Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Final Fantasy At 2.5FPS

Posted by timothy on from the that's-a-lot-of-pixels dept.

Rikardon writes: "Adding a little fuel to the ATi-vs-NVIDIA fire started earlier today on Slashdot, NVIDIA and Square are showing a demo at SIGGRAPH of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within being rendered in 'real time' (four-tenths of a second per frame) on a Quadro-based workstation. Now that I think of it, this should also inject new life into this debate." Defender2000 points to the Yahoo article. Update: 08/14 09:30 PM by T : Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't .4 seconds per frame. Sorry.

25 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Still didn't get it right by Zaknafein500 · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Well, they fixed the headline, but the update says:
    • Update: 08/14 08:39 PM by T:Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't 4FPS. Oops.
    Shouldn't that read ".4FPS doesn't equal 4/10 a second per frame"?
    --

    "The guide is definitive, reality is frequently inaccurate."
  2. ?? .4FPS by JiffyPop · · Score: 0, Redundant

    From the text it seems that you meant 2.5 FPS (or possibly .4spf? although who would want a sunscreen like that?)

  3. All right! 14 redundant posts! Keep it up! by infinite9 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    14 people chimed in to say that FPS != SPF. Where are the moderators when you need them?

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  4. Re:Well then by JabberWokky · · Score: 1, Redundant
    it should be 0.4 SPF, not FPS.

    Which is it? A frame roughly every two seconds (.4 FPS) or roughly two frames each second (.4 SPF)?

    --
    Evan

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  5. Re:Do the math... by Wavicle · · Score: 0, Redundant
    sweet fucking christ, where the hell did you go to school?

    1 frame
    ----------- = 2.5fps
    .4 seconds

    or if we're using something closer to your math...

    2 frames taking 8/10 of a second, with 2/10 left over.

    Each frame takes 4/10 sec to render. 2/10 = x * 4/10. x = 1/2

    2 1/2 = 2.5fps

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  6. You're STILL wrong! by mewsenews · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't .4FPS. Oops." Actually, .4 frames per second IS .4FPS (FPS stands for Frames Per Second, heh) I think what you might have meant is that .4 seconds per frame isn't .4FPS.. Isn't this supposed to be a geek site?

  7. Update: 08/14 08:39 PM by T: by snake_dad · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't 4FPS.

    No it isn't. But it is .4FPS!
    Are you drinking, Timothy? :)

    Disclaimer: I am... (drinking :-))

    --
    karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  8. oops is right! by infinite9 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Update: 08/14 08:39 PM by T:Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't .4FPS. Oops.

    Uh, .4 frames per second IS .4FPS. I think you mean that .4 seconds per frame isn't .4 frames per second.

    This isn't that hard guys.

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  9. Your update is wrong, T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    > Update: 08/14 08:39 PM by T:Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed
    > out, .4 frame per second isn't .4FPS. Oops.

    YES IT IS! .4 frames per second IS .4 FPS. What you meant was 0.4 seconds per FRAME is not 0.4 FPS.

  10. Well then by VFVTHUNTER · · Score: 1, Redundant
    it should be 0.4 SPF, not FPS.

    And all this time the doctors told me an SPF of at least 15 was the best ;)

    1. Re:Well then by balls001 · · Score: 0, Redundant
      jesus h christ, can nobody do any math?

      four-tenths of a second per frame

      that comes up to what, 2 1/5 frames per second. when the fuck did that become good? it's certainly not real-time.

  11. Re:.4 FPS? by smnolde · · Score: 0, Redundant
    .4 FPS != 4/10 second per frame.

    It's crap like this why the US population can't handle the SI unit system, not to mention their own gringo unit system.

    This is the same reason why hot dogs are sold in packages of twelve and buns in packages of eight.

  12. Re:.4 FPS? by catch23 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    2.5 FPS == 4/10 of a second per frame

  13. Re:Do the math... by balls001 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    sweet fucking christ where the hell did you go to school?

    4/10 of a second per frame
    that means you can fit 2 frames in a second
    2*4 = 8
    so 2 frames taking 8/10 of a second, with 2/10 left over

    2 2/10 = 2.2fps

  14. .4SPF by BIGJIMSLATE · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Shouldn't it be .4 seconds per frame instead of 2.5 frames per second?

    Besides, any "realtime" demo can't show off all the hard work involving texturing and lighting that animators put into it. "Pixar quality animation" isn't what it is because of computers. Its due to the people who are using the computers.

  15. Re:Do the math... by infinite9 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    .4FPS is NOT the same as "Four-tenths of a second per frame"

    That's a lot like my GNC suburban 4x4. Sometimes I think it gets gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon.

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  16. His error correction has an error!!! by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1, Redundant
    ".4 frame per second isn't 4FPS" What the heck does that mean? Where did 4FPS come from? I guess he meant 0.4FPS? Because even THAT is wrong. Should read: ".4 seconds per frame isn't .4FPS"

    Great, just great. I don't normally nitpick article goofs like this, but this is just shamefully amateurish and unprofessional.

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  17. Re:.4FPS IS NOT 4/10s of a second per frame!! by tosderg · · Score: 2, Redundant

    "4/10s of a frame per second means you can do just over 2 frames per second."

    Wouldn't it be 4/10s of a second per frame means you can do just over 2 frames per second?

  18. Re:.4 FPS? by mybecq · · Score: 0, Redundant
    When isn't the 'Update' even correct?
    Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't .4FPS. Oops
    Oops again: .4 frames per second is .4 FPS.
    However, it is not .4 seconds per frame.
  19. It's amazing... by 11223 · · Score: 1, Redundant
    In a situation like this, to see the comments which either (1) bash the submitter's poor math (.4 SPF != .4 FPS), e.g. read the article, or (2) just post something about "how slow .4 fps is", indicating that they didn't read the article at all.

    A most intriguing study of slashdot responders.

  20. Do the math by KrisJon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    0.4 Seconds Per Frame means 2.5 Frames Per Second (FPS)

  21. Still wrong! by skroz · · Score: 0, Redundant
    "Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't .4FPS. Oops."


    .4 frame per second is .4 FPS. It's a frame every .4 seconds that isn't .4 FPS. Your correction is correct, but your explanation of the correction isn't.

    Moron.

    --
    -- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
  22. .4FPS IS NOT 4/10s of a second per frame!! by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Jesus! We do math good at slashdot.

    4/10s of a frame per second means you can do just over 2 frames per second.

    God damn. People go to college and come out knowing this much about math?

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  23. Title Is Wrong by citizenc · · Score: 1, Redundant
    It is not rendering the frames at .4 FPS:
    The Quadro-based workstation renders a single frame in four-tenths of a second, allowing for an interactive, real-time CG scene. For comparison, a single frame from the original movie took over 90 minutes to render.
    Sheesh. Read the news posts before making up headlines!
  24. .4 FPS? by JesseL · · Score: 2, Redundant

    .4 FPS != 4/10 second per frame.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"