> When I first had Geiss, I remember my mum's poor old Pentium I 233 MHz 
> thing with 16 MB RAM *dying* trying to run it. The poor thing would 
> stutter along at roughly 12 FPS with 320x240 at 30% letterbox. Last night, 
> I tried it on my current PC. Even at the highest settings I could use, it 
> was still exceeding 75 FPS. Seriously, the screen was just a blur. It was 
> *way* too fast.
>
> I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would want more than 25 FPS. I'm also 
> confused as to how on earth you managed to put it into 1920x1200. (Mine 
> won't let me go above 1280x1024.) And finally, I'm puzzled as to why you 
> would consider any of this "slow". But there we are...

If you assume roughly linear "processing time" based on the number of 
pixels, then 75 fps at 1280x1024 equals 42 fps at 1920x1200.

I guess your monitor only goes up to 1280x1024, I have 3 display devices 
here that are 1600x1200 (desktop), 1920x1200 (laptop) and 1920x1080 (TV).

25 fps looks very jerky compared to 30 or 60 fps for CG.  I wish I still had 
the demo that split the screen into 4 and ran each quarter at 15,30,60 and 
120 fps.  This was on my CRT that would do 120 HZ refresh.  You could easily 
tell the difference between each of them, the 120 Hz looking so silky 
smooth.  Nowadays with LCD we're kinda stuck with 60.  IIRC some research 
report I read said that the eye can process information up to about 70-80 
Hz...

Post a reply to this message