag no matter what you are talking about is not benificial. Deminishing returns hardly peaks at 24fps.

I know this debate has wound down, but this was worth commenting on, especially as it has wound down and won't create more arguments; and of course I feel a bit guilty for hijacking one of your posts for the sole purpose of shining the spot light on another aspect of Modus "ideas".

This is probably the most important facet of 60FPS: the data your mind is now processing has doubled in comparison to 30FPS; I feel it bears a lot of similarities to digital to analogue sampling processes. When you consider how reactive we are to visual change, the importance of how important this can be in a driving sim becomes obvious. How many samples do we need to discern acceleration accurately?

Of course these ideas are complex, whereas a lot of the discussions in this thread have had to be at a lower level.


And on a final note; and as AlphaSnake commented; it's been fun.

 

[gmoran]

Hi Modus - I truthfully feel you have lost your way here.

The position you are trying to defend is: 60 FPS provides twice as much data as 30FPS; people can perceive the difference; but are unable to react to it. You never actually explain why we can't, instead you throw in stuff like "a processing time of .15 seconds" or "the timing of events is exactly the same", stuff which is just nonsensical.

Also for a time you seemed pretty fixated on 24FPS as being a magic number, which explained this. You talked of it being a threshold. You mentioned 24 FPS in 7 of your posts, and then stopped when it was pointed out that 24 has no relevance on human perception: it's just the image change frame rate (24) of a type of movie camera. You've have never explained your position on this, despite some prods I gave you. Nothing to indicate why you thought 24 was a magic number. I guess because you can't?

If you go back and read all your posts, you'll see that they change in character. Early on timing and anticipation are the thing, then its 24 FPS the rate of "persistence of Vision", and finally it's not being able to react. Of course the ability to react is mentioned early as well, but as all of the other tenets have been proven false it's prominence has come to the fore.

I believe your final position is so perverse, that the burden of proof lies with you. The Internet is a big resource, get some links that actually prove your reactions "black hole". Else what's the point of repeatedly stating it.

So finally (perhaps) we come to

After a certain point, or threshold, our senses become saturated, and a downlampling begins to occur

?

This isn't any sort of argument at all. Firstly, because its meaningless crap. Secondly, because it has no context. Thirdly, because you are not qualified to make such a statement. This is just camouflage for no facts and no logic. You've told us all that we're wrong, you've told us that 60FPS wont help us control better, the gospel according to Modus. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but without the coherent arguments needed to back it up, I don't see why you have to keep on inflicting it on the rest of us in a public forum.

Edited: 16:45 - see above, now edited to clarify: you've told us that 60FPS

 

[gmoran]

And plus, not only are you *not* cognizant of what my credentials may or may not be.

If you're a professor of neuro science, or something; apologies. Else, perfectly valid point.

Its the 2nd isn't it.

It has long been established that our minds interperate visual schema as normal movement at around 24 frames per second, which is the framerate used for cartoons, movies and television

This is on page 3 of this thread - you are describing "persistence of vision" but you get the speed wrong, its around 10FPS

 

[Gek54]

Polling the controler at whatever speed is a whole other can of worms. If the physics and controller are updated at 60+fps then of course we all agree that helps the game play but its been well established this is not a problem with Forza. Again, if you can see motion as being smoother then you are processing those extra frames as movement. Since most people dont notice motion as beeing smoother above 60fps then you are safe to say they are not processing those extra frames and there for they are not useful.

Here, just explain to me why everyone feels dissoriented when switching from 60fps to 30fps.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Moral: All devs should give games the choice. 60fps with some minor loss in BG detail, or 30fps with all visual eye candy turned up.

It's so incredibally logical. Yet, for that reason it may never happen.

 

[Gek54]

Its not about reacting in a 60th of a second to a single frame that appears in a 60th of a second. Its that when you do react its based on a decision you have made from twice as many reference points, points you do infact process, giving you a more thorough information. Not everyone may take advantage of the extra information but those with enough experience will.

 

[Lazy8s]

Forget choices. Just design great graphics at 60 fps with progressive scan support, like years of arcade games from SEGA.

 

[BILL CLINTON]

wow, FORZA looks pretty cool..

i doubt ill get it though.. would rather just re-buy RSC2 for the DLC I think,.. or Outrun 2.

 

[gmoran]

No, I'm not a professor of neuroscience.

I'm a STUDENT of it.

Neuroscience or Pschology? And if so, then I'm surprised you've been unable to explain the "mechansim" by which people don't react to extra the data they perceive at 60FPS

Here. Do a little reading. this presents several of the concepts I've been talking about in layman's terms:

pay particular attention to "sensory threshold" , "difference threshold" and "sensory adaptation" as well as "Just noticable difference". Also be sure to check the next page, for a description of perception and the concept of continuity. That should give you more than enough justification stop calling my logic or my reasoning into question.

http://allpsych.com/psychology101/sensation.html

Its all interesting stuff, some of which I was aware of, but none of it explains why you would percieve information and not react to it. Its all about the perception in the first place.

Lets take this earlier explanatation, the one I put down:

But my reasoning comes from later up the line, to events that may be limited by the speed inherent in our own physiological response AFTER the input has already been recieved. After a certain point, or threshold, our senses become saturated, and a downlampling begins to occur.

And deconstruct it. If we take the first part:

But my reasoning comes from later up the line, to events that may be limited by the speed inherent in our own physiological response AFTER the input has already been recieved.

Well the only speed we can be talking about here is the transmission of nerve impulses. Some, like pain are very slow, some like spatial awareness are very fast indeed, but in general 100m/s is probably representative of this type of information. Its really a general comment that doesn't add any value.

After a certain point, or threshold, our senses become saturated

OK, this describes the desensitivity that occurs in our senses when they are over stimulated - but its false in this context because perception has already taken place, it's reaction that we are talking about.

and a downlampling begins to occur.

This seems like an inappropriate use of language, I'm presuming you mean the sensory nerve has become desensitised - anyway same objection as before. But this is ilogical anyway, as sensory adaption refers to constant similar stimulation - clothing is a good example; whereas in a video game, its change that we are looking for, and the eye is extremely sensitive to movement (I can instantly recognise the movement of boobies in my peripheral vision without actually being able to see them - its a gift).

In conclusion, it sounds technical, but is out of context as it refers to a different process (from your link - Sensory Adaption); and it doesn't explain your "mechanism". But it isn't even enough to come up with a "mechansim" that sounds plausible (something I think you have singularly failed to do), you should also be directing us to coroboration that this "mechanism" is real.

 

[gmoran]

I'm off for a kip now, after a night's swimming, but I thought Id look at this reasoning here, to give you something else to chew on overnight; assuming you're still interested of course

twice as many reference points. The issue is, will that frequency make a difference; will that "extra" frame thrown in between the two you normally see at 30 fps afford me an advantage

Well we know we can process data at that resolution. You frame the question as though, what advantage does .017 (I think thats the figure you use) seconds extra give, well unless some damping mechanism is occuring, logic would dictate .017 seconds (about 4 feet at 200mph); And to an extent I think thats true, and that it is an advantage; but it's also the wrong way of looking at it; you are getting twice as much time information at 60FPS, and that really is an advantage.

In percieving and reacting to an event that begins in THAT frame, if I'm interpolating between them already

You can only interpolate between data you already posess, if the necessary information is in the next frame, then at 60FPS you are getting that data earlier, and twice as much of it.

and my reaction time is limited to a certain degree of sensitivity--one that is 10x broader range than the difference established between those 2 points ?

OK, this is confusing - you might be saying that the visual sense is desensitised - if so I don't think it makes sense. But the next part, that there is a range of almost a 1/5 sec? I mean together it sounds like visual stimuli within packets of 1/5 sec may or may not be processed (reacted to?). But there is no explanation of why, or mechansim, or corroboration.

I'm saying, based on my perspective, I think no. I think the difference that you may or may not experience is negligable, (beyond what pure chance might dictate).

Well negligible is often interchangable with small, so does .017 of a sec confer an advantage, well of course at 200mph is about 4 feet I think, so not so negligible. But of course that's also a really simple way of looking at it - which is useful when the bare logic is being discussed - but ignores the bigger picture; as the real advantage is shown over multiple frames, because the data density is double at 60FPS; and as long as that increase in data can be processed than a doubling of information is not negligible, its a huge increase. I'd be happy if my boss doubled my salary.


So I don't think you really explained anything here, other than .017 is small, and in your opinion negligible; and that you believe some mechansim damps your reactions at 60FPS compared to 30FPS, without explaining that mechanism.

 

[Error Macro]

30 fps looks pretty damn good when displayed progressively



lolololol suck it down uber techno geek a rama zoids

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

60fps > 30fps. The end.

 

[Gek54]

I've provided more than enough 'proof' on my part, both through reasoning, countless examples, and actual links.[/I]

Obviously not. No one person here is willing to back any of your erroneus arguments.

Here check this out. Think why do fan blades appear to blur after going a certain speed...or they appear to be still or move backwards. If you can measure how fast the blades are moving, as in rotations per second, when they appear to stand still then you will know your fps theshold. Once the fan blades start to appear moving backwards then you are well beyond your threshold. This wont be the same for everyone. Keep the fan blades rotating at 60rps turn out the lights and set a strobescope to 30flashes per second. The wheel will appear to be moving backwards. You have lowered your threashold to percieve speed accurately at 30 images per second. A better example would be the use of some kind of belt like a sander.

 

[Ranger X]

You guys (modus and Gek) are trying to bet the longest useless thread ever heh?

 

[n3mo_toad]

Obviously not. No one person here is willing to back any of your erroneus arguments.

Here check this out. Think why do fan blades appear to blur after going a certain speed...or they appear to be still or move backwards. If you can measure how fast the blades are moving, as in rotations per second, when they appear to stand still then you will know your fps theshold. Once the fan blades start to appear moving backwards then you are well beyond your threshold. This wont be the same for everyone. Keep the fan blades rotating at 60rps turn out the lights and set a strobescope to 30flashes per second. The wheel will appear to be moving backwards. You have lowered your threashold to percieve speed accurately at 30 images per second. A better example would be the use of some kind of belt like a sander.

How did we go from racing games to lawnmower blades?

Jesus christ, he keeps telling you guys to drop it, if you think he's so wrong, why do you keep picking it back up?? Do you care what he thinks that much?
None of you is going to back down, so count your losses and LET US HAVE THE THREAD BACK!!!

Go have it out in burnout 3 if its such a big deal!

 

[Gek54]

B03 is a solid 60fps. No issue with framerate there.

Why is it hard to adjust from 60fps to 30 fps and not the other way around?

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

I like games

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

so anyway, what's better: 30fps or 60fps?

 

[n3mo_toad]

STOP THAT CONFOUNDED SMILING!

 

[Kanbee-san]

60fps > 30fps. The end.

Online > No online

Custom Decals > No decals

Downloadable Content > no content


Fini

 

[Sho Nuff]

I refuse to play any game that is not 60fps.

Hur hur hur

 

[Kanbee-san]

60.

by the time Forza comes out, GT4 Online will probably be available around the same time, so I wouldn't even consider that an issue.

Probably ? he he.

 

[Kanbee-san]

did they announce a date?

No, but they have a wonderful TV ad, does that count ?

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

What was the word a couple weeks back, about MS handing out forza demos to people who had (I think) Halo 2 reserved?

Yeah, what happened with that?

 

[Kanbee-san]

well...yeah. ^_^ I'd say so.

Speaking of ads . . .

What was the word a couple weeks back, about MS handing out forza demos to people who had (I think) Halo 2 reserved?

I thought IGN were a pack of lying bastards as usual ? Apparently various EB's had no idea of any forza demo. I also did a check of the underworld, and no forza demo

 

[MrSingh]

60.

by the time Forza comes out, GT4 Online will probably be available around the same time, so I wouldn't even consider that an issue.

haha.

what if I told you they cancelled GT4 online mode because they couldn't get it running at a stable 30fps?

(well, they have some extra time to get it right now... instead of spending time working on crap like photo mode)

 

[Gek54]

They had GT4 demos networked with 6 players at 60fps.