FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

[kitchener]

Probably covered before but I suspect if I run a search on fps I'd get a million hits...

So let me ask this... Is there a fine line between visual quality versus FPS over-kill? In other words, am I less _competitive_ if I have AA set to 4x (or 6x) and run at 50 - 60 fps instead of running with AA off and getting, say, almost 100 fps? Those are arbitary fps examples, but probably not too far off. ...

Am I a more lethal player playing with a huge FPS number, or a more lethal player with all visual settings on high (so long as the FPS doesn't drop below some manageable number)?

[firezip]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

Well with lighting on low it makes it easier to see. Also raises your fps a bit.

[imported_El_m_ent]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

Well, it really depends on why you play. If your main goal is going for points, and killing the other guy, then FPS is what you might shoot for. A lot of people turn the dynamic lighting down and shadows off because it makes it easier to see people hiding. Also, if you turn the detail way down the grass disappears and that sniper who thinks he is hiding in elephant grass appears to you to be prone on a golf green. I am after immersion myself, and even if it means getting killed more often I keep thing cranked up, because it looks so good and I like getting lost in it.

[The_Misfit]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

I fall somewhere in the middle on this. My main goal is usually infantry, shooting the enemy in the face and capping flags. However, I do like the game to look decent, so as of now I have everything on medium. I did play on low, and I will attest to it being easier to see those snipers, or in areas like the construction site on Sharqi the lighting was much better on low.

I played CS:S for a while w/no ejecting brass, no bodies, no sprays, no rain, etc... all in a nice 'fps friendly' .cfg file. But I switched back, the game just wasn't the same without some of the eye-candy. I think if your card can handle it, then you should consider having some effects / etc.. on.

[kitchener]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

Is there a correlation between a huge FPS number and player "effectiveness" in combat? If two comparable players were in a firefight, both with the same visual settings, one with 40 - 50 FPS, the other with upwards of 100 FPS, does the player with the higher FPS have an advantage?

[The_Misfit]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

you'd have to factor in ping as well, it can't all be put on fps. If the lower guy is over 30, then I'd think he's ok vs. guys w/higher fps. If you were talking 25 fps vs. 70, then the guy @ 70 is at a big advantage...

[DrunkenPirate]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

Lighting on low (easier to see) , shadows on low (can see people coming from corners and suck), aa off gives me the best results for competitive servers.

[Wake51]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

Remember though, your eyes only view at a certain amount of FPS as well so above a certain point it's impossible to tell a difference.

[pertti_pasanen]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

Remember though, your eyes only view at a certain amount of FPS as well so above a certain point it's impossible to tell a difference.

here's the horse , who's got the whip ?

[kitchener]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

Remember though, your eyes only view at a certain amount of FPS as well so above a certain point it's impossible to tell a difference.

Where does that difference fall? Is there a point where anything higher than a certain number in FPS is just over-kill? Does 100 FPS instead of 50 FPS matter (outside of visual settings or ping)?

[-=4th=-1/2Hawk]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

How about just picking a setting and then learning how to avoid head-to-head confrontations in the first place. Dont expect a large jump in KDR based on your video settings - the main thing is using your brain to put the enemy at the maximum disadvantage. Dont know about you, but I've got no qualms about shooting an enemy in the back. :evil: And anyways, misfit is right ... the guy with the lower ping has the edge because his game will more closely agree with the game server on where an enemy's position really is.

[kitchener]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

Lighting on low (easier to see) , shadows on low (can see people coming from corners and suck), aa off gives me the best results for competitive servers.

I was monkeying with a variety of settings last night. Man, it takes a lot of patience thanks to "connecting to account server" -- most changes required a re-start of the game, and talk about pregnant pauses...

When you suggest lighting on low, are you talking about lighting, dynamic lighting, or both?

I was running around in an empty server trying out the different settings, so with a lack of action it was hard to judge -- what are the benefits to leaving anti-aliasing on versus off, outside of frames per second (didn't seem my fps were taking any unmanageable hit)?

[BadToad]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

I kinda wish the game made you play at your vid cards capabilities for these reasons. I know, "whaaaaa" and all that. But it would even the playing field a little if we all saw the same thing, realitivly. I prefere the effects and neat sceanery, as that is how the game was designed to be played, a.k.a. realistic graphics. If you want 2-d games, go play Donkey-Kong or sumthing!:dead:

[markan dorka]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

stable fps is better than fluctuating, even if it's higher

I'm trying to say, that I'd rather play with stable 40 than one that goes between 30 to 60, depending on amount of crap on screen.

I don't think BF2 is as demanding on having huge fps, as it's not as reliant on twitch skills, reactions and pinpoint accuracy.. so while it'd kick ass to have stable 100, you probably don't do much better than with say, stable 70 or 50.

But if your average is around 30, and it goes occasionally under that, then you'll definetly benefit from higher fps. Sub 30 fps:s will get you killed, especially since you'll hit those numbers in sticky situations.

[Fakky]

Re: FPS over-kill versus visual quality?

I have played with a really crappy video card with settings all on low. It wasn't very fun. Sure, I might have seen a few more people / claymores trying to hide in grass than I otherwise would have, but the overall game experience sucked.

Then I got a better card and turned the video settings up and the game experience got so much better. Everything just looked so much better. Dynamic shadows are awesome. Effects lighting on the artillery is great. More grass to hide snipers and claymores, more shadows for people to hide in, but I really don't care, since it looks so much more realistic now.

So if all you're worried about is your frag count, then shut down the static shadows and texture detail and have a grand ol' time.