New Shader Model 3.0 for eq2 :) - Page 11

Sharpcharm · 07-04-2009, 07:19 PM

If you still cant run the game on extreme quality at a nice framerate then you are doing something wrong. I can run the game both in raids and in solo/grouping just fine while getting 30fps or better. Stop making excuses.

Sulan · 07-04-2009, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filth

Everything you said here is wrong. But you wont see more than 60 or 70fps EVER since your monitor doesn't likely refresh that fast. If it did, you would. There is no limit to the speed of your eye FYI. Thats just a fuck tard myth on the internet made up by stupid dick heads with cheap ass video cards.

How fast your eye can perceive images has been open to debate for awhile. I've heard everything from 30 to 120. However, I think movies still project at around 30 fps. Not sure how much the FPS is for IMAX. So generally, 30fps is acceptable for most people. I know I really don't notice much in the way of appreciable difference past that point. Anyone who says they do either has highly perceptive vision or it's psychological.

firamas · 07-05-2009, 10:34 AM

As stated a few posts ago, the motion blur is what makes movies and TV appear fluid at 24-30fps. That effect is not desirable (or practical) for video games. 30fps in games is considered the absolute minimum acceptable framerate, but it's still noticably choppy.

The maximum refresh of most LCD monitors is 60hz. The graphics card can draw 150 frames in a second, but the screen itself will only be updating 60 times. Unless you have an old high quality CRT that can do 120hz, you're effectively capped at 60 just like the rest of us. Filth's "fuck tard internet myth" theory is also wrong... there is a maximum effective limit to what the human eye can do. It's just different across many types of visual applications...

If you're consistently getting over 60fps in an MMO, you won't need a better card. FPS players might tell you that they do better at speeds up past 120fps, but I would be tempted to laugh at them and ask how fast they think their gaming reflexes actually are. That's optical input from screen -> image processing in brain -> decision making process -> nervous system actuation -> muscular actuation -> user control output to UI device. If you think you're getting much more than "3-4hz" (and thats really pushing it in an actual fast paced game)) from that cycle, you don't understand the human body.

Pinski · 07-05-2009, 11:30 AM

FPS players only think the >120fps is true because of broken physics models that people think still exist since Q3(125fps gave the longest jumping distance).

dakkota · 07-05-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinski

FPS players only think the >120fps is true because of broken physics models that people think still exist since Q3(125fps gave the longest jumping distance).

Nothing was better than a map that gave the distance to actually gain enough momentum to strafe jump faster than plasma and rocket shots flying through mid air

And yeah motion blur was the leet trick Farcry used to combat its commonly low-ish performance most PC owners got. That motion blur sure was a good lag coverup.

Yeah fira, Once Doom 3 came out and everything after that 60fps was all you needed. But Imo those games felt like i was running in mud compared to Q3. I never messed around in other fps games though much, I thought the 125fps thing was just a special quake 3 bug, i wasn't aware of needing it in Q2, SoF, CS or any older games. Although Q2 is from an era where 30fps was fucking leet.

feldon30 · 07-05-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulan

How fast your eye can perceive images has been open to debate for awhile. I've heard everything from 30 to 120. However, I think movies still project at around 30 fps. Not sure how much the FPS is for IMAX. So generally, 30fps is acceptable for most people. I know I really don't notice much in the way of appreciable difference past that point. Anyone who says they do either has highly perceptive vision or it's psychological.

Movies are 24fps. TV is 30fps. HDTV is either 30fps (1080i) or 60fps (720p/1080p).

Humans can EASILY perceive 80fps.

firamas · 07-06-2009, 07:39 PM

Perceptibility and utility are two different things.

ZaiTh · 07-07-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firamas

As stated a few posts ago, the motion blur is what makes movies and TV appear fluid at 24-30fps. That effect is not desirable (or practical) for video games. 30fps in games is considered the absolute minimum acceptable framerate, but it's still noticably choppy.

The maximum refresh of most LCD monitors is 60hz. The graphics card can draw 150 frames in a second, but the screen itself will only be updating 60 times. Unless you have an old high quality CRT that can do 120hz, you're effectively capped at 60 just like the rest of us. Filth's "fuck tard internet myth" theory is also wrong... there is a maximum effective limit to what the human eye can do. It's just different across many types of visual applications...

If you're consistently getting over 60fps in an MMO, you won't need a better card. FPS players might tell you that they do better at speeds up past 120fps, but I would be tempted to laugh at them and ask how fast they think their gaming reflexes actually are. That's optical input from screen -> image processing in brain -> decision making process -> nervous system actuation -> muscular actuation -> user control output to UI device. If you think you're getting much more than "3-4hz" (and thats really pushing it in an actual fast paced game)) from that cycle, you don't understand the human body.

QFE

I am also an avid FPS. I seriously rape fools with just about all fps I have played (Call of DUty, Battlefield 2, Combat Arms, Planetside. FPS is way more imporatant in a first person shooter but if you dont have any real coord, you will get frustrated and quit playing.

Lomax · 07-10-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grithan

Ah how cute. People still wack off over PC specs and gaming rigs. Newsflash: PC is a shit platform for gaming and is getting worse with every year.

The most popular games released these days are designed to run well on hardware that will be three years old by the time they ship. Which one of the top 10 games in 2008 required "modern" hardware to run at decent settings?

Nielsen reveals top 10 PC games played in 2008

The EQ2 engine is crap. It's been crap since its release in 2004. For a game released in 2004 you should be able to march into Best Buy and pick up a random $600 system with a real video card and play it on high settings.

The fact you are talking about overclocking to play this _2004_ game is fucking sad.

Why do you need to overclock your computer to run it? As for a shitty platform to run games on, I'm guessing the alternative is a console, problem there is the hardware there is aging fast again too. I'd like to run games on one, but being limited to those crummy controllers with the take your brain out and sit on it gameplay really would suck.

One weird benefit of the CPU intensive part of EQ2 is that it runs better on my Core 2 duo 1.5Ghz Ati HD2600 laptop then WoW does.

I still cannot run everything at max settings for sure, the desktop can more or less and at max settings it looks good in comparison to games released in 2008 like WAR easily, I think that's a damn good achievement for a game released in 2004.

As for the shader 3.0 model things, the youtube videos of them look very impressive

YouTube - Everquest 2 Shader 3.0 Slideshow, Part 1

Seriously looking forward to seeing EQ2 with this sorted out, the whole lighting thing was something that didn't see right about EQ2 for me for a long time. One thing though, I've got a feeling that after all the automated scripts have been run it'll be February before all the graphics are tweaked right.

Kampfer · 07-10-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lomax

One weird benefit of the CPU intensive part of EQ2 is that it runs better on my Core 2 duo 1.5Ghz Ati HD2600 laptop then WoW does.

That is only true because of the new shadow system in wow. Instead of black disks under your character they now show the outline of your toon. If you turn the shadows off back to the way it used to be it will be the opposite.