Highest FPS?

Whats the highest FPS you've gotten in MC, ive gotten a good 800

300 guys what you say? loool

Does it even matter? For us life runs at around 60fps anyway

12-11-2016, 09:00 PM

Jebusfathead Wrote: Does it even matter? For us life runs at around 60fps anyway

Actually, many studies have proven that the mind can interpret somewhere between (depending on the individual) 220Hz-260Hz before not being able to distinguish anything higher at all. You might want to check your facts. These studies are very important to the future of games, as we need to be able to create a more immersive experience for virtual reality. Our eyes work a bit more on the digital side, mathematically and theoretically being able to observe the world in around 18000p (eighteen thousand progressive scale), whereas our mind works very similar to analog technology, but not quite.

12-11-2016, 09:05 PM

fdigl Wrote: Actually, many studies have proven that the mind can interpret somewhere between (depending on the individual) 220Hz-260Hz before not being able to distinguish anything higher at all. You might want to check your facts. These studies are very important to the future of games, as we need to be able to create a more immersive experience for virtual reality. Our eyes work a bit more on the digital side, mathematically and theoretically being able to observe the world in around 18000p (eighteen thousand progressive scale), whereas our mind works very similar to analog technology, but not quite.

"Eyes? No. Humans? Yes.

You'd be hard pressed to get 60fps out of the human eye.

Quote:In laboratory conditions, it takes around 150 ms for neurons in the visual system to begin to recognize and categorize a newly appearing visual input.

However, this little factoid is not the frame rate specification for human vision.

Quote:If real-world perception were to follow this same pattern, then for a considerable time after eachsaccadewe would still be perceiving the old retinal input, rather than the information currently on the retina. In fact, we should have to wait around 150 ms to see what is in front of our eyes after each saccade, by which time the oculomotor system has already begun to choose the next saccadic target.

That would suck.
Fortunately, the human eye is more than a camera* with fat pipe connection to the brain.

Quote:While holding a pen, for example, the sensory input is limited to the receptors of a few fingers, leaving the majority of the surface of the pen outside of our direct sensory range. Nonetheless, we perceive a complete object, not a pen with holes where our fingers do not touch. Similarly, our visual system actively perceives the world by pointing the fovea, the area of the retina where resolution is best, towards a single part of the scene at a time.

Human vision does not have properties like frame rate, latency, resolution, et al.

Quote:Visual constancy can also be viewed as a temporal phenomenon: objects appear to be continuously present over time. Yet the duration of external events are typically longer than that of a single sensory sample such as a fixation. Although movements of the eyes, head and body disrupt our steady access to these objects and events, the stream of consciousness continues smoothly across these sensory disruptions. This is an amazing feat, given that each saccadic eye movement creates a temporal disruption in the flow of information from the retina to higher perceptual areas. The motor smear on the retina during the saccade is suppressed, making us largely unaware of the retinal stimulation during this time period. In addition, each saccade requires the visual system to re-perceive the information from a new fixation.

Time is relative...

Quote:...perceived time seems to shift forward, towards the beginning of the new fixation, essentially compressing the time immediately before and during the saccadic eye movement. One possible interpretation is that space and time are inextricably linked in the brain, with the pattern of strange perceptual effects reported for stimuli flashed around the time of saccades reflecting a spatio-temporal transformation between fixations."

400 FPS is mine. Could be more if I would overclock my CPU but I don't want to

12-11-2016, 09:00 PM

Jebusfathead Wrote: Does it even matter? For us life runs at around 60fps anyway

I guess it doesnt Really matter but.. Still curious to see if anyone has gotten better than i did, and I dont even have that great of a pc.

---

12-11-2016, 09:05 PM

fdigl Wrote: Actually, many studies have proven that the mind can interpret somewhere between (depending on the individual) 220Hz-260Hz before not being able to distinguish anything higher at all. You might want to check your facts. These studies are very important to the future of games, as we need to be able to create a more immersive experience for virtual reality. Our eyes work a bit more on the digital side, mathematically and theoretically being able to observe the world in around 18000p (eighteen thousand progressive scale), whereas our mind works very similar to analog technology, but not quite.

Quite interesting actually.

You're both missing a key fact in your arguments anyway.... A monitor will only display a certain amount of "FPS" depending on it's refresh rate to begin with. If you have a monitor with a 60hz refresh rate and get 300FPS you absolutely will not see the effect of anything above 60fps anyway. Also I'm pretty sure that could cause screen tearing. That is why things like V-sync exist.

13-11-2016, 05:58 AM

Kayo Wrote: You're both missing a key fact in your arguments anyway.... A monitor will only display a certain amount of "FPS" depending on it's refresh rate to begin with. If you have a monitor with a 60hz refresh rate and get 300FPS you absolutely will not see the effect of anything above 60fps anyway. Also I'm pretty sure that could cause screen tearing. That is why things like V-sync exist.

Exactly. Plus, I'm pretty sure 144hz is the maximum we can reach before not distinguishing beyond that.

13-11-2016, 05:58 AM

Kayo Wrote: You're both missing a key fact in your arguments anyway.... A monitor will only display a certain amount of "FPS" depending on it's refresh rate to begin with. If you have a monitor with a 60hz refresh rate and get 300FPS you absolutely will not see the effect of anything above 60fps anyway. Also I'm pretty sure that could cause screen tearing. That is why things like V-sync exist.

Exactly. Plus, I'm pretty sure 144hz is the maximum we can reach before not distinguishing beyond that.

13-11-2016, 06:03 AM

Thes Wrote: Exactly. Plus, I'm pretty sure 144hz is the maximum we can reach before not distinguishing beyond that.

That and it also comes down to what your eyes are trained to distinguish. Pretty sure if you played on a 144hz monitor and got high enough FPS it would look just as smooth as what you physically see in other areas of life, non technology based that involve movement.