Hunh? Are people for real here?

Not every game is travelling at 200 MPH + and requires pinpoint accuracy of braking zones and acceleration zones. It is absoluely imperitive tthat a racing game gives the player the best reaction times possible along with the best feedback possible. A bit better resolution is not any consolation for losing double the amount of controller input time and feedback in a racer at 200 mph.ot even close. Why do you think Turn 10 said they will never release a racing game less than 60fps solid.

You never seemed to have a problem with the 30 fps in Forza Horizon and looking at your old profile what do I see there? Favourite games: F1 2011, Score 9/10... weird, that game also has a locked framerate of 30.

Game looks stunning, i really hope its in the league of other SimArcade racers like Project Gotham 2.

An F1 game at 30fps??? Wow that's bad. Are they still doing that in the new ones? Cus that's kinda flat out unacceptable 

Not all cars travel at 200mph and even the ones which do are not doing it for more than 10% of the race.

bullets travel faster than cars yet shooters are fine at 30fps. Spiderman can travel faster than cars, yet thats ok at 30fps, or even lower.

Ofcourse 60 is better than 30 and you should always go for the higher one when there is an option available (I know you wont though), but if 60 isnt available, you shouldnt write off a game.

Anyway, turn 10 worked on forza horizon which was 30fps.

Regardless to if you believe it was a good or bad choice to go with 30fps instead of 60fps, we mustn't forget that these are the results of that extra power and development time. It's quite the difference that's for sure.

Forza 5 (1080p/60fps)



Driveclub (1080p/30fps)



There are of course better gifs for both of them, but these are the best driver's view gifs i could find for both with a quick google.

Edit: Just realized that the crowds are vampires in the mirror of the Forza 5 gif xD It should also be noted by the way that the DC gif isn't the final build.

What's going on with this res-vs-fps debate? I played games like these and didn't crush into obstacles because of the low resolution...

Actually you got it wrong, the relationship is of inverse, not direct proportionality.
Anyhow, it depends on what part of the graphics pipeline is the most stressed. In general, if AA is at a level not too close to the GPU limits, it's more likely that HALF the number of polygons, at the same level of FX and quality, DOUBLE the framerate, otherwise, if AA is pumped to the max possible, max framerate will be roughly double at half the number of pixels and that means at roughly (1/sqrt(2))*linear resolution. More in general, fps will roughly go with the inverse of resolution, but it won't be that exact value. Also, at lower screen res, it will make sense to reduce the number of polygons, and the final compromise could be a double framerate at somewhat better than half the pixels. Many compromises are possible and some are better at lower res and some at higher ones, so, in general we can say that the realationship between number of pixels and fps is of inverse proportionality, but only if the other variables can be constrained at a constant value without making the GPU meet any bottleneck as res goes up and fps down, or vice versa, the relationship will be as simple as res*fps~=K.

PS And obviously all this applies as long as graphics RAM size and throughput are enough.

Even at 124mph you're missing out on almost 2 metres of track per second. So yes, what selnor said there may have been an extreme case scenario, but the point stands. Frame rate in a racer is massively important for your ability properly take a corner, and consistently hit the apex.

Wrong again. The reason that it usually ends up being important in "slow" racing games as well, and not so much in arcade racers, is because th former will usually use a proper speed/distance model, which arcade racers usually don't.