The game is too poorly optimized.

User avatar
Minetestforfun
Member
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 14:09
Location: On earth
GitHub: Darcidride
IRC: Darcidride + MinetestForFun
In-game: Darcidride + MinetestForFun

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by Minetestforfun » Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:47

Gael de Sailly wrote:The human eye can see around 60 fps. Having more fps theoretically changes nothing. Is the game really unplayable with 60 fps ?


Im tired with this ONLY commercial sentence which is said by everyone isn't informed and just said something they heard without any research to confirm what they said...

Your eyes can see over 1000+ frames per second. But the only important thing is "the impression of reality" you eye can discern. The more fps you have, the less your eyes can discern "what you see isn't reality".

Please, before saying lies from "commercial console-brainwashing" or from any other games/movies industries, think about inform you :)

This isn't the first time i do a speech like this... If you want sources, see my latest posts about it.
 

User avatar
Fixer
Member
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:23
Location: Ukraine
IRC: Fixer
In-game: Fixer

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by Fixer » Sun Nov 15, 2015 15:00

My monitor has 75Hz refresh rate anyway...
 

User avatar
kaadmy
Member
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 23:07
GitHub: kaadmy
IRC: KaadmY
In-game: KaadmY kaadmy NeD

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by kaadmy » Sun Nov 15, 2015 16:14

I play Xonotic at 40 fps on this computer, and it feels OK-ish, but if I play at 200+ fps, it's completely different. The mouse/input feels much smoother and more responsive, and aim is far better.
Never paint white stripes on roads near Zebra crossings.

Pixture
 

User avatar
Calinou
Moderator
 
Posts: 3155
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 14:26
Location: Troyes, France
GitHub: Calinou
IRC: Calinou
In-game: Calinou

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by Calinou » Sun Nov 15, 2015 17:25

kaadmy wrote:I play Xonotic at 40 fps on this computer, and it feels OK-ish, but if I play at 200+ fps, it's completely different. The mouse/input feels much smoother and more responsive, and aim is far better.


Having more than 60 FPS on a 60 Hz screen does help with regards to input latency, but not much else. It also kind of wastes power and creates unnecessary heat/noise.
 

tbillion
Member
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 16:07
Location: 38381, US, TN, Toone

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by tbillion » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:41

academic courses on cognitive neuroscience at the university of Utrecht (Netherlands). It all depends on the training a person has had. Fighter pilots have been recorded spotting 1/255th of a frame. That's right: 255 frames per second And they could give a rough estimate as to what they've seen.

Edit: seanalltogether took the time to post a source (220 fps and they could identify the aircraft). Edit2: Seeing that my post is the 2nd hit on google when looking for 'max frames per second eye can see', little add-on: This research went looking for the temporal gaps that people could perceive, I'm linking to the result diagram.. The figure about vision is a box-plot. The average population would perceive about 45 frames per second (nice going HFR movies). But on the other hand, you have 25% of the population who will percieve more than 60 frames per second, with extremes going to seeing temporal gaps of up to 2 ms. Which is insane. When I wrote my replies and the first post, I did not know about this research. New conclusion: By far most of the human population (test in USA) will see more than 24 fps, only the extremes will see just the 24 fps or less (we're going towards visualle impaired elderly). More
than 50% of the population will benefit greatly from FPS of 45+. Trained fighter pilots can see even more, so training of the brain might just be possible in perceiving a lower threshold of temporal gap


https://www.google.com/search?q=medically+what+is+the+most+frames+per+second+the+human+eye+can+see&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

myth about "60 FPS" came from in the first place? Most LCD monitors today, let alone 10 years ago, have refresh rate of 60 Hz. On such monitor, no matter how much FPS your application, such as video game, has, you will see only 60 Hz, and additional frames will be ignored. On such monitor, even if your game has 1000 FPS, you will still essentially see 60 FPS.

Now take an old good CRT monitor. CRT monitors are good for this because their image is fully dynamic, that is every frame is drawn from scratch, while LCD monitors do not effectively draw frames that are not very different from each other, they only draw the difference. In dynamic scenes CRT and LCD monitors are similar in this regard.
Most good CRT monitors used to show 85-120 Hz. When you set your refrest rate on such monitor to 60 Hz, you can clearly see extreme flickering. When you set 85 Hz, flickering becomes bearable, but still noticeable. 120 Hz - flickering is almost gone. The difference between 120 Hz and 240 Hz is still noticeable if you place two monitors close to each other and stare at them attentively, but it is very slim.

Let's return to LCD monitors since that's what most people use today. I want to make a very important statement here that people arguing about FPS often do not fully understand:

How much FPS you can see depends on the scene you watch.

Imagine if the scene is just Windows desktop, without any activity on it. How much FPS do you need? Right, 0.
Now, imagine if a dot moves on your screen at speed of 1 pixel per second. Since the monitor cannot show "half pixels", you don't need more than 1 FPS to see this as perfectly smooth as your display resolution allows.

Imagine now an object that moves from the left edge of your screen to the right. It goes at speed of 200,000 pixels per second, while you have a resolution of 1920x1080. How much FPS do you need to notice this object? Since it shows on your screen for 1080/200,000 = 5.4 ms, you need 1000/5.4=186 FPS to consistently see it on your screen.
What does it all mean? If you use your usual 60 FPS, in about 66% cases you won't even pick a glance at this object. If you use 240 FPS, however, you will see it cross your screen every single time. And, since your eye is theoretically able to see much more FPS than that, you WILL actually see this object.

---

So, here is the thing. When you say that you cannot see any difference beyond 60 FPS, first of all make sure that you are actually looking at more than 60 FPS. You cannot see more than 60 FPS on a 60Hz monitor no matter what, since the monitor itself will always show exactly 60 FPS. Then, make sure that you are actually looking at highly dynamical scenes, not just looking at your desktop moving icons around (although between 60 FPS and 120 FPS, I bet, you will see the difference even there). Finally, account for the habit: if you've been using 60 FPS for 10 years and then suddenly receive a 120 Hz monitor, you might not see the difference clearly right away since your eye is used to staring at the old screen. Give it some time, maybe, a day - then revert to the old refresh rate, and you will IMMEDIATELY see a HUGE difference by just moving mouse cursor around. You will see so many frames skipped, you will be shocked that you've never seen them before.

So, how many FPS do we need? Depends on the applications you use, of course. If you are interested only in web browsing and office work, you are unlikely to really need anything beyond even 30 FPS. If you play some slow-paced games like Hearthstone, 60 FPS is fine. If you play all kinds of games, including RPG, FPS, RTS, etc., 120 FPS will benefit you a lot. And if you are a hardcore FPS gamer, the more FPS you have, the better, 240 FPS and beyond will be just perfect.


http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1572225-Mythbusting-quot-Human-eye-cannot-see-beyond-60-FPS-quot

couple of good perspectives for reference... really though i doubt anything but maybe my tbm moves anywhere close to this fast.. im off to tweak my fps.. oh and micro cube cars move pretty fast too... :)
 

User avatar
duane
Member
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 19:11
Location: Oklahoma City
GitHub: duane-r

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by duane » Fri Dec 04, 2015 15:07

rubenwardy wrote:I can't find any citations about the speed of the eye, one would be good.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

Personally, I can barely see the difference between 30 frame and 60 frame video. Given how little real action there is in my minetest games, I don't see the point of anything beyond 15 fps, so I've no interest in optimizing. Others obviously feel differently.

[hikes up trousers] In my day, we had 1 frame... a minute. We had to change a big, glass slide every time something moved... and we LIKED it that way!
Believe in people and you don't need to believe anything else.
 

User avatar
benrob0329
Member
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 22:39
Location: Michigan
GitHub: Benrob0329
IRC: benrob0329
In-game: benrob03

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by benrob0329 » Fri Dec 04, 2015 15:30

Minetest is poorly optimised, but I can get 60 fps on my low end laptop with shaders by using a LuaJIT and adjusting my settings (fps wanted and max fps).
Social: YouTube Peertube Matrix Room: #minetest:tchncs.de | Games: The Infinite IKEA
 

User avatar
rubenwardy
Moderator
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 18:11
Location: United Kingdom
GitHub: rubenwardy
IRC: rubenwardy
In-game: rubenwardy

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by rubenwardy » Fri Dec 04, 2015 15:33

Wikipedia is not a good citation - however I'll take a look later at what references it uses.
Last edited by rubenwardy on Fri Dec 04, 2015 22:02, edited 1 time in total.
 

User avatar
duane
Member
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 19:11
Location: Oklahoma City
GitHub: duane-r

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by duane » Fri Dec 04, 2015 15:40

rubenwardy wrote:Wikipedia is not a citation - however I'll take a look later at what references it uses.


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/citation#Noun

Worked when I was in college. ; p
Believe in people and you don't need to believe anything else.
 

User avatar
BrandonReese
Member
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 00:44
Location: USA
GitHub: bremaweb
IRC: BrandonReese
In-game: BrandonReese

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by BrandonReese » Fri Dec 04, 2015 15:53

duane wrote:[hikes up trousers] In my day, we had 1 frame... a minute. We had to change a big, glass slide every time something moved... and we LIKED it that way!


I played Wolfenstein 3D on a 286 with the resolution reduced to the size of a postage stamp and we loved it!
 

User avatar
kaadmy
Member
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 23:07
GitHub: kaadmy
IRC: KaadmY
In-game: KaadmY kaadmy NeD

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by kaadmy » Fri Dec 04, 2015 17:29

Between 20 and 60 fps in MT is a big difference.
Never paint white stripes on roads near Zebra crossings.

Pixture
 

twoelk
Member
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 16:19
Location: northern Germany
GitHub: twoelk
IRC: twoelk
In-game: twoelk

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by twoelk » Fri Dec 04, 2015 18:21

duane wrote:...

[hikes up trousers] In my day, we had 1 frame... a minute. We had to change a big, glass slide every time something moved... and we LIKED it that way!


well even Gertie the Dinosaur in 1914 had something like 16 or 18 fps or was it allready fantastic 24?
 

User avatar
rubenwardy
Moderator
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 18:11
Location: United Kingdom
GitHub: rubenwardy
IRC: rubenwardy
In-game: rubenwardy

Re: he game is too poorly optimized.

by rubenwardy » Fri Dec 04, 2015 22:05

It's not a good citation - a good citation would be a scientific paper. I do computer science at university and I wouldn't get any good marks for a Wikipedia citation.
 

User avatar
Alienant1
Member
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:33
In-game: alienant1 or alienant2

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by Alienant1 » Tue Dec 08, 2015 16:55

I think that things start to look smooth at about 24 fps and then just keep getting better as you go higher. There must be an upper limit though.....

perhaps look at
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe/how_many_frames_per_second_can_the_eye_see/
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_motion_blur

EDIT: actually, neither of these is properly scientific, so they aren't much use.
Merry Christmas Everyone!!!
 

sofar
Developer
 
Posts: 2036
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 07:31
GitHub: sofar
IRC: sofar
In-game: sofar

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by sofar » Wed Dec 09, 2015 23:20

anecdotes are evidence... ;^)

Many of the games I played in the last 10 years were unable to get 60frames on my 30" short-response-time dell monitor, but when they started get better and my gfx cards upgraded to I was unable to accept anything less than max framerate. My biggest problem was playing oblivion/skyrim or even WoW(yikes) in 30fps was eye-tearing ugly due to the long walks through scenery where you felt like walking through a slide deck at your grandparents house - my eyes just never felt like 30fps was smooth, and I can easily visually perceive individual frame drops at 60Hz in most games. And it's disturbing to gameplay.

So, anything under 60Hz is a problem to my eyes.

Now, my panels are limited to 60Hz, so I could never compare my eye response to higher frames. That's a good thing, since those 30" 2560x1600 panels were muy expensive back when I got them in 2006...

bottom line is that developers should avoid to "corn-hole" all users into "this much FPS is plenty" and just allow users to change the sliders to any desirable value.

If someone wants 15fps, I could care less, have them at it. I sometimes play on a laptop and tune down the max FPS to those levels, since the panels on many laptops are low quality and have a long response time.

But when I buy a 4k monitor in the next few years, I expect to be able to play minetest at 120Hz if I so desire.

It's not even important what scientific evidence there may or may not be. If people desire to shell out 5000$ for a gaming rig that can do a bazillion fps, then why are we writing software that makes it hard for people to get a bazillion fps? Sooner or later, those exact users are the one that will help us fix performance bottlenecks and drive innovation and performance optimizations. At the other end, so are the current android users - they're doing the same thing at the *other* end - forcing gpu optimizations to lower cpu cycles and save battery time. All good stuff.
 

User avatar
rubenwardy
Moderator
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 18:11
Location: United Kingdom
GitHub: rubenwardy
IRC: rubenwardy
In-game: rubenwardy

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by rubenwardy » Wed Dec 09, 2015 23:25

Anecdotes aren't usually real (scientific) evidence. (I guess you were joking)

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... /anecdotal
http://study.com/academy/lesson/anecdot ... mples.html

However, I agree that users should be able to uncap their FPS.

sofar wrote:then why are we writing software that makes it hard for people to get a bazillion fps?


Maybe because some of the problems are hard to compute?
 

sofar
Developer
 
Posts: 2036
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 07:31
GitHub: sofar
IRC: sofar
In-game: sofar

Re: The game is too poorly optimized.

by sofar » Wed Dec 09, 2015 23:40

rubenwardy wrote:Anecdotes aren't usually real (scientific) evidence. (I guess you were joking)

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... /anecdotal
http://study.com/academy/lesson/anecdot ... mples.html

However, I agree that users should be able to uncap their FPS.

sofar wrote:then why are we writing software that makes it hard for people to get a bazillion fps?


Maybe because some of the problems are hard to compute?


Yes, they indeed are, and indeed I was joking.

Plus, having fps caps hidden in the UI limits the chances that they will get solved severely.

http://4k.com/news/4k-tv-sales-to-surpa ... 2018-5948/

(Of course, 4k panels still only technically need to do 60Hz to be compliant, afaics)
 

Previous

Return to Problems



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Wuzzy and 1 guest