Slashdot Mirror

No, it is NOT needed. You should be doing this in JavaScript -- not in a (static) layout language.

Where will this bloat end? Adding a scripting language??? Because there will always be some "wouldn't it be nice to be able to do ...". We _already_ have requestAnimationFrame for smooth, jank free 120 Hz animation. To see if your browser supports 120 fps check use testufo.

An aspect that this report hasn't mentioned, perhaps as it's an unfortunate and unfair issue in some games, is sadly there can also be code issues at play as well. Many modern games have still suffered from damage dealt or game physics not being frame rate independent which can directly equate to player advantages, Quake 3 for example was well known for having the fastest movement and most useful jumping speed and height on 125 FPS, the issue was fixed many years ago in some mods and subsequently Quake Live by removing the physics system's dependency on frame rate.

A quick search on damage tied to fps brings up quite a few recent results, and I couldn't quickly find evidence that they had all been resolved -

Quake Champions : https://www.reddit.com/r/Quake... (Damage and movement FPS dependencies were fixed early in Early Access)
PUBG : https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/fra... (Quick search found no info on fixes)
Fortnite : https://www.eurogamer.net/arti... (Epic acknowledge the issue and state that they’re working toward a fix.)
Destiny 2 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Quick search found no info on fixes)
Warframe: https://forums.warframe.com/to... (Staff posted at the time a fix was being looked into)

Even including such bugs high FPS is not the be all and end all in a multiplayer shooting game as positioning, better weapons, collecting more health and armour are all strategic elements that usually claim the victory beyond simple aim and damage output. Higher frame rates certainly can aid locating your opponents position quickly and accurately in a high speed fire fight though and are certainly a much more pleasant visual experience, https://www.testufo.com/ can give you a quick example of that without having to leave your browser.

So why not just record the movies at 120 frames per second? Then there's nothing to interpolate

It's too fast at 120 FPS. Just drives up costs for no real benefit. You cannot see much more than about 50 FPS at reasonable distances.

This is baloney. Oft repeated baloney, but baloney nontheless. Human eyes can readily tell the difference between refresh rates up to at least 240 fps. We're not yet sure what the upper bound is, but lab tests suggest it may even be beyond 1000 fps. Try some of the tests here with a 144 or 240 Hz monitor and tell me you can't see the difference.

24 fps is utter garbage. I wish we could get away from it in film, every time I see a camera pan in a movie, it makes me want to vomit because it just looks awful.

The reason we started with 24 fps was due to technical limitations of the film format which haven't been an issue for at least 50 years. The reason we're still on 24 fps for film is due to people's completely misguided perception that smooth motion = cheap and choppy motion = expensive.

As the YouTube generation grows up watching 60 fps+ streams, perhaps we can finally get movies shot at 60 or 144 Hz. We may need to wait for a couple older generations to die off first though.

> Your eyes cannot resolve more than about 50fps anyway.

Bullshit.

And yes, you need a 120+ Hz monitor to see the difference.

> So no interest in 4k, 8k or any fps higher than 30.

Hope you are enjoying that shitty 12 fps in Dark Souls, because the rest of us sure aren't put up with those shenangins.

Just because _you_ can't tell the difference between 24 fps (which looks like shit) and 60 fps doesn't imply that no one else can either -- because we most certainly tell if there is micro-stuttering below 60 fps for even as little as on frame.

If you actually had a 120 Hz monitor you might even be able to visually visually see the difference between 30, 60, and 120 fps like some of us. You might even learn that VR looks like crap if runs at less then 90 Hz.

Fighting games have, thankfully, LONG been running at 60 FPS -- at least since the Soul Calibur 1 days on Dreamcast, in spite of people like you not knowing or not caring about the difference. Thankfully, Soul Calibur 6 is also running at 60 fps.

Just because you are blind to the differences between 30, 60, and 120 fps doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Gratuitous insult. I bet you one of your finger bones that you can't tell the difference between 60 and 120 Hz, and I stand by my buzzword comment. Ask me what I care about in an operating system, it is not the video refresh rate - that's not even part of the operating system for God's sake! Much akin to saying, the most important thing about a Tesla is the color.

I was an early adapter of 4K and my one monitor only does 30 Hz. It SUCKS compared to my other 120 Hz monitor. At least 4K in portrait mode makes for beautiful reading of PDFs.

Just because you are blind to the differences between 30, 60, and 120 fps doesn't mean the rest of us are.

But I guess it is easier to criticize something you don't know what the fuck you are talking aboutt then to admit your ignorance.

> Do video card upgrades even matter anymore?

Yes.

* VR requires 90 Hz minimum (Thank god!)
* 4K Gaming at 120 Hz requires beefy hardware.
* ENB mods

If you can't even tell the difference between 24 Hz and 60 Hz ....

OWE my eyes @ 24 fps !

Silky smooth @ 60 fps !

... let alone 120 Hz then obviously you don't need a high end GPU. Continue along with your crappy 30 Hz on consoles. The rest of us will be upgrading.

Even at 1080p, a $200 graphics card is very often not enough to get 60 FPS.
(And if you think 30 FPS is enough for video games, think again: http://testufo.com/#test=framerates).

Now, there are more and more 120 Hz monitors, and even a $1000 Titan isn't enough to max out the framerate at a 1920x1080 resolution.