Smidlee said: epsilon72 said: 60fps is very important for first person shooters, because it is easier to aim, predict where people will go, etc. I also wish movies were shot at 60fps....anyone know why they still stick to the antiquated 24fps standard? If I'm not mistaken it was to keep down the length of the film especially back in the old days. In my school days they still used film projectors.

 Yes, a movie at 60fps would take up much much more space on a disc, or tape, or whatever, then a movie at 24.

Animation is a trick that your unconscience mind plays on your conscience mind, you begin being able to see motion from an animated scene with a very low frame rate and see improvements until the frame rate becomes reasonably high.

Movies have (traditionally) been captured and displayed at 24fps for two main reasons; higher framerates would require far more film which has (historically) been very expensive, and the natural motion blur that occurs on film makes the (relatively) low framerate less noticeable.

3D games have no natural blur, and often have (seemingly) rapid camera angle changes because they're being manipulated in real time; on top of this the videogame animation lifecycle works on updating the world model (including physics, animation and AI) at every frame, and framerate drops can cause problems.

Because it runs a lot better. Gran turismo 5 will be 60FPS. imagain a car going 250mph at only 12FPS! that would be terrible, it would skip across the screen!

highwaystar101 said: Sherlock99 said: 60 fps makes the game play smooth no slowdowns the game has a clean clear sharp look to it like Mario galaxy mp3 smash bros brawl. And many other non nintendo games

i know that many other games on different consoles have games that run at 60  fps i only choose these three games as an example.

Username2324 said: Ummm..... Last time I checked, Framerates having nothing to do with the time it takes for your mouse/keyboard to send info to your processor. You get that jerkiness at lower framerates because your computer has to compensate for how fast your trying to move, and how fast your frames are going by. I mean a game running at 500 fps, doesnt mean your reaction time is 5 times faster than that of a game at 100.

Actually, it does have an effect on your response time, for two reasons.

1) The game's physics/AI/entity processing engine often (not always) runs at the same rate as the framerate.  The game reads the controller, then applies those movements to your character and runs the AI scripts and physics, then draws the screen.  If the game can only do this 12 times per second, then it's only reading controller inputs 12 times per second.

2) You react to the game based primarily on what you see.  If the game's framerate is only 12 frames per second, then what you're seeing on the screen is what happened 1/12 of a second ago.  This problem is eliminated once your framerate goes above your monitor's refresh rate, but anything below 60 fps is definitely below your refresh rate.

Username2324 said: Ickalanda said: Whats with everyone talking about eyes and FPS? You don't see in frames! The human eye works in fluid, constant vision.   P.S. I play Quake 3 Arena and Quake II at 120+ FPS and it looks great especially the insanely high run speed in those games (especially Quake 3). Because scientists have found that our vision is the equivilent of around 60fps, thats why when you spin in circles things begin to blur, because your eye and brain cant capture the light fast enough to keep it clear and non blurred.

 But your eye isn't actually capturing frames, its still completely different.  Your eye is getting the light photons as they come which is why if you spin around it makes everything blurry but if you are looking straight forward your getting constant image.

From my point of view, most games like to keep at 60 fps for the reasoning that during some situations the frames will drop a fair ways, and at which point become noticable, even though the human eye 'could' do with less, a scene running at lower fps will look smooth, so long as it is consistent, it can still be considered 60 frames a second, even if some of the frames have a longer delay than others, that change in speed will be picked up by your eye, not necessarily the 'slow' frame rate. So trying to keep the frame rate a ways above where it needs to be, means it's less likely to slow enough for a frame or three to be noticable, if they could guarantee a specific framerate(30 or 40) without any slowdown at all in between, your eye probably would not be able to see any of the 'frames'.

60fps is the way god wants it also it makes for a smoother better looking gaming expierence

lol this reminds me of when I forget to turn off V-sync for my video card and play the old Counter-Strike.

For some reason, Counter-Strike doesn't feel natural to me unless it's running at the max FPS (99fps). If I forget to turn off V-sync, the FPS gets locked at 60 and it feels like I'm playing in slow motion as my movements feel delayed and slower.

Anyway, 12 fps would probably cause me to get very sick after a short amount of time. A smooth frame rate of 60fps would be the best, but if a game can keep it at 30fps without any problems (mainly console games), then that's good enough too. For example, Gears of War and Resistance are kept at 30fps and Call of Duty 4 is at 60.

Well, when light strikes a rod or cone in your eye, it causes a chemical change that results in electrical impulses being sent to the brain. That rod/cone isn't responsive to light again until the chemical has been restored (returned to the "unexposed film" state). As I understand it, the process takes about 1/3 of a second to complete, but because the eye is constantly making small, involuntary movements, the light is continually striking different cells. So essentially, the cells of your eyes do see in discrete "frames," not continuous analog vision.