A very silly quetion.
- Thread starter abhinit90
- Start date
Rage_3K_Moiz
Posts: 5,403 +43
AFAIK, the human eye cannot notice lag in motion after 60-70FPS. Anything above 70FPS such as 90FPS or 120FPS will look exactly the same.
Rage_3K_Moiz
Posts: 5,403 +43
No it wasn't silly at all to begin with. In fact, it was something most people don't think about when they go after the "sweet spot" of 100+ FPS or whatever it is.
T
tifc8lraz
That's why you don't have to buy the best video cards...you'll never see the difference :grinthumb ! This is when computer competition mixes with actual performance if you know what I mean 
; everyone want to beat everyone else's FPS !
; everyone want to beat everyone else's FPS !
Just thought I'd mention that the ear works faster than the eye, and will register a gap in audio far better than the eye will see a gap in video. Down to about 8-10 thousandths of a second. Although I think this has far more to do with the brain than with the organs themselves.
Phoenix
Phoenix
Not at all a silly question.
The receptors in the eye send signals to the brain instantaneously when light hits them, triggering chemical changes which the brain recognizes. It assembles all the random "pixels" into objects.
When you play a game, the "objects" are animated by the brain by interpolating between the objects' positions between frames. The more frames the game generates, the smoother the animations.
With time the brain can become more adept at this. i.e. if you're just starting to play graphic-intensive games then it may take thirty or forty FPS to satisfy the brain. I've been playing these types of games for about three years, and it has to get down to about fifteen before it interferes with my playing. Some veteran gamers can put up with ten (not that they won't get annoyed by how stupid it looks).
So basically, 24-30 FPS (the standard in both TV and computers) should be plenty for most games, and beyond 40 you can't really see any difference.
I hope this helped.
Oh, just another observation of my own:
If you start playing video games at a young age (first-person shooters and racing games in particular), you will be impervious to motion sickness for life!
The receptors in the eye send signals to the brain instantaneously when light hits them, triggering chemical changes which the brain recognizes. It assembles all the random "pixels" into objects.
When you play a game, the "objects" are animated by the brain by interpolating between the objects' positions between frames. The more frames the game generates, the smoother the animations.
With time the brain can become more adept at this. i.e. if you're just starting to play graphic-intensive games then it may take thirty or forty FPS to satisfy the brain. I've been playing these types of games for about three years, and it has to get down to about fifteen before it interferes with my playing. Some veteran gamers can put up with ten (not that they won't get annoyed by how stupid it looks).
So basically, 24-30 FPS (the standard in both TV and computers) should be plenty for most games, and beyond 40 you can't really see any difference.
I hope this helped.
Oh, just another observation of my own:
If you start playing video games at a young age (first-person shooters and racing games in particular), you will be impervious to motion sickness for life!
TimeParadoX
Posts: 2,222 +4
Envergure said:
Actually, I played Duke Nukem and Half-life 1 when I was 3 or 4 so I started playing games probably younger then most of these people ( That's why im so pro :haha: )
Also my eye sight and hearing is very good, There was a study that surgeons who play videogames atleast 3-4 hours every other day will actually have better reactions and have more steady hands then surgeons who never played a game in their life... Shows how much games are awesome
WinDoWsMoNoPoLy
Posts: 237 +0
I remember playing Castle Wolfenstien on MS-DOS. So guess i'm good on the motion sickness.
NetCablesPlus
Posts: 207 +1
Envergure said:
As a former road warrior who has had the misfortune to log 100,000 air miles in a single year, I still can get very sick during landings. And don't talk to me about boats or riding in the back seats of cars...of course, there were no video games when I was a kid...
There is a definite eye connection to motion sickness, by the way. When the brain receives signals from the eyes that nothing is moving and concurrently receives signals from the inner ear that motion is being sensed, the brain deduces that it must be sick to be receiving such conflicting data and, therefore, sends out a strong dose of nausea to let the body know about it. I have reduced and some times eliminated my susceptibility to motion sickness simply by shutting my eyes during landings to shut off that feedback to the brain.
Similar threads
