Weekly Steam Update

[phrzn]

rizzuh wrote..

The tops is the refresh rate of the monitor, so it doesn't even matter what the engine says. For the record, I believe that if HL is capable of rendering 99 frames then it should certainly be able to render 300 frames. You're only seeing new frames whenever your monitor refreshes from the VRAM, though. So the whole discussion is silly.

Well that's more or less a given though. Either way it's still pretty silly.

[azz0r]

-:Nighthawk:- wrote..

I can see this /stroking going the wrong direction all too fast.



Funny. Update a game, and people scream about how Steam sucks and is buggy. Update Steam, and people whine that CS is going to be the same for *gasp* TWO WEEKS IN A ROW!!!! No matter what VALVe does, people will bitch. It's just how it goes.

Well maybe if Valve got things right for once. How about adding a mix of both? Some new maps and fixes, or at there very best; what the hell happened to hl2, the truth.



I couldnt give a flying shit how steam progresses, so I certainly dont want steam fixes, won works fine why upgrade to a slow tryant to run a simple game, thats why I love CS and VS, I just click the icon, find server go. Not Steam updates > CS > CS updates but no actual real updates > CS OPENS!! HURRAH.



Valve can suck a nut, steam isnt what's needed.

[Steakeater]

I like how you can see exactly what's going on when you connect to a server...now I know that it's the bloody VAC modules that takes ages to load.

[tspoon1066]

Why do people even bother turning VSync off? Its not like the monitor can display the frames any quicker, and in some cases the effect is detrimental because you can get some picture tearing (I've noticed it on my bro's comp running WinME - no vsync).

"My comp can do 297.565 fps in CS!! roflrofl"

Wow. Good for you. Pity you can't actually see the frames.

Maxime wrote..

scrbabode wrote..

I need a professional to teach me how to write properly.

Slightly mindless flame there mate.

[Electronic Punk]

azz0r wrote..

Well maybe if Valve got things right for once. How about adding a mix of both? Some new maps and fixes, or at there very best; what the hell happened to hl2, the truth.

You mean something like a counter-strike update one week and a steam update the next ? :s

[_Morphine_]

so are all you whiny bitches gonna even stop to think about the difficulties in makin an update once a week t the game? are you gonna try to pump out a map a week? think about all the stuff that they are doing for us FOR FREE before you flame valve

[Pharlap]

B423 wrote..

Noone has mentioned the fact that the human brain can only perceive up to a certain refresh rate. I can't remember what it is but it's definitely less than 300, or 100 even for that matter.

human eyes are not digital devices, therefore do not see in "frames per second".

tspoon1066 wrote..

Why do people even bother turning VSync off? Its not like the monitor can display the frames any quicker.

because theres a bug with the nvidia drivers that with vsync enabled, the fps can lock onto a integer multiple of 2 of the next highest frame refresh possible. to illustrate, your monitor refreshes at 100hz say, if ur fps drops below a certain amount, vsync will lock the fps onto 50fps. then 25, then 12.5 etc etc. i dislike tearing as well, but because of this bug, i disable refresh.

[Dave_Chimaera]

maxime wrote..

I think it's 28 or 30.

Nah, Persistance of Vision works out to 24 fps although most things refresh at at least twice that or higher - PAL TV is about 50Hz, NTSC is about 60Hz.



For some people though they can get headaches on a monitor that refreshes that slowly (something to do with the proximity I guess) so ideal is to up that refresh rate up to 85 or even 100.



As for the high fps argument, the only one that holds any water is 'If my card can do a static screen at 300FPS then I *know* no matter how crowded the screen gets with players, smoke or anything else it will still stay way above any optimum setting'. And thats the key - I don't give a monkey's testical how fast my 9800pro can refresh the screen so long as it never drops below 75 or so frames per second no matter HOW busy it is.

[CmdrFlesh]

Edited by [user="41266"] @ [time="1070619083"]

Common TV and movie technologies use (used to use?) a framerate of ~25 fps. When it comes to our visual sense, we humans (even the nerds) have a time-resolution quantized to about 30ms steps. The hunt for framerates above that perceptual limit traditionally has two reasons:

a.) you're playing a Quake- or Quake2-based game in which the abilitiy to perform strafe-jumps and other movement related exploits is an advantage (higher fps -> easier stunts) and

b.) fps fluctuations appear much more disturbing compared to a low, but stable rate. The higher the average fps is, the less significant the fluctuations are, resulting in a smoother experience.



Correct me if I'm wrong.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Okay, I'll correct you.



First off, Pharlap is right, we don't see in FPS.



Secondly, the reason a TV seems smooth at 24 FPS is simply because of motion blur. Pause your action movie, and suddenly it looks like a fuzzy mess of blurry crap. Play those all next to each other, however, and they merge (mentally) into the same basic information we'd be seeing if it was actually moving through all of those positions.



On the computer, there isn't any motion blur (well, discounting 3DFX's attempts at it before they went out of business), and every image is precise and crisp. As such, you will see a definite jerk from one frame to the next if you're running at your TV's 24 FPS.



To comphensate for this, you have to update often enough that your mind is bluring several crisp images into fluid movement, which requires pumping those crisp images out at incredible rates. There isn't a magic number for how high this has to be, however. At some point in time, you will be able to spin fast enough within the video game that there haven't been enough frames during that spin to create images similar enough that your mind will blur them into perceived natural movement.



Here's another aspect to consider. While we don't see in FPS, per se, our minds only interpret the visual input so often, so there are definite stages. Imagine a car that's accelerating. At stop, you see the hubcaps clearly, then they blur into a forward rotation, then become totally blurred, then slow back down to a perceived lack of rotation, and then reverse perceived spin direction. That's a complex way of saying that it looks like the wheels start spinning backwards as it goes faster. You've all seen this before.



Photoreceptors send data quite often, but ultimately there are limits to how frequently chemicals can be released by your eyes in different areas, and the signals can only be read so often. I can see definite jerking at 85 FPS in certain circumstances, however, so obviously our eyes are sufficiently quick about sending signals that the faked motion blur of a high FPS game isn't sufficient to fool my eyes into being totally believing.



Another issue that's been totally ignored is that of response time. All of us have probably experienced fighting with the mouse for decent aim when we're stuck at 20fps. The more times per second a game updates all information, the faster (and more accurately) it can respond to any input you give it, and thus the faster these inputs are mirrored on the screen. That helps your aim.



Whoever claimed you never needed more that 60fps, please at least think about the subject before claiming something so horribly off. Most of us can easily tell the difference in smoothness between 60 and 100fps. On top of that, most systems render 2-3 frames ahead of time, which is the minimum time before any input will be reflected on the screen. The longer it takes to bust through those 2-3 frames, the longer it will take for your crosshairs to move where you want them to. Faster FPS = faster reaction time.



Finally, a note about V-Sync. The annoying part about it (aside from the bugs mentioned) is simply that, if your possible FPS ever drops below the sync rate, then you drop in FPS even further, as it has to wait for the next available sync time. Luckily with rendering queues, you probably won't have to drop FPS for a few frames afterward, but every so often you drop almost an entire cycle, instead of updating constantly when you have data. The removal of tearing is worth it for many applications, though, assuming your monitor's refresh rate is high enough.



Okay, there's my ranting for the night. Dang it all, I was going to go to bed a few hours ago, but I had to pop on CSN and read a few comments quickly. So much for that. :P G'night all, I'm off to the beach in a few hours. :)

[CmdrFlesh]

Edited by [user="41266"] @ [time="1070634194"]

Well my state of knowledge is that all our senses do work with a certain "refresh rate", which is somewhere around 30 "frames" per second. This is not a question of a specific organ like the eye or the ear, but of our whole nerve system, including the brain itself. Of course, we cannot consciously experience that. The argument that "human eyes are not digital devices" is well true, but please remember that all digital processes are somehow based on analog processes, so the thought of a quantized perception isn't so far off anyway.



Note to Nighthawk's hub cap explanation: This effect definetly only works if you watch the hub caps by a pulsing (usually artificial) light or if you watch an animated picture of these hub caps (i.e. TV / movie / video game). When watching the turning hub caps live by a natural, non-pulsing light (i.e. sun) you won't be able to see the described effect, unless you blink your eyes constantly very fast.

[Supersonic^]

/strokes his... ah-hrrrm :P

[plastic_Fish]

Ok rite now steam is down....wtf is this piece of crap....its not supposed to be down those ass clowns

[Ghengis]

Havent seen one like that in a long time nighty....

[Pharlap]

Dave_Chimaera wrote..

Nah, Persistance of Vision works out to 24 fps although most things refresh at at least twice that or higher - PAL TV is about 50Hz, NTSC is about 60Hz.

PAL/SECAM works at 25fps, which is INTERLACED to look like its running at 50fps.

NTSC 3.38/4.45 works at 29.97 fps, which again is INTERLACED with adjacent frames at around 60fps.

Cinema film youre correct runs at 24fps. but the difference is that the frames are running in PROGRESSIVE SCAN MODE, something the TV cannot yet do. although many DVD players are able to fake the progressive scanning that you see in cinemas.

CmdrFlesh wrote..

The argument that "human eyes are not digital devices" is well true, but please remember that all digital processes are somehow based on analog processes, so the thought of a quantized perception isn't so far off anyway.

what i meant by "human eyes are not digital devices" is that eyes do not sample an image in a specific time interval. like all digital devices do such as analog to digital converters. A/D converters sample an analog signal once per time interval and transform that into binary data. saying "eyes can only see x fps" is a bit like saying eyes work like A/D converters. but u have to factor in motion blur as well.

appended @ [time="1070671795"]

-:Nighthawk:- wrote..

To comphensate for this, you have to update often enough that your mind is bluring several crisp images into fluid movement, which requires pumping those crisp images out at incredible rates. There isn't a magic number for how high this has to be, however.

because the visual data acquired from the eye is acquired in a continuous fashion, rather than a chunk of visual information per time interval (discrete digital way), the only way to measure this rate would be to find out the rate of the visual receptor chemical breakdown within a rod/cone cell in the back of the eye, and multiply it by the amount of these cells. even then this would not be conclusive since there are so many random variables to consider.

appended @ [time="1070672161"]

CmdrFlesh wrote..

Well my state of knowledge is that all our senses do work with a certain "refresh rate", which is somewhere around 30 "frames" per second. This is not a question of a specific organ like the eye or the ear, but of our whole nerve system, including the brain itself.

for the brain to work like that would mean there needs to be interrupts. what if to nerves wish to connect to another nerve at the same time interval, one would have to wait etc. just like inside a CPU pipeline when it executes instructions. pff, a ludicrous suggestion that the brain functions in "frames per second". nerve impulses are continuous and not discrete.



Add to that, nerve impulses travel across the surface of the nerve at very slow speeds, compared to electrical signals within wires for example. a nerve impusle travels at 100's of miles per hour (fast nerves), down to 10's of miles per hour for the slower nerves. not as fast as many people think. if the brain worked at 30fps (lol), we would all have the reactions/thought processes of a homer simpson like character, ie, very poor.

appended @ [time="1070672469"]

-:Nighthawk:- wrote..

Finally, a note about V-Sync. The annoying part about it (aside from the bugs mentioned) is simply that, if your possible FPS ever drops below the sync rate, then you drop in FPS even further, as it has to wait for the next available sync time.

yes i explained that in a previous post of mine. for that reason i refuse to use Vsync. the reason why i think this is a bug is because the fps doesnt need to drop to a multiple of the monitors refresh rate (thats what u meant i hope ), why doesnt the DAC of the video card (digital to analog converter) synchronise with the monitor refresh, and NOT send any frames to the DAC *WHILE* the monitor is in the middle of a refresh cycle, but wait for it to finish, then send the frame? this will eliminate tearing, and wont cause massive fps drops like you/me described.