[kuu]

Originally Posted by Manatra

The human eye can see max around 66 FPS, though there's probably a few cases where people can notice a difference at higher FPS.

On TVs and other mediums such as film, even though it only runs around 25~ish FPS (28.8?) the way your eye interprets it etc, is different than that of a computer monitor. That's why you don't really notice a difference between 30 and 60 FPS on a TV vs. a monitor. I don't know exactly how that stuff works so perhaps someone else can explain it.

As for the 30 FPS limit, probably just SE being lazy and not wanting to deal with fancy coding :p

Various techniques. The most obvious is interlacing, which you can guess it having frames link, it's more techinical but people can do their own research.

Film on the other hand, need very little tweaking, as we know the eariliest film projectors were nothing more then a light, a box and wheels. The human eye, or rather mind adjust itself to make sense of things, and the "blur-ness" helps with projection which end up being like natural style interlacing. That is not to say film is always worse, film can do true color where only high end select digital equipment can produce.

[Blood Red Poet]

Anyone claiming they have gotten higher, is full of... well you get the point.

SHIT!

Capped at 30, right.

[Yashin]

The human eye can deffently see over 30 FPS...Play a game at 65...then at 30...You will quickly see the diffrence

[Rones]

The effects of lightening and movement on percieved fps.
More details on how the human eye can see well past 30fps given the right situation.

Basically, ~30fps is just what is commonly needed to look fluid. Even then that varies according to the detail/blurriness and lightening.

[Kkwiskool]

That's not seeing over 30 FPS... That's seeing the change in FPS from 65 to 30 and if i'm correct, those two are different things. Also my FPS is also capped at 30.

[fuz]

How the heck can you see the difference between 60 and 30 without being able to see more than 30?

Quick test, wave your hand fast in front of an incandecent (filament) light (essentially infinite fps). It will blur smoothly. Do the same in front of a cathode TV, monitor, or flourecent light and you hand will look like it's stuttering (usually ~60hz+, similar to 60fps+).

So yes, even at 60fps your eye can detect the lapses between frames. There are ways to make it look perfect smooth, but I won't go into that since there's too many things to discuss.

For first-person-shooter games, 60 is often regarded as the minimum needed for fast reactions. The faster you turn, the bigger the difference between frames, and the less smooth and worse your aiming gets.

[Caspian]

Originally Posted by fuz

Quick test, wave your hand fast in front of an incandecent (filament) light (essentially infinite fps). It will blur smoothly. Do the same in front of a cathode TV, monitor, or flourecent light and you hand will look like it's stuttering (usually ~60hz+, similar to 60fps+).

So yes, even at 60fps your eye can detect the lapses between frames. There are ways to make it look perfect smooth, but I won't go into that since there's too many things to discuss.

How weird, I cant believe that works. (Just tried it btw). Isn't part of the reason why you notice the difference also be the speed at which its moving?

[kuu]

Originally Posted by fuz

How the heck can you see the difference between 60 and 30 without being able to see more than 30?

Quick test, wave your hand fast in front of an incandecent (filament) light (essentially infinite fps). It will blur smoothly. Do the same in front of a cathode TV, monitor, or flourecent light and you hand will look like it's stuttering (usually ~60hz+, similar to 60fps+).

So yes, even at 60fps your eye can detect the lapses between frames. There are ways to make it look perfect smooth, but I won't go into that since there's too many things to discuss.

For first-person-shooter games, 60 is often regarded as the minimum needed for fast reactions. The faster you turn, the bigger the difference between frames, and the less smooth and worse your aiming gets.

You didn't read the article...any of them did you...

It revolves around light sensitivity.

Games like quake and such revolve around a very different issue. Light is sent differently, and a bunch of stuff you should have read. It's a very odd problem because sometimes it's never enough, and other times, it's too much.

Suffice to say, 30fps is enough for ffxi, because it doesn't have a very rapid moving nature. The engine itself is limited so they never introduced things like motion-blur which would be a reason why 24fps looks blocky.

[Kafeen]

Originally Posted by Jkid

Not true, in some areas of that version of the game, it can be up to 60Fps.

The POL browser doesn't count.

The 30 FPS cap will be to put PC users on an even level with PS2 users. While PC specs can change, the PS2 can't. When we're making games for the PS2 60 FPS (or 50 FPS depending on the regeon we're making it for) is always the initial target. Due to hardware limitations though this isn't always possible so you cap you game at 30 (or 25 ) FPS to avoid tearing (getting half of one frame displayed on top of another) because the TV refreshes at at a constant rate, at 30 (or 25) FPS this will make the frame change once every 2 VSyncs.

[Zaptruder]

Even though it's been partially rectified already, I feel I have to do this...

OMG THE AMOUNT OF MISINFORMATION IN THIS THREAD IS ASTOUNDING. I HAVE TO TYPE IN CAPS IN ORDER TO GET EVERYONE'S ATTENTION IN ORDER TO UNDO THE HARM OF THE MISINFORMATION DONE, ESPECIALLY SEEING AS THE PEOPLE SPREADING THE MISINFORMATION ARE MODERATORS WITH BRIGHT SHINY RED NAMES.

HUMAN PERCEPTION DOESN'T WORK EXACTLY LIKE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY. 30FPS IS DEFINETLY NOT THE LIMIT OF HUMAN PERCEPTION.
(caps off; hurting my eyes and probably yours too).
60fps or there abouts isn't it either.

If you're intrested, google for information rather than been satisfied with information in this thread.

If you're not intrested, then please NEVER REPEAT ANYTHING IN THIS THREAD UNDER THE PRETENSE THAT ITS A FACT.

[fastcart]

Well, with that I'm deeming that this thread has run it's course. The original poster, Heoki, had his/her question answered (many times I might add).