| libellule said: """"""""""I just wanted to highlight this comment. You will not see any difference whatsoever in this video, because the video isn't running at 60 fps. Makes the whole exercise pretty useless. """""""" ==> so u aggree this video doesnt show anything ?????? |
If the video is running at 30fps, you wouldn't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps unless on version dips much. In fact, framerate differences are more easily "felt" in more responsive controls than they are seen. Very fast paced games like FPS games and racers make this a very huge benefit, but a game like madden will just "seem better" to many gamers if it is running at a higher framerate.
To understand the kinds of tradeoffs they may have made, here is a very simplified version of how a game engine may do things where the time delta is defined as the time from frame to frame:
(1) Process the user input over the time delta
(2) Calculate the AI for the time delta
(3) Calculate the physics for the time delta
(4) Calculate the movements for the time delta
(5) Calculate the animations for the time Delta
(6) Perform the rendering path
Certain things must be done before others can be done -- user input must be done before phsyics, physics before movement, movement before animations, all of this before rendering, etc. You could do many of these calculations while rendering the previous frame if you have enough available CPU cores. Consider that you often have less than 1/2 time delta to actually perform the rendering itself. This could be mitigated if you could do the other calculations in advance, but you still have to complete each of those steps, or each series, in less time than the delta. So if you had enough available CPU threads, you could accomplish all of these things with a (1/2) time delta compared to if you had only one or two CPU threads.
For a game like Madden it is a far better tradeoff than simplifying the AI or physics so I think EA made the right choice.
