scott wrote:

>> 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.

OK. Well 42 FPS is still faster than you need.

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

Well, it's a 21 inch CRT. I'm not sure why it would stop at 1280x1024, 
but it is of course possible...

> 25 fps looks very jerky compared to 30 or 60 fps for CG.

Really? I observed virtually no visible difference at all (except the 
speed of the motion).

Post a reply to this message