🚀 go-pugleaf

nice suggestion, but two problems..
#1- 100 fps is meaningless when it comes to Internet play..  The lag either
causes there to be more "still" frames, or reduces the Framerate..  Servers
simply can't keep up with 100 fps clients if there's ANY lag...

#2- you suggested that while turning, you would only see 3 frames of the
rocket..  That's quite alright, since those three would be the only ones you
could percieve.  Any frames beyond that are wasted. (assuming that the
server SENT your client the required info.)..

Personally, I think it would be better to combine the wasted frames to
create a "motion-blur" as decribed in the "Easy motion blur" thread (on
alt.games.quake).  That's how it's done on VHS video tapes, and that's how
it's done it the movies.. I agree with the author of that thread when he
suggests that motion blur would would VASTLY improve gameplay immersion..

These are just MHO's this isn't some kind of attack.. :)

-Deadguy

>
>Just like to clear up a common misconception here. The human visual system
>(eyes+visual cortex etc) can't *directly* perceive more than 80-100fps in
>terms of being able to see the difference on a static display but how many
>games are static? What I'm getting at is that if there's movement being
>displayed, especially rapid movement of the type you get in games then a
>higher framerate does indeed make a difference. Imagine a rocket streaking
>across your screen while you're turning rapidly in the opposite direction.
>It may cross your whole screen in less than a 10th of a second. At 30fps
>that means you get 3 discrete images of the rocket. At 100 fps you get 10.
>At 300fps you get 30 images. Get my point? The higher your fps then the
>better your gaming experience almost without limit (given the realistic
>envelope that today's hardware can generate - no monito yet operates at
>1000Hz refresh ;)
>
>So yeah, hook those v2's up right now :)
>
>---GrannY
>
>
>