FPS in CS (take 2, no flaming)

[(/)obius]

To disable Vsync:
Go to your display properties window - either through the control panel, or by right-clicking the desktop and going to properties. Click the settings tab - click the advanced button. Click the GeForce tab, click the additional properties button. Under the OpenGL tab, switch Vsync to "off by default". For best performance, also turn antialiasing off.

As far as the stuck at 60fps problem goes; that's an issue with 2k/XP - and the method of disabling the limit depends on what version of the detonators you're running.

-Mobius

 

[Qumahlin]

Re: fps

Originally posted by Folci
keep in mind when reading I have no real proof of any of this it is just the way i understand it.

somone said that the human eyes can see 60 fps. thats way off you can see 27.5 FPS thats why tv standard is 29 fps. but it is not quite the same to display it like that. if you only got 27.5 fps in a game you would only notice a small diffrence in video. though if you are getting 27.5 because it is being use to it max capabiltys then you would have a large diffrence in both video and gameplay. also the screen does not update at the same time our eyes do so there are flickers, lines, artafacts that we see though this is getting less and less with better hardware and drivers. so if the video was pre-rendered 29 fps is just fine. but if the rendering is using up all the GPU and CPU cycles and taking up alot of memory and bus bandwith 29 fps will be choppy and seem to skip frames.

Folci

Ahem

We can see in millions of colors (it has been tested that women can see up to 30% more colors than men), we have highly movable eyes, and we can perceive up to and over 200 fps. We have the ability to focus as close in as an inch, and as far as infinity, and the time it takes to change focus is faster than the fastest, most expensive auto-focusing camera out there. We have a field of view that encompasses almost 170 degrees of sight, and about 30 degrees of fine focus. We receive information constantly and are able to decode it very quickly.

Taken directly from a article that circulated awhile ago when this whole FPS craze started betwen voodoo and nvidia...the human ey can se many more then 27.5 fps...and many more then 60. it's just that 24fps is when we perceive something as being a fluid motion

 

[Rock]

Half Life is based on a heavily modified Quake 1 (!) engine.

timerefresh means nothing, on quake 2 on a p2 266mhz with ati 4mb gfx i could get 1000+ on certain areas of maps

 

[dijital]

Originally posted by loque
what can i do to get mine to get over 60....it fights to keep it down..... the fps_max is set to 100 so it isn't that.....also how do I disable vsync?

get the nvidia refresh rate fix. that should let you fix the refresh rate lock on your system. win xp is defaulted and locked at 60hz

 

[loque]

screens

Here are some screens I took...... both haven't been tampered with at all..... 100.0 fps it the most the engine will do....end of story

 

[loque]

sry here is the next one

 

[dijital]

well i cant get any higher than 85 fps, because my monitor wont support it. thats the price i pay for the lcd monitor i have, nothing to mention the $600 it cost to buy it.

 

[THEM]

Actually, you can acheive over 200 FPS...

When you stare at a black screen

It is 100% impossible... If you really want to prove it, post a 3D Mark 2001 SE, online, with your score. This score is the only actual valid testing for the speed of your computer system / 3d processing...
Then your accuracy can be calculated... Knowing that, if I get a 5000 score, and 67 FPS in CS, and you get, oh, lets say a new record: 11000... you'll still get only 1/2 as much FPS extra, wich will come to 117FPS... And don't try to break the 10075 score record right now... not really possible...

Oh, and BTW... Your eyes can see up to 24 Frames Per Second of actual motion. Bellow this, you will have the impression that the image is slow, but you won't really see it. If you get up to 32FPS, you won't see a difference. (Note, FPS is not Refresh Rate, 32FPS = +/- 65Hz).

So it's pointless to even get over 35 FPS, the need for higher framerates is only required for future preperation of games yet to come... ;-)

 

[Sage]

FPS in CS

I have installed the refreshed fixed dets 28.32 plus the nvidia refresh fix, but the max fps I can get is 71. My monitor is running at 1024X768 - refresh is 85 - on win 98 I could get 85 fps - why only 71 now. Don't get me wrong before the fix it was the 60fps. Any insight would be of great help.

 

[Rock]

fps_max 100
fps_modem 100

you need both

 

[Sage]

Thxs

Just thought of that also - changed them and back to max fps.

Thxs

 

[THEM]

drivers???

I don't know where you people get your drivers...

But I have the official NVidea 3.23.32, without the refresh fix, I can get up to 107 FPS in the Low Car Detail test in 3DMArk 2001 SE...

If I install the NVideo 3.23.90 driver (you know it's a beta right?) I get only 60-70... after the Refreshrate fix, all remains the same, you know why?

I say again...
The RefreshRate FIX changes the possible refreshrate of your monitor and NOT your NVidea card...

I don't know who makes this stuff up, but increasing your monitor refreshrate should, in fact, decrease your frame rate...

Your 3D Card renders it's frames, and sents the last one trough to your monitor when it receives the "I Showed Last Screen" command...

Your 3D Card does not stop rendering frames when your monitor refresh is lower than the possible FPS... It Interpolates the last 2 middle frames (by default).
NOTE: If you have VSynch one, your 3D Card does stop a while with rendering...
But this is not such a bad thing, because your eyes can only see arround 30FPS, (=60Hz Refesh Rate)...

So if you have VSynch Off (Highly recomanded), You don't need the refresh fix...

For more information, consult a good electronic/fysics book...

 

[UniSol]

This was with max 72 (default)Click Meh

 

[Zedric]

Originally posted by dijital
well i cant get any higher than 85 fps, because my monitor wont support it. thats the price i pay for the lcd monitor i have, nothing to mention the $600 it cost to buy it.

Turn off vsync? Besides even if you get higher it won't display higher than it's refresh rate. 85 is good for an LCD. Normal for a CRT.

 

[Gnu]

The human eye can actually only perceive around 45 INDIVIDUAL frames every second, and that's still a liberal figure. However, the extra visual information in-between is interpolated into the total image, giving us what we know as blur.

There's a big difference between what the human eye can see, and what it can see with definition. Whenever the whole FPS argument gets flogged to death, this is the bit that always gets left out and leaves me wringing my hands.

In other words ... no, framerates past 60 aren't so redundant -- for now. With real-time motion blur, 48 FPS would be more than enough to perceive true motion. You can't really put a label on "how fast the eye can see" when you bring persistence of vision into the picture (taking into account how fast objects are moving, the viewer's focal length, the radiosity of the objects, etc.) It's not exactly cut-and-dried.

 

[Rock]

exactly, if you compare a game running at 60fps then the same game running at 120fps+ there is a noticable difference in 'smoothness'

 

[Phreak This]

no way, bottom line. No matter what you say. I changed screen names lost my email address so my posts have gone down..just wanted to put that in there.

Back to the point, fps at 2500? Dont thinks so. I wish you the best in your world but really man, think about it..

 

[Taurus]

*/slays thread... puts it out of it's misery*

 

[DaUntouchable]

Interesting
I load de_aztec
and go in a corner and access the console.. and type 'timerefresh'
and my FPS is like 1000 or so, yet netgraph says 99.9 or 100 at all times.
This command used to be in Quake 2.. it'd make your person do a 360 degree turn as well then read out ur FPS.

 

[Taurus]

already covered... about 4 times, if you look...

thanks