60fps requirements???

riz · 08-27-2005, 12:27 PM

Hey guys, just downloaded the trial and before I buy I wanted to know what it's gonna take to run this puppy @ 60fps? My favorite scene is the reef and on my 2.4ghz, ti 4800 @ 1280x1024 it runs around 37fps

hmmm, not good as i run my MA2 screensaver full time on a dedicated aquarium PC that is a 1ghz, 512mb ram and a ti 4200... it ran right around 30fps for the same scene

So, what's it gonna take the top video card? i don't see a big difference in framerate with my 2 pcs and a big diff between 2.4 and 1ghz, so i presume the video card is doing all the work.. so, what's the cheapest new (or semi-new) video card I would need to get to run at 58fps locked?

- thx

GeorgeHeppelle · 08-27-2005, 08:42 PM

My frame rate is 37, I have a 2gb processor Pent 4 and my video card is an Nvidia GForce w/ 64mb on it - Serene runs smooth as glass on a 20" monitor 1280x1024 32bit - the secret might by my 1gig of ram - I can't imagine improving the quality or movement of the fish. I would be curious of how 60 frames would differ?

Surferminn · 08-27-2005, 10:39 PM

Aw nuts. I deleted my first reply because afterwards I noticed the thread was on sharks which I do not have. But now that I reread your post, in reference to MA2, I see I was not crazy afterall in posting a reply about MA2 in the sharks thread.

So here's a rendition of my reply. I used to run MA2 at about 37 fps. I upgraded my ram memory from 512mg to 1.5 gb as well as my video card to an ATI 9600 pro. Here are couple of pics of my MA2 running at 60fps in full screen mode and if you run it on windowed mode, the fps goes up to 243. Also included is a pic of the settings for MA2 for both of these pics. I have a Pentium4, processing at 2.8ghz. sorry I cannot say if it was the extra memory or the video card or both that boosted the fps. But you know, it ran pretty smoothly at 37fps too, just that the fishes do look a tad better with the new video card. Edit -- now the forum won't let me upload the same pics, it says the pics are already uploaded and stored on this thread.

Well, hopefully the text is helpful. edit - attachment works now even tho moot.

Edgar · 08-28-2005, 01:55 AM

Video Card is your bottleneck. More video memory for the textures and faster rendering will definitely increase the fps to 60fps or more.

If you don't mind turning off some features, lowering the resolution, or/and have less Sharks, you might able to achieve 60fps with your current machine.

cjmaddy · 08-28-2005, 03:09 AM

But shouldn't it also be stated clearly that to try to achieve a frame rate in the hundreds, is futile? - anything over say 40/50 will have no visible real world difference, - right?

Marian Nichols · 08-28-2005, 04:39 AM

right, the human eye would not see it.
Saw a Documentary on sight, and the number of lines (for TV viewing) needed to percieve movement and after that most people will not notice the different.

riz · 08-28-2005, 09:52 AM

I can easily discern the difference between 30fps and 60fps.. many can not but that doesn't mean the debate between 60/30fps is imaginary... to me, 30fps has a stuttery double vision effect and simply pales in comparison to 60fps... 60fps is silky smooth, simple as that...

my vid cards in both machines are similar (ti4800 versus ti4200) but the machines are 2.4ghz p4 vs p3 1ghz (both with 512mb ram) and the framerates between them are 39 and 31 so yep vid cards are the limiting factor

feldon34 · 08-28-2005, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Marian Nichols:

right, the human eye would not see it.
Saw a Documentary on sight, and the number of lines (for TV viewing) needed to percieve movement and after that most people will not notice the different.

A major misconception that I have tried to dispel everywhere I can.

The minimum frames per second needed to PERCEIVE motion is about 15-20 frames per second.

However, humans can easily see the difference in smoothness between 24, 30, 60, 75, and even 90-100 frames per second.

Otherwise why in the world would video game developers spend thousands of hours optimizing their games to get a solid 60 frames per second? Why would IMAX corporation spend millions of dollars in extra film stock to film their 3D features at 45 frames per second when 24 will do?

I pity anyone who has a regular computer monitor (CRT) set to 60 Hz (60 times per second refresh). I get a headache after about an hour of using one at that setting.

riz · 08-28-2005, 11:25 AM

^^^ lol, it's a futile fight... simply because many can NOT perceive the difference between 30 and 60, in their eyes (pun intended), there is no difference

I've always said something similar to what you said... umm, why would video game forums fight thread after thread if 30fps was as smooth as 60fps? we wouldn't because it isn't!

30fps caters to many, 60fps caters to all... to some, 30fps is stuttery and has a double vision effect and basically, 60fps is silky smooth to everyone.. so i say, what the heck, lets make everyone happy and achieve 60fps in games, it certainly doesn't detract from the 30fps crowd but it certainly pulls in the anti 30fps crowd... the never ending battle continues but 60fps simply put, is enjoyable to everyone and 30fps isn't

Edgar · 08-28-2005, 11:46 AM

I prefer 60fps myself. The quality of the animation is better at 60fps than at 30fps. The stuttering of the animation is more abvious at 30fps. If you have a chance to compare the two, you will notice the difference.

feldon34 · 08-29-2005, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by riz:

^^^ lol, it's a futile fight... simply because many can NOT perceive the difference between 30 and 60, in their eyes (pun intended),

They may not perceive it if you just mention it to them, but I think in an A/B comparison, anyone will notice it.

riz · 08-29-2005, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by feldon29:

They may not perceive it if you just mention it to them, but I think in an A/B comparison, anyone will notice it.

i'd mostly agree with that.. but the problem is most never see an a/b comparison... and because of that, most do not realize how much better 60fps is

Here's one, walk into any big office building with pc's... 80% of the pc's are running @ 60hz refresh rates... the screen is flickering all over the place and most regular folk simply don't notice it... 60hz refresh rates give people headaches but they don't know that is what is causing them

60 refresh rate is immediately spotted by me and raised to 85 or 100 but most, don't know any better so they accept it as normal and if you asked them "can you see the screen flickering" they mostly would say "huh?, um no"

CatLikingFish · 08-30-2005, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by riz:

... if you asked them "can you see the screen flickering" they mostly would say "huh?, um no"

Yes, I have got this response frequently. But every time I went to their PC and switched the refresh rate to 75 they would say: "Hey, this is *much* better!" :-)

riz · 08-30-2005, 10:10 AM

To the devs, what vid card is recommended for maximum graphics and framerate? I have been a huge fan of marine aquarium for 4 years but the 2d background and lack of customization may make Sharks my new full time virtual aquarium! well, actually if i buy your program, i will cycle both but man, so far your sharks looks really great... I just want to know what I'm up against to achieve a better framerate.. i only have the demo and it's kinda chugging at just over 35fps with only 1 shark

If i buy, I'm really afraid of what the framerate might be with all the sharks... but, good news, i'm always willing to buy a new vid card as long is it's under 200 hundred, so, what vid card is recommended? ati or nvidia?? <--- the age old debate!

Edgar · 08-30-2005, 11:23 AM

For the record, I can't run the screensaver at 60fps either. I only have a GeForce MX4. I have been waiting for the price of NVidia's GeForce 6600 GT 256Mb to get low enough for me to buy it. Now that more advance video cards are coming out, I just might get my wish.

We are not doing much video games anymore and I haven't had time to play video games so to justify buying the best video card is out of the question. This also helps to make sure that the lower end video cards can still use the screensaver.

If we raise the requirement to DirectX9 instead of DirectX7, we may be able to get a little more optimizations in the code however, the bottleneck is the amount of textures being manipulated by the screensaver. I am looking at possible solutions to speed it up as soon as I find some time for it.

Edit: I think I saw this video card in Best Buy for about $160. I am sure other places may have it too.

riz · 09-03-2005, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Edgar:

I have been waiting for the price of NVidia's GeForce 6600 GT 256Mb to get low enough for me to buy it. Now that more advance video cards are coming out, I just might get my wish.

This may be the ticket, Nvidia GeForce 6800 128mb for $165 @ newegg.com: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814140045

256mb may not be worth it as the prices are just plain too high... my pc doesn't have pci express and the benchmarks seem to indicate that the 6800 is the king sub $200 cards: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-S...body_pagenum=2

08-27-2005, 12:27 PM	#1
riz Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 30	60fps requirements??? Hey guys, just downloaded the trial and before I buy I wanted to know what it's gonna take to run this puppy @ 60fps? My favorite scene is the reef and on my 2.4ghz, ti 4800 @ 1280x1024 it runs around 37fps hmmm, not good as i run my MA2 screensaver full time on a dedicated aquarium PC that is a 1ghz, 512mb ram and a ti 4200... it ran right around 30fps for the same scene So, what's it gonna take the top video card? i don't see a big difference in framerate with my 2 pcs and a big diff between 2.4 and 1ghz, so i presume the video card is doing all the work.. so, what's the cheapest new (or semi-new) video card I would need to get to run at 58fps locked? - thx

08-28-2005, 01:55 AM	#4
Edgar Prolific/SereneScreen Developer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Norwalk, CA Posts: 513	Video Card is your bottleneck. More video memory for the textures and faster rendering will definitely increase the fps to 60fps or more. If you don't mind turning off some features, lowering the resolution, or/and have less Sharks, you might able to achieve 60fps with your current machine. *Edgar Tolentino* Prolific Developer www.prolific.com www.LifeGlobe.com

08-28-2005, 04:39 AM	#6
Marian Nichols ~Author~ Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Rocky Mount, NC Posts: 7,429	right, the human eye would not see it. Saw a Documentary on sight, and the number of lines (for TV viewing) needed to percieve movement and after that most people will not notice the different. Write paranormal mysteries. Six books so far.

08-28-2005, 10:34 AM	#8
feldon34 Forum Administrator Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 10,939	Originally posted by Marian Nichols: right, the human eye would not see it. Saw a Documentary on sight, and the number of lines (for TV viewing) needed to percieve movement and after that most people will not notice the different. A major misconception that I have tried to dispel everywhere I can. The minimum frames per second needed to PERCEIVE motion is about 15-20 frames per second. However, humans can easily see the difference in smoothness between 24, 30, 60, 75, and even 90-100 frames per second. Otherwise why in the world would video game developers spend thousands of hours optimizing their games to get a solid 60 frames per second? Why would IMAX corporation spend millions of dollars in extra film stock to film their 3D features at 45 frames per second when 24 will do? I pity anyone who has a regular computer monitor (CRT) set to 60 Hz (60 times per second refresh). I get a headache after about an hour of using one at that setting. "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

08-28-2005, 11:46 AM	#10
Edgar Prolific/SereneScreen Developer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Norwalk, CA Posts: 513	I prefer 60fps myself. The quality of the animation is better at 60fps than at 30fps. The stuttering of the animation is more abvious at 30fps. If you have a chance to compare the two, you will notice the difference. *Edgar Tolentino* Prolific Developer www.prolific.com www.LifeGlobe.com

08-27-2005, 08:42 PM	#2
GeorgeHeppelle Registered Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 3	My frame rate is 37, I have a 2gb processor Pent 4 and my video card is an Nvidia GForce w/ 64mb on it - Serene runs smooth as glass on a 20" monitor 1280x1024 32bit - the secret might by my 1gig of ram - I can't imagine improving the quality or movement of the fish. I would be curious of how 60 frames would differ?

08-28-2005, 03:09 AM	#5
cjmaddy Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Lancashire, UK Posts: 7,854	But shouldn't it also be stated clearly that to try to achieve a frame rate in the hundreds, is futile? - anything over say 40/50 will have no visible real world difference, - right?

08-28-2005, 09:52 AM	#7
riz Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 30	I can easily discern the difference between 30fps and 60fps.. many can not but that doesn't mean the debate between 60/30fps is imaginary... to me, 30fps has a stuttery double vision effect and simply pales in comparison to 60fps... 60fps is silky smooth, simple as that... my vid cards in both machines are similar (ti4800 versus ti4200) but the machines are 2.4ghz p4 vs p3 1ghz (both with 512mb ram) and the framerates between them are 39 and 31 so yep vid cards are the limiting factor

08-28-2005, 11:25 AM	#9
riz Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 30	^^^ lol, it's a futile fight... simply because many can NOT perceive the difference between 30 and 60, in their eyes (pun intended), there is no difference I've always said something similar to what you said... umm, why would video game forums fight thread after thread if 30fps was as smooth as 60fps? we wouldn't because it isn't! 30fps caters to many, 60fps caters to all... to some, 30fps is stuttery and has a double vision effect and basically, 60fps is silky smooth to everyone.. so i say, what the heck, lets make everyone happy and achieve 60fps in games, it certainly doesn't detract from the 30fps crowd but it certainly pulls in the anti 30fps crowd... the never ending battle continues but 60fps simply put, is enjoyable to everyone and 30fps isn't

08-29-2005, 08:23 PM	#11
feldon34 Forum Administrator Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 10,939	Originally posted by riz: ^^^ lol, it's a futile fight... simply because many can NOT perceive the difference between 30 and 60, in their eyes (pun intended), They may not perceive it if you just mention it to them, but I think in an A/B comparison, anyone will notice it. "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

08-29-2005, 10:20 PM	#12
riz Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 30	Originally posted by feldon29: They may not perceive it if you just mention it to them, but I think in an A/B comparison, anyone will notice it. i'd mostly agree with that.. but the problem is most never see an a/b comparison... and because of that, most do not realize how much better 60fps is Here's one, walk into any big office building with pc's... 80% of the pc's are running @ 60hz refresh rates... the screen is flickering all over the place and most regular folk simply don't notice it... 60hz refresh rates give people headaches but they don't know that is what is causing them 60 refresh rate is immediately spotted by me and raised to 85 or 100 but most, don't know any better so they accept it as normal and if you asked them "can you see the screen flickering" they mostly would say "huh?, um no"

08-30-2005, 12:33 AM	#13
CatLikingFish Registered Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 8	Originally posted by riz: ... if you asked them "can you see the screen flickering" they mostly would say "huh?, um no" Yes, I have got this response frequently. But every time I went to their PC and switched the refresh rate to 75 they would say: "Hey, this is much better!" :-)

08-30-2005, 10:10 AM	#14
riz Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 30	To the devs, what vid card is recommended for maximum graphics and framerate? I have been a huge fan of marine aquarium for 4 years but the 2d background and lack of customization may make Sharks my new full time virtual aquarium! well, actually if i buy your program, i will cycle both but man, so far your sharks looks really great... I just want to know what I'm up against to achieve a better framerate.. i only have the demo and it's kinda chugging at just over 35fps with only 1 shark If i buy, I'm really afraid of what the framerate might be with all the sharks... but, good news, i'm always willing to buy a new vid card as long is it's under 200 hundred, so, what vid card is recommended? ati or nvidia?? <--- the age old debate!

08-30-2005, 11:23 AM	#15
Edgar Prolific/SereneScreen Developer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Norwalk, CA Posts: 513	For the record, I can't run the screensaver at 60fps either. I only have a GeForce MX4. I have been waiting for the price of NVidia's GeForce 6600 GT 256Mb to get low enough for me to buy it. Now that more advance video cards are coming out, I just might get my wish. We are not doing much video games anymore and I haven't had time to play video games so to justify buying the best video card is out of the question. This also helps to make sure that the lower end video cards can still use the screensaver. If we raise the requirement to DirectX9 instead of DirectX7, we may be able to get a little more optimizations in the code however, the bottleneck is the amount of textures being manipulated by the screensaver. I am looking at possible solutions to speed it up as soon as I find some time for it. Edit: I think I saw this video card in Best Buy for about $160. I am sure other places may have it too. *Edgar Tolentino* Prolific Developer www.prolific.com www.LifeGlobe.com

09-03-2005, 09:46 AM	#16
riz Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 30	Originally posted by Edgar: I have been waiting for the price of NVidia's GeForce 6600 GT 256Mb to get low enough for me to buy it. Now that more advance video cards are coming out, I just might get my wish. This may be the ticket, Nvidia GeForce 6800 128mb for $165 @ newegg.com: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814140045 256mb may not be worth it as the prices are just plain too high... my pc doesn't have pci express and the benchmarks seem to indicate that the 6800 is the king sub $200 cards: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-S...body_pagenum=2