Hello Everyone!

I have always wondered if the FPS the game shows for CoD2 is correct. One reason is because the human eye supposedly perceives 23-24 FPS and when i set the max fps to 23-24 in CoD2 it looks very laggy. I was just wondering if there is some ratio to find a good steady FPS that will match up to real life. I'm all about the realism, you might know how fake the game looks if you get 300-400 fps. It looks "too smooth", lol. Well i was just wondering what a good FPS rate is to make it like the human eye.

What an odd thing to experiment with. :)

If realism is what you want then for gods sake dont play CoD2... Try Brothers in Arms instead... Much more realistically satisfying...

The human eye sees an object as "moving" when it's 10 or above fps. (Doesn't mean our eyes like the framerate)

People who say your eyes cannot see above 60 hz, might be right, but still they're wrong ^^. Ill try to explain:P : Try to set your monitor to 60 hz first, and then to 100 hz. If you do NOT notice a difference (in gaming that is), congratulations, you're the first one I know that didn't. If you did, well u just proved your eyes DO see difference.

And for people who say 400 fps is unrealistic.. It is more realistic then playing with 20 fps -.- believe me. Momentarily my Grafix Card is fucked up so badly I play CoD 1 (not 2) with 20-30 fps, and it SUX. Also, 400 fps at a 100 hz monitor is better then 100 fps at a 100 hz monitor. Dunno why, but you can see difference. (Saw at friend's house) So I'm off to some pc-sites again looking for a new pc I can afford...

Talk 2 you later,

Thia

edited on May. 30, 2006 11:10 am by Thia

tim i hate brothers in arms... cod2 is the best game in my opinion. i understand what u are saying thia lol. My monitor is running at 75HZ. cheap monitor . well... i guess i can't achieve perfect syncronization

edited on May. 30, 2006 11:17 am by ti_productions

edited on May. 30, 2006 11:18 am by ti_productions

If what you say is true (the human eye can only perceive 20-30 FPS) then a fster rate on your monitor should NOT be noticable...make sense?

I dont believe that the human eye is limited to 20-30 FPS...probably more like 70-90 FPS... but look at it this way.
The eye can receive the higher frame rate..its just that the brain cant seem to process it any faster than 20-30 FPS.

Of course the brain can adapt to faster speeds with practice and exposure.
Personally, I CAN see a difference between 90 FPS and the 200+FPS that I get in COD2...and "Smoother is Better !"

edited on May. 30, 2006 11:53 am by Horseman

ti_productions writes...

my cheap monitor works up to 85 hz...
but thats not very bad (although 100 or 120 hz would be best ) anyway its the ingame fps thats lagging due to my grafixcard...

but i dont think you need synchronisation (as in 100 hz 100 fps or 85 hz 85 fps) if youve got 85 hz you can still have 200+ fps, it just means the ingame framerate is higher (which to me should be as high as you can get it.. :P)
anyways hope my talking makes sense to anyone ^^

edited on May. 30, 2006 12:19 pm by Thia

umm maybe i shud buy a better mnitr.

srry fr typing i spilllled pop on my keybard

Well, I won't claim that you can't tell when fps are above 60 and the hrz are above 60, but I regularly run games at 30 fps and 60 Hz, and it doesn't strain my eyes or look bad to me. I suppose I've gotten used to it, I think anyone can.

on my old computer i ran games at 15 fps max, and i never really noticed it until i got my new computer running games at 100 or so fps.