1  |   Order by index

Jul 11, 2005, 6:52am

I would like to see a feature to set the maximum FPS that any single user
could achieve for RPG purposes...

--
----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from unsolicited email by Spam X-terminator
from StompSoft http://www.stompsoft.com

Jul 11, 2005, 9:58am

Utterly utterly stupid, nomatter how you try justify it.

--
- Mark Randall
http://zetech.swehli.com

[View Quote]

Jul 12, 2005, 5:17am

I'll consider the source and disregard your immature, uneducated remark
Strike...

But just in case the programmers at AW are reading this wishlist I'll add
this...

If you're running a fast action RPG, as we are attempting to on Aureus, you
'might' want to limit the Maximum FPS in order to somewhat control speed and
visibilty disparities that occur between those with 256MB video cards and
those with 8MB video cards for example...we have a Minimum Visibility
setting which could level the playing field some by forcing those with
faster video cards to render objects faster...but setting that number up
drags those with the slower video cards down even more...however, if we
could limit the overall FPS to say 35 and increment it up as the general
population catches up it would be a very nice feature...some people get on
and have a FPS value of 6 while others with a 256 MB vid card are getting
well over 100 FPS...it's hard to do any serious online gaming with no way to
limit FPS...

On second thought, what world do you own Strike, that gives you all of this
incredible insight and knowledge? If you wish to sell bots and or services
to world owners on AW, I suggest you button it up and learn some manners. I
know I won't be buying anything you have to offer. And if you respond to
anymore of my posts in the same manner I'll rip you up one side and down the
other until you figure out that, "I'm not asking you, and don't value your
opinion" lol ...moron...

Jalen Blade
Owner of Aureus


--
----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from unsolicited email by Spam X-terminator
from StompSoft http://www.stompsoft.com
[View Quote]

Jul 12, 2005, 9:50am

[View Quote] > But just in case the programmers at AW are reading this wishlist I'll add
> this...

Why would they *want* to degrade the performance of their product?

> If you're running a fast action RPG, as we are attempting to on Aureus,
> you
> 'might' want to limit the Maximum FPS in order to somewhat control speed
> and
> visibilty disparities that occur between those with 256MB video cards and
> those with 8MB video cards for example...we have a Minimum Visibility
> setting which could level the playing field some by forcing those with
> faster video cards to render objects faster...but setting that number up
> drags those with the slower video cards down even more...however, if we
> could limit the overall FPS to say 35 and increment it up as the general
> population catches up it would be a very nice feature...some people get on
> and have a FPS value of 6 while others with a 256 MB vid card are getting
> well over 100 FPS...it's hard to do any serious online gaming with no way
> to
> limit FPS...

Ok, tech lesson time.

Firstly, anything above 25 frames per second is pretty much pontless as it
is the limit of the human eye.

Secondly, the recommended video is actually 64mb, this is even getting out
of date as they add more things.

Thirdly, the positional updates of other users only happens at the world
update rates, between these times any position changes are faded through via
the browser, slower video cards will put a slightly larger time between
these increments - however as the browser will still let you hit targets
with the mouse during that time, the effect is very minimal.

Fouth, AW's physical system works in meters and milliseconds, not frames and
units, the distance you move over X time should be the same for all
framerates.

Fith, the real limit on moving about in lagged up worlds is disk I/O loading
the objects from disk into memory as you move about - this is the slowest
thing the browser does.

Sixth, the main limit on moving about and FPS in a local area is your use of
high polygon objects that are not made solid no (tip from stacee: make
plants etc solid no) because the collision detection has to check against
all of them, and guess what - this is absolutely nothing to do with graphics
cards!

Seventh, you clearly don't have a bloody clue what you are doing if you
think 35fps is a good number for people on 8mb graphics cards.

Eighth, if you are interested, I, and as far as I know, the AW programmers
who I talk to, use the frame rate cap in settings at about 20 fps.

Nineth... guess who requested, and tested, that frame rate cap in the first
place on Beta... umm,... uhhh. me :)

> On second thought, what world do you own Strike, that gives you all of
> this
> incredible insight and knowledge?

Hmm, well...
I have recently helped to build Arc,
I tested the browser frame cap when it first came out
I have had detailed discussions on it with the owners of various RPGs
I know the implimentation issues of pretty much the entire AW browser
I have been producing events for 4 years, most of which as one of the AWT
events team
I have produced more paintball games than AW has X rated worlds
I have, and wrote, the perfect bot for testing movement
.... and on and on and on.

> If you wish to sell bots and or services
> to world owners on AW, I suggest you button it up and learn some manners.
> I
> know I won't be buying anything you have to offer.

Will someone please indicate to me where I am selling bots or services? The
last time I checked Eclipse Evolution, one of the most advanced bots out
there, was available free from my download site at
http://zetech.swehli.com/software/evo/ - make sure you all check for regular
updates! ;)

>And if you respond to
> anymore of my posts in the same manner I'll rip you up one side and down
> the
> other until you figure out that,

I believe I have just metaphorically trampled on you with a large African
elephant.

> "I'm not asking you, and don't value your
> opinion" lol ...moron...

Well... as someone who uses a spam product apparently puts an advert of its
own in every message... eugh.. what can I say.

> Jalen Blade
> Owner of Aureus

Jul 12, 2005, 12:26pm

Taken off a random website I found on Google:

"The human eye can actually see *way* past 200fps (it has been military
tested). It is a common misconception that it is much lower because of film
only being 25fps.

Film has motion blur, games (normally!) do not. 120fps can 'feel' better
than 60 despite people telling you otherwise. The issue with how many fps
the eye can percive is complex and really I think the other answer is more
what you are asking.

when you reach 10/15 fps in a fast paced game it becomings very difficult to
do anything because of the video lag you get. It is incredibly frustrating
and not desirable at all. If you can get 200fps in an empty room, you've got
a good chance of getting a decent fps in a room full of people, rockets,
gibs, etc etc."


----

There is no actual limit to the FPS the eye can see, as the eye constantly
refreshes the image it sees, pixel by pixel. This happens countless
trillions of times per second. Film is actually projected at 28 frames per
second, not 25fps. I find 48fps to be a good smooth framerate, whereas
30fps is still a bit jerky for my liking. FS2004 runs best for me at about
48-64fps.

-=LtB=-
PS: Sorry about the font size going down, something to do with the post I
pasted in here X_X


[View Quote]

Jul 12, 2005, 12:47pm

I believe 25 fps accounts for image persistance, if I am thinking of the
ones you are are you can see postive changes (ie those where something moves
to a location, then dissapears again) upto about 200fps like you said.

The human brain though cannot deal that many at once, and an image is
actually seen as 'the whole', the eye is analoge after all, with digital
transmission. Imaging looking at a screen, and 3 points appear on it at
random points, at 1/25th of the second you could locate them, at 1/50th of a
second you could not.

FS2004 has a much more advanced control system than AW does by the way, AW's
is a bit on the crap side with only tenth degree level angling, if it were
say hundreth you would have a *big* difference in the quallity, and would
need a higher framerate to see it.

--
- Mark Randall
http://zetech.swehli.com

[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2005, 5:58am

at Strike - Once again your far superior intelligence has stunned and amazed
us all...I thought this was a 'WishList' Forum, not an 'Ask Strike'
Forum...lol...maybe AW could add a new one just for you!

An 'Ask AW' Forum would be nice too!

Jalen Blade
Owner of Aureus



[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2005, 1:09pm

I think he's the only one who cares =P

[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index