PDA

View Full Version : Can you see the difference between 30fps vs 60fps on racing games?



Jeremy Clarkson
10-05-2015, 22:51
Lets see how many of you can tell the difference, I know for sure I can tell the difference. Someone is trying to tell me there is no difference..... Clearly a console peasant.....

dustyjo
10-05-2015, 22:56
http://30vs60.com

TMoney
10-05-2015, 22:57
Of course you can. I can easily tell the difference just watching any random youtube video. Instantly I think, yup this is a 60fps video. And I'm right every time. :)

ukfan758
10-05-2015, 23:11
Yes you can, 60fps looks like a live television broadcast while 30fps looks more like a movie or a tv show.

DayGlow
10-05-2015, 23:17
I can tell the difference, but do I really care if someone else enjoys 30fps? Not really. For my own gameplay I find anything above 40fps is enough for really smooth gameplay.

Malkiv
10-05-2015, 23:25
I can definitely tell when FPS drops below my refresh rate - I try to achieve 60 FPS minimum, even if it means I have to sacrifice graphical fidelity.

Jeremy Clarkson
10-05-2015, 23:30
This isnt a matter of someone else liking 30fps. The reason I've asked you lot is because someone on this forum was trying to tell me I shouldn't worry about my GPUs under performing because the human eye cant see past 30fps. How wrong is he......

Jeremy Clarkson
10-05-2015, 23:31
@malkiv, Exactly! And you want your GPUs to perform to their full potential to maintain a consistent frame rate above 60

TMoney
10-05-2015, 23:35
This isnt a matter of someone else liking 30fps. The reason I've asked you lot is because someone on this forum was trying to tell me I shouldn't worry about my GPUs under performing because the human eye cant see past 30fps. How wrong is he......

That seems to be what people think but it's crazyness. It's fine though, let him enjoy his games at 30 and we'll enjoy those same games even more at 60. :)

Don't you think there's a reason why SMS strived to achieve 60 on consoles compared to Driveclub for example which is locked at 30. If there was no difference why would they have?

Doctor Doom
10-05-2015, 23:48
If the optimization is really good, you cannot tell the difference. Project Cars is one of the first games in quite some time without missing frames or jitter.

Joethe147
11-05-2015, 00:31
I don't notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps at all.

PowderGuy
11-05-2015, 00:34
Hong Kong TV show and drama are 50 fps, only movie or western TV program are 30 fps lower, So 30 or 60 are real deal to me.... (I don't like 30, like Gif.....)

TMoney
11-05-2015, 00:36
It's been said if you can't notice the difference your brain operates at a lower frequency and is just slower overall.










kidding!

DoodlesSWE
11-05-2015, 02:33
It's a huge difference between 30 and 60 fps. i feel like i am watching a slide show at 30.

Aldo Zampatti
11-05-2015, 02:58
It's been said if you can't notice the difference your brain operates at a lower frequency and is just slower overall.


kidding!

Actually (I can barely read your"kidding":P) you were not that off, but the EYES NERVES are slower :)

I.e.: My wife can not see the difference between synced 30 and 60 fps.

I can not see 120vs 144, but I do see difference between 60 vs 120 (obviously on panels that support those refresh rates),

Some militars traint to identify an airplane in a 220hz image (just one frame that lasts 1/200 secs on screen)
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe/how_many_frames_per_second_can_the_eye_see/

So basically, depends on each other's eyes and brains perception.

TMoney
11-05-2015, 03:04
Interesting. Just eye nerves or I wonder if it effects other motor skills like reactions and stuff. Pretty crazy when you start thinking into it. Wonder if pro race drivers can tell apart smaller differences. Like 60/75.

If you can differentiate between 30 and 60, consider it a gift. Since apparently not everyone can. :)

Aldo Zampatti
11-05-2015, 03:07
Interesting. Just eye nerves or I wonder if it effects other motor skills like reactions and stuff. Pretty crazy when you start thinking into it. Wonder if pro race drivers can tell apart smaller differences. Like 60/75.

Batak it's all about reflex, eye nerves and reaction times. Probably F1 Pro drivers are really sensitive to refresh rate

BazzaLB
11-05-2015, 03:12
The gap between each frame is a far more important consideration. 30fps with even timing gap between each frame will look relatively smoother than 60fps that has wide ranging and inconsistent timing gaps between frames. Inconsistent timings is what results in jerky/stuttery impression.

yusupov
11-05-2015, 03:13
honestly cant tell the difference on that 30v60 site :D

ive never much been bothered by 30 fps if its stable so im not too surprised. but as that site says, watching it is one thing, its when youre interacting that it actually matters, & in that case yeah i can more often than not tell 30 from 60. and playing at a consistent 24 FPS is...not fun. but movies look perfectly fine. but for some reason 30 works pretty well, for most people, in most types of games. but an FPS you want 60; simracing, you want 60.

TMoney
11-05-2015, 03:19
Well maybe we just found a way to see if one has the abilities needed to pursue a racing career!

"Son, look at this screen. Is it 30, 60, 90, or 120 FPS? Sorry kid, you're not cut out for the job." ;)

yusupov
11-05-2015, 03:19
lol have no idea how that translates into real-world anything

yusupov
11-05-2015, 03:20
also from what ive noticed the 60fps sensitive ppl are always the ones complaining about motion sickness, the whole thing about fighter pilots (and f1 drivers????) is a myth

BazzaLB
11-05-2015, 03:21
Well maybe we just found a way to see if one has the abilities needed to pursue a racing career!

"Son, look at this screen. Is it 30, 60, 90, or 120 FPS?

"All I see is vast amounts of money"

"son, A career in F1 it is then" :D

TMoney
11-05-2015, 03:22
also from what ive noticed the 60fps sensitive ppl are always the ones complaining about motion sickness, the whole thing about fighter pilots (and f1 drivers????) is a myth

Not true! I never get motion sickness (unless I drink too much :)), although I've never tried a rift.

Hellbringer
11-05-2015, 03:23
With V-Sync disabled, I cannot tell the difference between 60fps and 8000fps.

But 30fps to 60fps yes there is that difference. It's noticeable on pretty much every 3D game. 60fps just is a lot smoother whereas 30 seems jerky. Most noticeable when turning, if that makes sense.

yusupov
11-05-2015, 03:24
well is it on a monitor with a refresh rate higher than 60hz? if not there is no diff b/w 60 & 8000 :)

TMoney
11-05-2015, 03:25
I can tell the difference between 60 and 61. With vsync on it always looks smoother.

Hellbringer
11-05-2015, 03:28
well is it on a monitor with a refresh rate higher than 60hz? if not there is no diff b/w 60 & 8000 :)

That's probably why then. I'm going to assume it's a 60hz refresh rate, being a 3 years old TV

optik
11-05-2015, 08:19
http://30vs60.com

shooter vs race sim jeremy is a lowbird with sli system powerwaste noob.

Ripgroove
11-05-2015, 08:37
I can 100% tell the difference when my system drops below my monitors refresh rate (60Hz/60FPS) both on fast first person shooters and racing games.

optik
11-05-2015, 08:41
I can 100% tell the difference when my system drops below my monitors refresh rate (60Hz/60FPS) both on fast first person shooters and racing games.


is the key!!!!

Aldo Zampatti
11-05-2015, 12:41
shooter vs race sim jeremy is a lowbird with sli system powerwaste noob.

That, to me, sounded like an insult. Please avoid making such comments

Vilonosec
11-05-2015, 12:49
I can see difference, but i don't care about it. I played Last of us on PS3 with 30 fps and it was fine.
Then i got it on PS4 and it was 60 fps or 30 fps with better graphics. I chose 30 fps.
In PCARS i got around 30-40 fps all the time and it's perfectly fine. Lower then 25 feels slow and jerky, 30+ is always fine for me.

bpbill
11-05-2015, 12:56
If one can't see a difference between 30 and 60fps there's something wrong with his eyes or brain.

I can't see the difference. However I do have sight problems so hey ho :)

Jeremy Clarkson
11-05-2015, 16:02
shooter vs race sim jeremy is a lowbird with sli system powerwaste noob.


If there is no difference between 30 and 60 fps, then why an earth did Youtube add a 60fps feature to their platform? Why do people upload videos of Project Cars at 60fps? Because it looks better..... and feels even better in game!

yusupov
11-05-2015, 16:04
I can't see the difference. However I do have sight problems so hey ho :)

well youve got an excuse then, im 20/20 :D

Ian Bell
11-05-2015, 16:19
I agree with Jeremy. Not only on the science.

yusupov
11-05-2015, 16:28
idk...he didnt need to punch that guy.

Eric Bergeret
11-05-2015, 16:28
If there is no difference between 30 and 60 fps, then why an earth did Youtube add a 60fps feature to their platform? Why do people upload videos of Project Cars at 60fps? Because it looks better..... and feels even better in game!

because so many people love to pay for placebo;)

"for me 30 fps or 60 fps affect your ffb, but well on my rig 35fps or 60fps i don't see any difference on visual or refresh time, for the moment the only thing who i THINK have some effect whit low fps and lag is the FFb.
before you ask, yes i have a good vievw, perfect to be exact.

"35fps when im ussing the triple screen"

Ian Bell
11-05-2015, 16:58
idk...he didnt need to punch that guy.

Well the guys was Irish, clearly asking for it.

SlickReed
11-05-2015, 17:00
The difference between 30 and 60 is very noticeably in of course movement and responsiveness of the driving experience. Now the jump from 60 to 120 fps is even better :)

Bobbydakid
11-05-2015, 19:04
I think there's a big difference between 30fps and 60fps especially in a racing sim. Just watch side by side comparisons on YouTube. I'd take 60fps and slightly lower graphics over 30fps and better graphics in a racing sim any day.

Francorchamps
11-05-2015, 19:13
This isnt a matter of someone else liking 30fps. The reason I've asked you lot is because someone on this forum was trying to tell me I shouldn't worry about my GPUs under performing because the human eye cant see past 30fps. How wrong is he......

I thought I could not see the difference. I watched a video in 30 fps and after that one in 60 fps and I did not notice any difference. Then I saw a comparison video with the two frame rates side by side and I immediately saw the difference. I guess you friend does not know where to look to spot the difference. Side by side video's immediately show you were to look.

adi518
11-05-2015, 19:22
The difference is not even questionable since it's so obvious.

e15f
11-05-2015, 19:29
I think there's a big difference between 30fps and 60fps especially in a racing sim. Just watch side by side comparisons on YouTube. I'd take 60fps and slightly lower graphics over 30fps and better graphics in a racing sim any day.

100%, frame rate is king when it comes to racing games. How anyone can stomach a 30fps racing game is beyond me, that site someone posted earlier in the thread comparing the two brings it home to non believers surely, the F1 example is night and day.

Skeme_DBT
13-05-2015, 22:38
I'm a 'console peasant', and I can tell the difference...mostly.

Mr Akina
13-05-2015, 22:41
As an Xbone racer... What's 60fps?

Mulder89
14-05-2015, 10:47
I can tell the difference up to about 100 fps even with my eyes but high fps isn't about vision. Its about getting the lowest input lag you can possibly get to maximize the control of your car.
If you're playing casually..it may not matter to you. If you want to achieve the fastest lap you can, you don't want the slightest bottleneck.
IMO 120hz and rock soild 120 fps is where you're golden, no need more. If you can..don't settle with less!

djdavedoc
14-05-2015, 11:21
For me its VERY easy to see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. For example I produce YouTube content and my phone can now do 1080p @ 60FPS video recording. It could do 120fps as well for ultra smoothness. Now if I compare this to my older videos where I could only do 1080P 30fps.... I can see a difference in the smoothness of the movement in the shot along with the speed. Things do look a bit faster as well.

With video games I find it even EASIER to tell the difference.

Ripgroove
14-05-2015, 11:30
Golden is matching your fps to your refresh rate, it's as simple as that. If you are doing that then you are getting the smoothest gameplay your monitor will provide. Adding more fps than your particular monitor can refresh at will not make it smoother.

rauf0
14-05-2015, 13:19
Try to open bench in fresh browser, better in Chrome.
http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png&pps=960&pursuit=0&height=0

On 144Hz i can read all street names, no way to do that on 60Hz.

Second:
http://www.30vs60.com/dirt3.php

I would say difference between 30 and 60 is quite noticeable?
Jump on 120/144 is even more more obvious.

Theres no such thing like racing in 30 fps. 60 is a must. Hope soon we will see fast monitors with g-sync/free sync in reasonable price level.

David McKenna
14-05-2015, 14:08
I can't tell..therefore I would have been happier that a target of 30 was fixed rather than being variable with a little tearing. Either way I still give it a 10 !

ex_
14-05-2015, 14:54
I believe it's more of a matter of, Once you see it and notice it, you always notice it. Until then, you don't give a _____. Like hi-fi audio. Once you know how good audio can sound and learn to appreciate it, then everything else sucks. Similar with FPS in games. Now that I know what smooth is from some modern games, I cannot watch netflix without wincing in pain from how the frames stutter during motion etc.

The more motion a game has, the more 60fps matters. Sure, you can run some at lower than that, but it is diminishing the sense of immersion considerably.

My friend clains that his 40fps in GTA V at max settings is tolerable to him, but I cannot deal with less than a solid 60, and have some settings turned down to compensate for that.

This is also a reason why I've been mentioning in every thread that seems relevant - that people should be turning down their resolution to somethinmg less than 1080 (if not already) before going to fewer FPS (if below 60).

pCARS still looks very smooth at 1360x768, for instance.

wraithsrike
14-05-2015, 15:39
Lets see how many of you can tell the difference, I know for sure I can tell the difference. Someone is trying to tell me there is no difference..... Clearly a console peasant.....

A console peasant?

Aldo Zampatti
14-05-2015, 17:16
Remember guys that also depends on the panel refresh rate.. When looking this 30vs60 vids on my laptop (48hz refresh rate), they look *almost the same* (I can tell the difference though). But on my desktop panel with 75hz/60hz, that's another story.

menaceuk
14-05-2015, 17:18
With fast paced games such as racing games I can, and I think it is important to have 60FPS, especially in Sim based racers. In slower games like RPGs I rarely notice or even care.

Ripgroove
14-05-2015, 17:36
Remember guys that also depends on the panel refresh rate.. When looking this 30vs60 vids on my laptop (48hz refresh rate), they look *almost the same* (I can tell the difference though). But on my desktop panel with 75hz/60hz, that's another story.

I have tried to mention this in this thread already.

Yugo45
15-05-2015, 20:59
I cant tell but thnt again I played Arma 3 on lowest settings on my PC because that was the only way the game would work and I had fun playing it, I play project Cars on PS4 and I am glad they have 60fps but really cannot tell the difference between 30 fps or 60 fps when I am trying to get best lap times and driving fast around a track.

Equation
15-05-2015, 21:42
Can I see difference? Yes.
Can I feel it that I can drive better with 60 fps? I don't know.
Can I enjoy 60 fps? Yes. Absolutely.

TheStigsCanadianCousin
20-05-2015, 20:32
The human brain perceives smooth motion at about 24fps, but that does not mean the eye is limited to that. The eye doesn't have a shutter so really you can't say that the eye sees 60fps or even 10 000fps, because it's not like there's a shutter closing and opening..the light is constantly flowing through. It's generally thought that if something happens faster than about 200fps that it will go unnoticed, unless you're really paying attention... Someone may not be able to tell the difference between two colours, white and off-white, but there is a difference.. Much like that, some people may see the difference between 30fps and 60fps..Both people are seeing 60fps, but the person who "doesn't see the difference" is just untrained.. Much like some people don't hear the difference between a 128kbps audio files and a 320kpbs audio file.

Danny Wilde
14-10-2015, 14:03
15 FPS vs. 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS (http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html)
http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

artao
14-10-2015, 18:07
For me, I really only notice notice the difference with live video. There it is quite obvious, and frankly I prefer 30fps there.
In video games, 60fps just looks a bit more "solid" to me. Meh, don't care. ... I often get into the mid-20's fps, and that's just fine to me.
Honestly, I find it humorous when people complain about getting less than 60fps. I've argued about this with flight-simmers as well. ... Personally, I think there's a good deal of "it's better because it's better" going on .. but hey! I'm not gonna criticize anyone for preferring 60fps.
BUT!! Calling 30fps a "slideshow" as some people do .. that's utterly laughable.
I've studied animation for several years. The human eye begins to see smooth motion at 15fps. Film is most often 24fps. Are you seeing a "slideshow" when you go watch a movie in a theater? Hardly.
To me, the only really good reason to seek higher framerates is to compensate for moments when the framerate gets bogged down.
<shrug>
I just find it a bit humorous. Especially when people get so uptight about it. I've seen people compain that they can't play a game at all if they're "only" getting 30fps. Laughable. But hey, whatever .. to each their own I guess. :cat:

EDIT: let me add tho that it does make sense to me that optimum fps matches the refresh rate of the monitor. sure. why not :)

MAARTEN
14-10-2015, 18:20
Cool video to show the difference.

It's a huge difference in gaming between 30 and 60 fps. I prefer even more than 60 fps. My experience is that the sweet spot in fast games like Project CARS is ≈ 100 fps. But then you need a monitor that's capable of showing that many frames per second.
In fast games with much side-movements i think with higher fps you can avoid motion sickness and you don't get tired eyes.

Cuba
14-10-2015, 18:22
If NVidia updates a driver or something, my settings default to single GPU (No SLI). I can immediately tell even before looking down at the FPS counter. No SLI 30 FPS and looks/plays bad to me; unhappy. In SLI, 60 FPS solid in 4k. Happy!

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
14-10-2015, 19:01
This isnt a matter of someone else liking 30fps. The reason I've asked you lot is because someone on this forum was trying to tell me I shouldn't worry about my GPUs under performing because the human eye cant see past 30fps. How wrong is he......How sensitive one is depends on the person in question, but humans can notice changes way beyond even 120 fps, some studies done on fighter pilots would suggest that humans are capable of seeing some details up to 250 fps or so. But you have to keep in mind that humans don't see in individual, separate frames. There is no FPS figure to the human visual system. We do need some minimum level of frames per second to interpret the images as motion instead of just individual images, but that's very different from saying that "humans are only capable of seeing such and such fps". And what the minimum level is depends heavily on other things as well. For example the "normal" fps of movies for the longest time was 24 fps. This can look pretty good and even somewhat smooth, but that's helped insanely by how much natural motion blur the long exposure of 24 fps filming causes. If a game was running at 24 fps, and there was no extra motion blur effect applied to the graphics (as there normally isn't), every image would be sharp and the result would be a very stuttery mess.

And like I said, how sensitive people are differs. Some people seem to honestly not notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps, and others can easily see the difference between 90 and 120 fps. When LCD's became the norm I felt like the smoothness of games took a step backwards, because I went from a 90 Hz CRT to a 60 Hz LCD (and a small increase in input lag). After years I've sort of gotten used to 60 Hz to the extent that it doesn't really bother me anymore, but every time I try either an old higher refresh rate CRT or a modern 120/144 Hz monitor I instantly see the difference and am reminded of how 60 Hz still looks a bit choppy to me when no motion blur is there (which is actually why I prefer running motion blur in games, it helps fake out my brain into thinking the image is smoother than it is).

So no skin off my back what people enjoy, frankly I'm more bothered by people not noticing 100 ms of input lag when I get bothered by an extra 10-20 ms at times, but that's mostly because I envy them. If I was like that I wouldn't have to spend years studying what HDTVs and monitors are worth buying, it'd make things so much simpler. =)

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
14-10-2015, 19:09
Also for a nifty demonstration on how much motion blur affects the smoothness of video, you can watch Saving Private Ryan.

Those of you who have seen the movie: Remember those few bits, for example on the beach, where the world goes all tick tock, staccato, a bit stuttery? Many people think they lowered the frame rate for those shots, but no, they still shot with the same 24 fps as the rest of the film. The way they got that look was by halving the exposure time, which halved the amount of motion blur. So watching those scenes from Saving Private Ryan you can see the effect of what halved motion blur does to 24 fps film, a very noticeable and pronounced stuttering staccato effect. Now imagine that it's a game and there's NO motion blur at all. =)

GoKimiGo
14-10-2015, 20:24
I'm in the can see camp. Being locked down to 60fps kills me, I couldn't imagine gaming at 30. Driveclub is a total slideshow to me.

Azure Flare
15-10-2015, 01:26
I once read a study that concluded that humans can in fact see above 30 FPS. It was also found that eye strain can occur below 46 FPS, and I think it also said that we can see up to 87 FPS.

Flihp
15-10-2015, 02:55
My personal fps can't perform high in the morning due to my refresh rate, struggle to get 30fps at best, but, after a coffee or two, my refresh rate is alive and I can easily reach 120fps until mid to late afternoon. If I have a drink in the evening, well the refresh rate just goes down the drain and fps are shocking and at times rather confusing. :p

But seriously fps is noticeable, I remember back in the late 90's early 2000's doing everything we could to get over 125fps in quake 3 because it was so much better and smoother than 60 and also something happened at 125 with the physics that allowed you to jump certain ledge and do trick jumps that wasn't capable at different fps.

Knightfall
15-10-2015, 03:05
http://30vs60.com

Great site... never seen that before.

That's about as clear as it gets right there...

Charger
15-10-2015, 03:10
I find it more at 120 fps in games like COD that your eyes can input the info faster but it's all down to how you react to it!

A movie at 60fps or 30fps would look slightly different but I can't do anything about it, where as a game if it's faster to my eye then I can react quicker and it is more fluid to my brain function but you also have to allow for the brain to impact the fingers which could be classed as input lag, if your eye and brain can only process reactions at a certain fps then the input will be slower to the hand, if your brain is locked at 30 fps then anything higher is a waste.

madmax2069
15-10-2015, 04:31
I can easily tell the difference between 30 and 60. Its a night and day difference.

Ixoye56
15-10-2015, 08:46
My old eyes can not see the difference betweene 30-60 fps, but I can feel it when I drive, it feels smoother overall.

Fong74
15-10-2015, 08:53
I would always prefer a 60FPS title (esp. when it comes to racing) over one that has 30 only. 60FPS lets you judge speed and distances much better imo. 30FPS titles use tricks like blur etc to enhance the immersion, but this makes it always feel more artificial. With 60FPS the immersion of driving a car over some track works fine, better for me.

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
15-10-2015, 09:36
I once read a study that concluded that humans can in fact see above 30 FPS. It was also found that eye strain can occur below 46 FPS, and I think it also said that we can see up to 87 FPS.Could be a problem with me being a pedantic bastard, but I really hope that study didn't use those terms, because if it did it'd be just plain wrong: Humans don't see in "frames per second" at all, our visual system just doesn't work in individual frames. Plus I personally know for certain that some people can distinguish between 90 Hz and 120 Hz.

A healthy dose of skepticism can be good in these things, I've also seen "studies" claiming the following:

Testing has found that overall "input lag" (from controller input to display response) times of approximately 200 ms are distracting to the user. It also appears that (excluding the monitor/television display lag) 133 ms is an average response time and the most sensitive games (fighting games, first person shooters and rhythm games) achieve response times of 67 ms (excluding display lag).I have many problems with this. First among which is that 100 ms of input lag has so far been distracting to everyone I've been able to observe in real life (though I know people through online communities who seem unaffected), and 200 ms would be maddening. It also suggests that games are coded so badly that 133 ms is an average response time and the fastest games are more like 67 ms, input lag excluded. I've personally used 210 fps camera footage with multiple measurements to measure the total response times (wheel movement to in-game wheel movement, so including 12ms total input lag from the monitor, which has been separately measured with a Leo Bodnar input lag tester) of various racing sims, and unless there were significant problems with the games they all hit below 60 ms, of particular praise was the ~25 ms of netKar Pro. Project CARS measured around 40 ms, as did Live For Speed, rFactor based games were closer to 50-60 ms. Like I said, this is including input lag from the monitor. And during the early, early days of Project CARS, like late 2011, early 2012, there was a big problem with the game. Almost everyone kept saying that the lag of the game was massive, and made it nearly unplayable, especially once the car lost grip for a moment. I measured the game back then, and the result was about 100-110 ms. So we had WMD full of people complaining about the game being nearly unplayable at around 100-110 ms of input lag, yet somehow it'd take up to 200 ms to become distracting? Yeah, right.

Also worth mentioning that console games really seem to be getting the short end of the stick in these things. My measurements have all been on the PC, but people have been doing console measurements as well. Their usual methodology is to use a controller that lights up when a button is pressed, then use high speed cameras to time the delay between the light and something happening on the screen, and using a monitor that has a known and measured amount of input lag, which is removed from the results. So far the results are pretty ugly, though they confirm the ranges shown by the "study", in that fighting and FPS games have been the fastest (Killer Instinct, Street Fighter IV, Guilty Gear and the Halo series games have hit between 81-93 ms total lag), and so far the worst game they've measured has been Forza Horizon 2 at 149 ms (though admittedly they used the brake lights in-game as the reference point, whether or not those light up instantly when the brakes are applied is another thing). So it'd seem that even the fastest fighting games and shooters on consoles can't keep up with any major racing sim on the PC, and some games are worse than pCARS was back when people said it was "nearly unplayable". I'd be super interested in testing pCARS on a console to see if SMS has been able to mitigate any such issues.

VanquishedVantage
15-10-2015, 09:43
I feel that 60 FPS is more fluid and just feels faster, while 30 FPS is slow to me compared to 60 FPS.

Gloomy
15-10-2015, 11:19
I can see the difference but it's slight to me. 60 has a smoother look and feel with slightly better reaction time.
I was never bothered with 30 when playing driveclub. To be honest if I wasn't told it was 30 I'm not sure I would be able to tell, I'm sure if I was able to do a comparison the difference would stick out more. It does have a slight slower reaction time when turning the wheel when I compare it to project cars and project cars has a more fluid look, but it is pretty small.
Maybe the differences are more noticeable on a monitor vs HDTV and the distance you're sitting from the screen. Just a guess, I could be wrong on that.

Sampo
15-10-2015, 11:47
Also for a nifty demonstration on how much motion blur affects the smoothness of video, you can watch Saving Private Ryan.

Those of you who have seen the movie: Remember those few bits, for example on the beach, where the world goes all tick tock, staccato, a bit stuttery? Many people think they lowered the frame rate for those shots, but no, they still shot with the same 24 fps as the rest of the film. The way they got that look was by halving the exposure time, which halved the amount of motion blur. So watching those scenes from Saving Private Ryan you can see the effect of what halved motion blur does to 24 fps film, a very noticeable and pronounced stuttering staccato effect. Now imagine that it's a game and there's NO motion blur at all. =)

And if you don't have Saving Private Ryan handy, you can also see the effect in Blackhawk Down.

Mascot
15-10-2015, 14:42
The people who say they cannot tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps are not lying - it's just that their eyes are not as sensitive to fps as people who CAN tell the difference. There is real science behind this but I won't bore you with it.

Whether this is a blessing or a curse... I guess it depends whether what they are seeing at 30fps is equally as smooth to them as what others with more sensitive eyes see at 60fps.

To me, it's night and day, but I have a friend who literally can not tell the difference at all.

Tomcul
18-10-2015, 11:41
Human eyes can detect up to 1000fps perhaps more.
Put a 30 and 60fps side by side and the difference is obvious.

Montana.BE
18-10-2015, 15:06
Human eyes can detect up to 1000fps perhaps more.
Put a 30 and 60fps side by side and the difference is obvious.

State some source with that please. This one states 30 - 60 to be in the range humans are capable to see differences, meaning anything above is not visible for humans, which is far off 1000 ..
http://xcorr.net/2011/11/20/whats-the-maximal-frame-rate-humans-can-perceive/

You're mixing 2 things here, difference between 30 and 60, and 60 and 1000. The second may not be visible for humans.

Montana.BE
18-10-2015, 15:09
I feel that 60 FPS is more fluid and just feels faster, while 30 FPS is slow to me compared to 60 FPS.

So 60 is more fluid ... There's an expression in my language, stating : kicking an open door. Or, stating the obvious. So, 60 is smoother than 30 ?

Tomcul
18-10-2015, 16:17
The eye can pick up a very faint 1 millisecond flash in a dark room. My response was to someone that said eyes were locked at 30fps. Eyes are not locked at anything.The brain can defect up to 250fps in a trained pilot.

Kroegtijgertje
18-10-2015, 16:22
Eyes locked at 30fps?? That's hilarious!! Terminator eyes, one of the first builds had low resolution 30fps eyes. :encouragement:

Gravit8
18-10-2015, 22:00
Definitely.

Montana.BE
19-10-2015, 12:48
The eye can pick up a very faint 1 millisecond flash in a dark room. My response was to someone that said eyes were locked at 30fps. Eyes are not locked at anything.The brain can defect up to 250fps in a trained pilot.

You said it; your brain can but your eyes really can't ... Your eyes can't handle 250 FPS, never.

redruMKO
19-10-2015, 15:05
I used to be able to see the flicker on a 12Ohz screen, but only in my peripheral vision, when I looked directly at the screen, it seemed smooth.