Forum Jump :

Author Message

Posts: 62

Level: Member

Country: uk
Location: Portsmouth
Occupation: PendragonUK
Age: 55
In-game name: PendragonUK

#99883 Posted at 2011-03-10 12:07        
# cinco : Practically speaking, the human eye cannot differentiate past 60-70 fps, so having 100fps isn't that great of a leap from 30fps.

I agree that you are technically correct that said experience tells me that I can tell the difference between 30fps and 60+ Maybe not visually but the way a game feels. We are playings after all not watching a movie, we are interacting with it. There is also the issue of slow down in complex moments of the game. To ensure you computer never dips below 30 in the most intense fire fight it will have to be humming along 90+ for the rest of the time. If like me you like to run games at the refresh rate of the monitor to prevent tearing it's a little more demanding. You have to be able to have hardware that never lets the game dip below, in my case 60fps. This is not something I can not do with ArmA unless everything is turned right down. Most any other game I can happily run the fps up in the hundreds so I can turn on "Sync every frame". The lads in my clan like playing CoD:Bops As you could imagine my PC can play this game with every setting maxed and is happy to run at 60FPS because with frame sync off it has never dipped below 100fps even in when all hell is breaking out. I know it's not fair or right to mention CoD when talking about ArmA, please be aware I only used it as description of why I would want a game to run no lower than 60fps however complex the game.

I do believe the game is getting better, I have found after extensive testing that it runs much better without the command like stuff we all had to use in the past when starting the game. With the additional information that setting the Video memory to "Default" also frees the game of the constraints of telling what to use but instead letting it make up it's own mind added around 10fps to my system in any given situation.