Is there a way to get rid of 30 FPS cap on PC?

there's absolutely no way a game will run better at 1280x1024 than it will at 1024x768
Click to expand...
That wasn't what I said either. I said those two resolutions would get me better or equal frame rates than 640x480 and 800x600.

Lower resolutions are more cpu intensive while higher resolutions are more gpu intensive. You can look at it as two exponential curves like I have drawn below. As you get closer to the extremes in resolution, CPU or GPU become the bottleneck. Finding the optimum mix gives you max fps.
example.JPG
 
uku said:
After a little research, I found out that FFXI has a 30 FPS cap on PC ><
I've upgraded my Video Card from GForce Ti4200 64M to FX5900XT 128M while ago, and didn't notice a big difference, well, guess thats the reason why.

So, is there any way that we can get rid of the 30 FPS cap? I just wanna FFXI be running at a good speed, at least at a natual speed that your PC can provide.

30 FPS? (No Thanks) My eyes hurts ; ;
Click to expand...


The human eye is only capable of seeing images at a rate of 24 frames per second. It is called Critical Flicker Rate, so I am not sure what you are really trying to do here. If you want to improve the graphics quality then there are a lot of great suggestions and good references in this thread for that, but upping the frame rate beyond what you have won't really do a lot.

FPS has a lot to do with lag but only once it dips below about 24 fps (at least on a PC for a TV there is the whole telecine issue and the limits of the display type that get involved). It seems you have been pointed in the right direction by those that have posted but if you are interested in more info about FPS rates check out some Home theater and DVD forums or google the following terms:

Telecine
Reverse Telecine
Critical Flicker Rate

Not trying to be a smart ass or know it all but just trying to help with some info about what FPS actually effects.
 
Rones said:
That is an urban myth. Human eye can see beyond 30 fps. I'll see if I can find some of the explanations that debunk that myth.
Click to expand...

If it is true that this is an Urban Myth you would be able to see the frame changes in every feature length film you have ever sat through in a theater. Movies are only shot at a rate of 24 FPS.

If you have something that shows this to be a myth though I would deffinitely be interested in reading it. Please pass it along if you have the time.
 
The second link in my previous post explains best how motion blurring in ffxi on xbox360 makes it look like a higher frame rate than 30.
 
Thanks for the links both articles were interesting reads but neither had any actual scientific references, they seemed to me to be as much conjecture as you are saying the urban myth of 24 frames per second is. Definitive proof for either side is probably a long ways off (until medical science catches up).

Article said:
Think for just a second how dumb it would be to push the limit on video displays, devices and the like if our eyes couldn't tell the difference between an HDTV and a plain old TV or a Computer monitor and a Plasma display. Ok, in that second how many times do you think your eye "framed" this screen? The number of times the screen refreshed? Nope, the number of times your eye streamed this page to you, it's a number that is potentially infinite, or at least until we understand the complexity of our own mind. Just know that this number is much, much higher than what your monitor is capable of currently displaying to you, that is matching your own interpretation.
Click to expand...

Here the article itself seems to be confusing the frame rate with the resolution quality. My point being HDTV and Regular TV have a difference in image quality mostly due to the increased resolution.

In any case though thank you for taking the time to provide the links to the articles.
 
Thanks for the links both articles were interesting reads but neither had any actual scientific references
Click to expand...
Read the last section of the first link. It discusses the science of how the human eye works (rods, cones, etc). I know it does not have links to medical sites, but the information it gives does agree with the science books I have seen. It also has a lot more science behind it than the short one liner argument that "human eye can't see more than 24 fps". If you find a highly reliable medical site that says the human eye is limited to 24 fps, I would like to see that.
 
Rones: if a system can achieve a framerate of 85 at 640x480, as it's maximum framerate, it will not achieve a higher framerate than 85 at any resolution above 640x480

your graph is flawed in terms of the CPU scaling, you draw the line as an increasing curve, and that's incorrect, the CPU will never increase in power as you increase the resolution, it will only stay the same or decrease as you increase the game resolution

as to the other guy claiming we cannot see above 24 frames per second, that's indeed an urban myth, feature films are shot in 24 interlaced frames per second, videogames (most commonly PC games) are viewed on a PC monitor, which is non-interlaced, which allows the human eye to actually see twice as many frames, feature films which use interlacing trick the eye into seeing a smoother image than they really are, as there are actually half as many 'images' per second

Edit: And those links rones provided are giving you more information than you realize

Theatrical films can display a film at a lower framerate because of the way the human eye interprets light in dark environments, they produce an afterimage which causes a 'motion blur', tricking the eye into seeing a smoother more fluid image than what is actually being displayed

interlaced image + motion blur = 24fps being smooth
staring at a television (60hz interlaced) or computer monitor (200+hz non-interlaced) = 60+++ fps :)
 
Last edited:
I realize the lines aren't perfect, just trying to show the effect of growth. As you go to higher resolutions, more depends on the video card. On lower res, it lets the cpu handle more of the work because the gpu is designed for higher resolutions. On higher resolutions more of the work is loaded onto the video card, thus the load on the cpu is reduced.
 
I have to agree with Reality, I can definitely see the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS in 3D games.
 
Rones, if games ran better in higher resolutions, everyone would be running their games at 1600x1200, but they don't

why? because they run better at lower resolutions

obviously nobody is going to run a game at 640x480, that resolution (in about 99% of the games out there) looks like garbage, but they will bring the resolution as high as they can before the performance starts to affect their gameplay (the sweet spot for most games is between 1024x768, and 1280x1024)

here are some screenshots I took just now of some timedemos in Quake 2, done at 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x1024. each picture shows the text commands entered (you can verify each gl_mode here: http://www.planetquake.com/console/commands/quake_2.html#h-3)

System: Athlon XP 2500+ @ 3200+ (2.2Ghz), 1024MB PC3200 DDR Ram, Asus A7N8X-X, Radeon 9800 w/ Bios Hack to 9800 Pro (Samsung Memory) WinXP Pro

As you can see, due to the increase in fillrate (resolution scaling higher), the framerate drops, even though i'm clearly bottlenecked by the CPU at 640x480 (pushing over 250fps)

Quake II @ 640x480:
q26409xq.jpg

Quake II @ 800x600:
q28006sn.jpg

Quake II @ 1024x768:
q210241ky.jpg

Quake II @ 12480x1024:
q212803ti.jpg
 
Rones, if games ran better in higher resolutions, everyone would be running their games at 1600x1200
Click to expand...
I did not say that. That's the second time you mis quoted me. I said there was a sweet spot that optimized balance between cpu and gpu usage to maximize fps. So the extreme high resolutions are not going to be that point. I never ran my benchmarks on quake 2. I would redo my old tests on UT2003, UT2004, and America's Army, but I never reinstalled those on my new machine.
 
Reality said:
as to the other guy claiming we cannot see above 24 frames per second, that's indeed an urban myth, feature films are shot in 24 interlaced frames per second, videogames (most commonly PC games) are viewed on a PC monitor, which is non-interlaced, which allows the human eye to actually see twice as many frames, feature films which use interlacing trick the eye into seeing a smoother image than they really are, as there are actually half as many 'images' per second

Edit: And those links rones provided are giving you more information than you realize

Theatrical films can display a film at a lower framerate because of the way the human eye interprets light in dark environments, they produce an afterimage which causes a 'motion blur', tricking the eye into seeing a smoother more fluid image than what is actually being displayed

interlaced image + motion blur = 24fps being smooth
staring at a television (60hz interlaced) or computer monitor (200+hz non-interlaced) = 60+++ fps :)
Click to expand...


The bolded parts are wrong I am not sure if you just made a typo but by definition of what it is film watched in a movie theater is not interlaced.

http://www.inwards.com/~dbb/interlace_myths.html - some basic interlace info
http://www.inwards.com/woh/ - What happens when you interlace an already interlaced source in the authoring process.

Interlacing of something shot on film occurs when it is set up to be watched on a regular TV or other system that is only capable of displaying in an NTSC (or similar format PAL, SECAM).

As for Rones while I disagree with his statement, I have little more than the same type of evidence to provide. That is why I was interested to read what information he had.
 
Last edited:
hmm, i've been under the impression that film projectors do indeed output an interlaced image onto the 'screen', but regardless of that, the films are viewed as 'smooth' to the naked eye, due to a "Motion Blur" effect caused by the bright screen reflecting onto the retina in a dark environment

i'm not sure why you're disputing being able to see more than 24fps anyways, have you ever played a PC game ever? in your life?

you can simply load up Counterstrike, set FPSMax to 24
run around
set it at 60
run around
you can see a remarkable difference between the two

and a pc game would be running in non-interlaced mode (obviously), so you're definitely going to be seeing every single frame that's animated on the screen, all 24 vs all 60
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top