yeah please link me one of the papers that say people can distinguish in between 30 fps, 40 fps and 60 fps and therefore 60 being the 'necessary norm' for pc gaming. im waiting.
yeah please link me one of the papers that say people can distinguish in between 30 fps, 40 fps and 60 fps and therefore 60 being the 'necessary norm' for pc gaming. im waiting.
No need to use strong language and unbacked opinions. You are simply incorrect.
UNbacked opinions ?
link me ONE research that shows humans are able to perceive differences in between 30 fps and 60 fps. ONE research. except from a percentage of 'fps gamers' thinking that they can perceive 30 and 60 fps.
and then move on to explain why hdmi standard mandates 24 fps, and this has been the minimum requirement for 'smooth' since aeons in display related 'anything'.
no need to use strong language ? why yes there is. there is a percentage of people who think that their subjective 'feeling' precedes SCIENCE.
im waiting for the proper research to show that people are able to perceive 30 vs 60 fps, AND rebuke the hdmi specification.
Wrong. I'll agree that over 60 doesn't really matter but as a former game developer I can tell you there is a HUGE difference between 30 and 60.
yes. that should be why hdmi standard requires 24 fps as absolute minimum. because a game developer somewhere, and some percentage of gamers who equate the fps counter or the hardware in their machine with their egos, think they perceive differences in between 30 and 60 fps.
no, you dont. unless you genetically modified yourself. any argument otherwise is bullshit, until proper research is referenced.
because, there is at least ONE research that shows human physiology and senses are able to perceive differences in frame rates above 24 fps as smooth ?
no. the question is rhetorical. there isnt one single research that shows humans are able to perceive a difference in between 40 fps and 60 fps. its total bullshit.
hdmi specification requires 24 fps. not 60 fps. because, 24 fps is scientifically backed, whereas the only thing backing 'i can perceive 60 fps' is the self-propagated bullshit from gamers. nothing else.
. I feel that 25fps is just flat out unplayable and anything under 60 is distracting and annoying. I believe that most gamers would agree
and thats the problem. you FEEL that. all scientific researches show 'smooth' being 24 fps for human eye (hence hdmi minimum mandatory frame rate), and anything over 30 fps smooth even if you try to twinkle your eye by looking towards another direction than the display.
you FEEL it. its totally subjective, unscientific, unbacked opinion.
and its bullshit. excuse me but there is no other way of putting this, after thinking like you for close to a decade and trying to beef up my pc to meet the totally unnecessary frame rate counts, only to eventually notice that its a whole load of subjective bullcrap.
we, as people, do not notice differences from 30 fps and on, EVEN if we ourselves 'feel' that we do.
there is no difference in between 25 fps, or 30 fps or 40 fps to the human eye playing a game. other than the counter fraps shows. there wasnt any difference in between these with respect to human physiology and eye-brain connections either. we were still perceiving 24 fps as smooth, and anything over 30 fps as very smooth. thats why hdmi standard used to mandate 24 fps.
im on single radeon 6950 (unlocked to 6970 by bios flash), and i am doing 5040x1050 res (3 monitor eyefinity) on swtor (the old republic), all settings full, and with 30-40 fps on average, and 25 fps+ on coruscant (coruscant is waaaaaaay too big).
same for skyrim. i even have extra graphics mods on skyrim, fxaa injector etc (injected bloom into game) this that.
so, top gpu of the existing generation (before any idiot jumps in to talk about 6990 being the top offering from ati ill let you know that 6990 is 2 6970s in crossfire, and 6950 gpu is just 6970 gpu with 38 or so shaders locked down via bios and underclocked - ALL are the same chip), is not only able to play the newest graphics-heavy games in max settings BUT also do it on 3 monitor eyefinity resolution.
I forgot how many times did i utter the same sentence this month. and yet another. scandinavia again.
see the evils of socialist (social democrat in world political jargon) education and continued governance. (for the majority of last 80 years at least).
more innovation per resource and population than the totally 'innovative' capitalist u.s. where is the wealth the 1% hoarding ? apparently not into innovation. for, if it did, we would be colonizing mars by now with the resources and population america has. but instead, there are homeless in the streets and police beating down students.
the same whore who had railed against social benefits all her life, and then took healthcare and social security when she needed it in later years of her life.
Well deserved. Any organization that handles sensitive data, but puts even thermostats to internet as controllable online, deserve hacking.
Dont blame chinese. the hackers could as well be kiddies. Hell, it could as well be a random bot mistakenly and randomly gaining entry. Since the level of stupidity is as high as to put thermostats online as controllable from internet, go figure how did they treat rest of the network.
october, november are the months when the weather gets noticeably colder, then cold. and with this progression, not only people but all biosphere (animals, trees, insects) start preparing for winter. everyone gets their biorhythm reduced by the cold, people inevitably start shutting in, everyone turns introvert.
the secret here lies in the fact that it is a transition period - from autumn, to winter - once the process completes around december, and biology of the organisms are used to cold and comfortable in a rhythm, things look up.
taking care of unfortunate people should be 'voluntary' in freaking 21st century. opting in the capitalist system is not voluntary, but, fixing its ills, is. how ironic.
if you are living IN a society, you have obligations. if you want to live with the exquisitely complex and intricate philosophy of 'me me me, my my my, self self self, myself', then go live on a mountain top.
what provided you with the living standards that separates you from the caveman living in a cave, has been the society. and NO - it was not capitalism. technology and living standards have been developing all throughout history.
so either learn up, or shut the hell up. dont recite a mindset that was 'new' 200 years ago.
no you couldnt. it is very ignorant of you to think that you could just move to another manor/domain by 'making friends'. this is not teletubbies. there was medieval law. and a lord to rule over that law, who can decide things on his whim.
These days, the conditioned can feel like they had a choice in the matter. It's like choosing your master in order to celebrate your great freedom of choice.
So if a person is uneducated and frustrated and is failing to adapt to their environment, or find their place in society, then it's a good thing if they freak out and kill innocent people as they self destruct ?
the above arguments could be very well used to reject any kind of revolution against repression - problems ? then it means you are not able to adapt. problem solved.
A medieval man can run to the next country and start a new life
no. medieval manors (smallest feudal unit) were conservative societies which were closed to outside. everyone knew each other, everyone's families' histories were known, and even the person living in next village was an outsider. you couldnt just move into some place and settle. leave aside the legalese of getting a permission from the lord owning that land.
a medieval peasant would lose A LOT more than you, from his/her perspective. foremost being the piety, the standing in front of god's eyes. because the church have been conditioning people from birth to believing that lords held power in god's name, rebelling against the nobles had basically been made into a sin.
for a medieval peasant even to muster the will to break that conditioning was something major.
and, you dont know what came after repressed revolts - medieval torture. yes, not metaphorically, real medieval torture.
if you are fooled into believing that you have more belongings and comfort of life in contemporary world, hence more to lose - think again - you are getting LESS than available amount and level of technology and wealth available to your civilization at your time, than a medieval peasant got as share from his society at his time - his share was 33%, and your share is just 15%.
See ? Sounds brutal ? But that was how it was back in peasant revolts in middle ages - when a small minority enforced their rules and interests on overwhelming majority through organized repression through the system they established (political, economical) and usage of arms, there was no way out but that. And most of those uprisings are now considered revolutions that made our modern societal principles.
See, something similar is happening, yet noone is doing anything, but talk. the only difference in between middle ages and now is, back then people were not allowed to talk. Now, you can talk, but talk changes nothing.
does that mean, society is ok with getting repressed as long as they can talk against it, even if it doesnt provide any fruits ?
It seems modern man is much more obedient than medieval peasant. the irony....
If you let private parties control any activity in life, to any percentage, they basically control YOU. And no - there wont be any 'competition' - because in a dog eat dog world, you end up with one big fat dog. Or, a few of them - who will form a pack.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah please link me one of the papers that say people can distinguish in between 30 fps, 40 fps and 60 fps and therefore 60 being the 'necessary norm' for pc gaming. im waiting.
yeah please link me one of the papers that say people can distinguish in between 30 fps, 40 fps and 60 fps and therefore 60 being the 'necessary norm' for pc gaming. im waiting.
then bring here ONE research that 'people with different perception' can perceive difference in between 30 vs 60 fps. one is enough.
No need to use strong language and unbacked opinions. You are simply incorrect.
UNbacked opinions ?
link me ONE research that shows humans are able to perceive differences in between 30 fps and 60 fps. ONE research. except from a percentage of 'fps gamers' thinking that they can perceive 30 and 60 fps.
and then move on to explain why hdmi standard mandates 24 fps, and this has been the minimum requirement for 'smooth' since aeons in display related 'anything'.
no need to use strong language ? why yes there is. there is a percentage of people who think that their subjective 'feeling' precedes SCIENCE.
im waiting for the proper research to show that people are able to perceive 30 vs 60 fps, AND rebuke the hdmi specification.
Wrong. I'll agree that over 60 doesn't really matter but as a former game developer I can tell you there is a HUGE difference between 30 and 60.
yes. that should be why hdmi standard requires 24 fps as absolute minimum. because a game developer somewhere, and some percentage of gamers who equate the fps counter or the hardware in their machine with their egos, think they perceive differences in between 30 and 60 fps.
no, you dont. unless you genetically modified yourself. any argument otherwise is bullshit, until proper research is referenced.
because, there is at least ONE research that shows human physiology and senses are able to perceive differences in frame rates above 24 fps as smooth ?
no. the question is rhetorical. there isnt one single research that shows humans are able to perceive a difference in between 40 fps and 60 fps. its total bullshit.
hdmi specification requires 24 fps. not 60 fps. because, 24 fps is scientifically backed, whereas the only thing backing 'i can perceive 60 fps' is the self-propagated bullshit from gamers. nothing else.
. I feel that 25fps is just flat out unplayable and anything under 60 is distracting and annoying. I believe that most gamers would agree
and thats the problem. you FEEL that. all scientific researches show 'smooth' being 24 fps for human eye (hence hdmi minimum mandatory frame rate), and anything over 30 fps smooth even if you try to twinkle your eye by looking towards another direction than the display.
you FEEL it. its totally subjective, unscientific, unbacked opinion.
and its bullshit. excuse me but there is no other way of putting this, after thinking like you for close to a decade and trying to beef up my pc to meet the totally unnecessary frame rate counts, only to eventually notice that its a whole load of subjective bullcrap.
we, as people, do not notice differences from 30 fps and on, EVEN if we ourselves 'feel' that we do.
there is no difference in between 25 fps, or 30 fps or 40 fps to the human eye playing a game. other than the counter fraps shows. there wasnt any difference in between these with respect to human physiology and eye-brain connections either. we were still perceiving 24 fps as smooth, and anything over 30 fps as very smooth. thats why hdmi standard used to mandate 24 fps.
Due to console gaming retarding pcs.
im on single radeon 6950 (unlocked to 6970 by bios flash), and i am doing 5040x1050 res (3 monitor eyefinity) on swtor (the old republic), all settings full, and with 30-40 fps on average, and 25 fps+ on coruscant (coruscant is waaaaaaay too big).
same for skyrim. i even have extra graphics mods on skyrim, fxaa injector etc (injected bloom into game) this that.
so, top gpu of the existing generation (before any idiot jumps in to talk about 6990 being the top offering from ati ill let you know that 6990 is 2 6970s in crossfire, and 6950 gpu is just 6970 gpu with 38 or so shaders locked down via bios and underclocked - ALL are the same chip), is not only able to play the newest graphics-heavy games in max settings BUT also do it on 3 monitor eyefinity resolution.
one word. consoles. optional word : retarding.
I forgot how many times did i utter the same sentence this month. and yet another. scandinavia again.
see the evils of socialist (social democrat in world political jargon) education and continued governance. (for the majority of last 80 years at least).
more innovation per resource and population than the totally 'innovative' capitalist u.s. where is the wealth the 1% hoarding ? apparently not into innovation. for, if it did, we would be colonizing mars by now with the resources and population america has. but instead, there are homeless in the streets and police beating down students.
the same whore who had railed against social benefits all her life, and then took healthcare and social security when she needed it in later years of her life.
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/
the search 'engine' that ranks sites according to what internet explorer users click on OTHER search engine's search results - like google.
Well deserved. Any organization that handles sensitive data, but puts even thermostats to internet as controllable online, deserve hacking.
Dont blame chinese. the hackers could as well be kiddies. Hell, it could as well be a random bot mistakenly and randomly gaining entry. Since the level of stupidity is as high as to put thermostats online as controllable from internet, go figure how did they treat rest of the network.
october, november are the months when the weather gets noticeably colder, then cold. and with this progression, not only people but all biosphere (animals, trees, insects) start preparing for winter. everyone gets their biorhythm reduced by the cold, people inevitably start shutting in, everyone turns introvert.
the secret here lies in the fact that it is a transition period - from autumn, to winter - once the process completes around december, and biology of the organisms are used to cold and comfortable in a rhythm, things look up.
taking care of unfortunate people should be 'voluntary' in freaking 21st century. opting in the capitalist system is not voluntary, but, fixing its ills, is. how ironic.
if you are living IN a society, you have obligations. if you want to live with the exquisitely complex and intricate philosophy of 'me me me, my my my, self self self, myself', then go live on a mountain top.
what provided you with the living standards that separates you from the caveman living in a cave, has been the society. and NO - it was not capitalism. technology and living standards have been developing all throughout history.
so either learn up, or shut the hell up. dont recite a mindset that was 'new' 200 years ago.
And, what's more, there are pieces of shit who advocate even canceling what little we give to the unfortunate.
figures why the world is STILL deep in shit in godfrigging 21st century.
no you couldnt. it is very ignorant of you to think that you could just move to another manor/domain by 'making friends'. this is not teletubbies. there was medieval law. and a lord to rule over that law, who can decide things on his whim.
These days, the conditioned can feel like they had a choice in the matter. It's like choosing your master in order to celebrate your great freedom of choice.
quite accurate.
So if a person is uneducated and frustrated and is failing to adapt to their environment, or find their place in society, then it's a good thing if they freak out and kill innocent people as they self destruct ?
the above arguments could be very well used to reject any kind of revolution against repression - problems ? then it means you are not able to adapt. problem solved.
A medieval man can run to the next country and start a new life
no. medieval manors (smallest feudal unit) were conservative societies which were closed to outside. everyone knew each other, everyone's families' histories were known, and even the person living in next village was an outsider. you couldnt just move into some place and settle. leave aside the legalese of getting a permission from the lord owning that land.
you are grossly ignorant of this.
a medieval peasant would lose A LOT more than you, from his/her perspective. foremost being the piety, the standing in front of god's eyes. because the church have been conditioning people from birth to believing that lords held power in god's name, rebelling against the nobles had basically been made into a sin.
for a medieval peasant even to muster the will to break that conditioning was something major.
and, you dont know what came after repressed revolts - medieval torture. yes, not metaphorically, real medieval torture.
if you are fooled into believing that you have more belongings and comfort of life in contemporary world, hence more to lose - think again - you are getting LESS than available amount and level of technology and wealth available to your civilization at your time, than a medieval peasant got as share from his society at his time - his share was 33%, and your share is just 15%.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
See ? Sounds brutal ? But that was how it was back in peasant revolts in middle ages - when a small minority enforced their rules and interests on overwhelming majority through organized repression through the system they established (political, economical) and usage of arms, there was no way out but that. And most of those uprisings are now considered revolutions that made our modern societal principles.
....
See, something similar is happening, yet noone is doing anything, but talk. the only difference in between middle ages and now is, back then people were not allowed to talk. Now, you can talk, but talk changes nothing.
does that mean, society is ok with getting repressed as long as they can talk against it, even if it doesnt provide any fruits ?
It seems modern man is much more obedient than medieval peasant. the irony
note that region's revolutionary history goes way before than that. Hussite revolution in early renaissance for example.
includes them. back in history there wasnt a clear distinction as such in the region politically.
If you let private parties control any activity in life, to any percentage, they basically control YOU. And no - there wont be any 'competition' - because in a dog eat dog world, you end up with one big fat dog. Or, a few of them - who will form a pack.