sound volume is so low... I gave up

lol bs 60 hz quake vs 120 hz quake = so easy to see, that you need to be a moron, to not notice.

He's talking about input lag not general feel.

he is discussing latency by smoothness and responsiveness and at the end humans have hit their "general biological max". I call bs. Just an excuse to create a fps at 60 instead of 120, like they initially did with doom 3 and quake 4.

Everyone should stop thinking its about themselves playing q3, and realize he's talking broad industry.

well the statement is still true. 60 might be playable and even give a good gaming experience, but 120 will magnitude the experience even more, no matter what fps-game we are looking at.

but it means even more comprimise, and he said 60 against 30 was a tough fight already.

Let#s take it one step at a time, shall we?

You're a dolt.

ok member of the PIIGS

sounds fucking great, ...................................... /:|

can someone summarize? i don't feel like watching.

Then you don't deserve to know.

joypads are crap, real champions use a 16hz ps2 mouse

Great interview. He can talk and talk, but I love to hear it.

He's talking about seeing little difference between 60hz and 120hz with a joypad, not on PC

He is obviously trying to downplay the issue by referencing gamepad instead of mouse.

He's specifically talking about our perception of input lag, not smoothness or a situation that would involve drawing something different on the whole screen like a camera movement.

Well, we perceive or judge io latency by smoothness and responsiveness. What I meant was wireless gamepad is less arbitrary device (than a mouse) to begin with.

Well, I think it's harder to perceive latency using an animation than a whole ( and smooth ) screen refresh aka rocket launcher animation vs move your pov around.

And I doubt most people nowadays would really see the benefits of 120hz vs 60z in a quake context, they're so used to motion blur and other stuff to artificially smoothen things that it would probably gross them out.

edit : if we have to give a fuck about retards using input devices that add latency this convo is never gonna end tbh.

Even though I agree its kinda weird to hear from THE MAN himself that "todays game graphics are good enough". I guess hes getting older :)

referencing gamepads is a strawman to make 60hz seem feasible.

He actually has a very good point. Only a few games will have major benefits from running at 120fps compared to 60fps and a lot of gamers will not be able to tell the difference between the them. For SP games and slower paced MP games, 60fps is fine as long as it is constant and the engine is coded to work well at 60fps. It is mainly in fast paced MP games that there is a major benefit from running at 120fps.

you are right, and for a profit-oriented company - which id obviously is- that makes sense.

from a developer standpoint however, it makes more sense to make the game 'better' ( 120fps obviously being better than 60fps).

i guess it's naive to view carmack as a developer tho, even tho he always sounds that way. guess he's more the guy who tells his developers to 'slow down', if you know whaat i mean.

Better, yes, but at what cost? All companies are profit oriented, to think otherwise is fools talk.

my point wasn't that they should think otherwise, but rather that thinking of carmack as an 'idealistic' engine developer is not correct.

From a technical standpoint with regards to input responsiveness and framerate then yes 120fps is superior to 60fps. The question is if you want to sacrifice AI, gameplay, physics, animations and graphics for those extra fps. For a SP game I would rather take those 60fps and more things happening on screen and better graphics than 120fps, as it would be a better/richer gaming experience for me. Carmack is a true developer and has always been about coding the most impressive engine possible. Seems like people have forgotten the days where playing the newest games meant 25-35 fps on machines costing similar amounts to what high-end gaming computers cost today. Going with 60 fps is a great decision IMO for a game like rage.

120fps is pretty arbitrary - why not go all the way to 1000fps? The vast majority of PC gamers still likely have a monitor that can do 60-70hz at most resolutions, and console gamers have to deal with slow refresh televisions.

For a profit-oriented company, you have to avoid spending money on things that bring diminishing returns.

But doesn't 'better' for them = making the game a commerical success (which means leaving it at 60fps)?

FUCK 60FPS caps made for poor console zombies...

120fps in fps game dont make the game run faster, 120fpg is noticable in racing games like wipeout when you hit a turbo pad, the game will start to slow down when your tv has hit 60fps

players in FPS game dont move fast enough for 60fps to ever be a problem.. FPS in FPS games are todo with polys on screen and your GFX card bottle necking

Yo mister, are you a relative of carmack? "Youre Talking it :D"

there are 2 kinds of frame per second, there is analog for TV`s and number of static images, and PC`s frame per second that calculates fps/polys on screen

People, keep in mind that your dear quake series was probably developped with the intent of running at 60fps at best. ( remember when screens that could go higher than 85hz used to cost a shitton of money and could only do that at ridiculous resolutions? )

did anyone notice the picture of carmack before it plays and how lulzy he looks?

120fps on a 120hz crt is unbeatable smoothness compared to anything below

id graphics are always so ahead of the curve... some of the recent gameplay vids show the amazing level of detail... i never thought graphics mattered that much... but its still pretty much a universal way to improve the game without evolving gameplay that much.

thats the reason every game that has used idtech4 > has failed, everyone behind the scenes get excited about how everything looks and forget its a game

gameplay first
graphics a bonus second
gamplay + graphics = own3d

besides d3, the only game that any kind of gameplay is quakewars, unless raven are just shit at making games

i know graphics isn't everything. but its still amazing how id can do such amazing detail on 5 year old consoles. and its pretty smart from game quality standpoint, less risk involved than doing something crazy like totally different gameplay mechnics. id wasn't id without carmack.

You can play QW at 500 fps now if you want. It's pretty fun, even smoother than 125 fps.

Not going to watch a 20 minute interview, but sounds unfortunate to see people saying Carmac thinks 60hz is the be all, end all of tech. I guess it just goes along with the common strat of lowering your framerate to the minimum necessary then putting the extra power into graphics. Doesn't mean higher input/visual hz isn't better though.

On another note, anyone wish movies weren't at 24p? Dunno if I've ever seen a movie at anything higher.

500fps isnt the actual number of render frames that are on screen per second

if you max out a map with aload of polys the fps will come down to what your card can handle

the gpu clock and stats are called in the fps math

4095trillion triangles per second = 1000 on screen

You should try nquake so it can blow ur mind. Plus it needs a good q4 port.

quake 1 engines only run at stupid calculated FPS because GPU`s can handle low poly games and have *% of processing power left

the FPS games will show in game, is not the true frames per second

a 500fps game would be like trying to read a book while bend and flicking through the pages to the end

Q43A aint a port of nothing, its just all coded by me, its q4 in q4 with a shit load of recoding and new features and tweaks on physics, and starts to feel like q3 after a few games

the hobbit is being shot at 48 fps. should look interesting.

Nice! Yet another reason I'm looking forward to it.

The first time I really noticed the low fps in movies was the first Bourne Identity. Most fight scenes involved the camera panning quickly and they were just blurry in the theater. Still a cool movie though.

There are quite a few reasons why fims still run at 24fps, even when they were shot at more than that (many have been and still are, they're processed to run at 24fps and look like a film later on).

You ever seen those TVs that emulate higher refresh rates by interpolating frames? Well, it destroys what we call the "film look". Some people don't mind but some do. With this thing on, films look really weird (because we're used to 24p), they look like videos not films.

With more than 24fps it's also harder to make a film because the viewer will see more details (e.g. flawed acting, poor special effects).

And, well, data storage may be cheap these days, but it's still not negligible how much bigger the films would be.
I'd rather have slightly compressed 24p Blu Rays than heavily compressed 48p ones.

I don't disagree that 24p isn't smooth though, I've noticed it for a long time even when going to the theatre. But films are films, not soap opera or videos.

Think of it as the difference between a photograph and a painting.

I'm not sure what they intend to do with the Hobbit (as in, do they want it to not look like a film? or use the higher framerate for better 3D? etc), so wait & see.

Wonder if the Hobbit is 48fps so that it's 24p 3d in each eye?

Probably, but maybe they want to make something that looks different for a change, since 24fps is a limitation for the filmmakers, some things can't be done because they would look horrible.

I was already looking forward to this film but this makes me even more curious, maybe they'll manage to pull off some awesome stuff (or make action scenes watchable in 3D)

"they look like videos not films"

You got me interested. Is there a recorded video of it somewhere? I don't have such a TV to watch and see. :(

Hum, I don't know of any vid to show that but think of something very simple: how does a QL fragmovie at 40+fps with motion blur look like and how does a film in the theatre (or even on your PC for that matter) look like?

I think you'll agree they both look very different, and a game at a high framerate without motion blur also looks very different.

Frame rate interpolation on TVs makes films look like they were filmed with a higher framerate (such as 48fps), aka very much like a smooth fragvid. And this super silk-smooth look is simply not how the filmmaker intended his film to be watched.

You can do frame interpolation on a PC too (if your monitor can handle 48hz, 72hz or 120hz that is) with MPC-HC and avisynth (warning: it uses a shitload of ressources on a high end PC if you do it with Blu-rays).

You can play QW at 500 fps now if you want. It's pretty fun, even smoother than 125 fps.

Unfortunately my crt maxes out at 160 hz, so I used to set it to 154 (77 * 2). It is still smoother than 125.

Not going to watch a 20 minute interview, but sounds unfortunate to see people saying Carmac thinks 60hz is the be all, end all of tech.

This isn't what he said really, and he indicated that staying at 60 fps was quite difficult compared to if they had just done 30. Still with the motion blur 60 fps looks quite good on these consoles, comparable to 120 fps on the pc.

Believe me I wish they could jack up the framerates as high as possible, and I am eagerly awaiting the day when I can have as many frames as I want. For now we should be grateful that Carmack stuck to his guns on the 60 fps. The dumb ass industry goes with 30 fps most of the time and then they start up that bullshit about you not being able to tell.

I guess it just goes along with the common strat of lowering your framerate to the minimum necessary then putting the extra power into graphics. Doesn't mean higher input/visual hz isn't better though.

He indicated that on the consoles, it was extremely difficult to make 60 fps and compromises had to be made to achieve this. He was under pressure to go with 30 fps.

I agree though, I am a framerate junky. The more the better as far I'm concerned. Maybe I can't tell the difference at some point, but I'll be the judge of that.

On another note, anyone wish movies weren't at 24p? Dunno if I've ever seen a movie at anything higher.

I find theaters intolerable, it is like a strobe light to me. It hurts my eyes.

Weirdly it's even easier to tell the difference if you have 77fps/75hz and up it to 500/75. Almost like night and day.

Yup, it's even noticeable with 60hz.

The higher the framerate the more responsive the game is and tearing also becomes less and less of a problem (as long as we're talking about a steady framerate, of course). Much better than using v-sync even if a tiny bit of tearing remains.

77*2 ? i got lost here :o plz explain

sv_fps is 77 in quakeworld, so it is recommended that you use maxfps and screenrefresh at this number, or multiples of it.

The next multiple is 154 so sv_fps/cl_maxfps/screenrefresh sync up like this: 77/154/154 (two frames are shown for every server frame).

With my monitor running at 77hz, I guess I should install QW again :v

can someone please explain the reason for an fps cap? why would they not at least allow you to change it on your own?

For anyone interested that wants to know more about input lag on a PC: http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/2803?cPag...amp;page=7

It covers input lag caused by input peripherals (mouse, keyboard), by the game engine itself (CPU workload), by GPU engine & display drivers - e.g.: flip queue size(AMD) or frames render ahead(NV) -, LCD response.

Lag of a LCD demonstrated (vs CRT): http://vimeo.com/4913119

I made a thread with that article already.

And this vid is bollocks, they're still using that timer which isn't a proper way of determining the input lag.
Looks like it's a TV anyway, and most TVs do a shitload of processing and tend to have a high input lag (even plasmas).

"- opinions on latency (30 vs 60 vs 120hz) "

I respect his work, but on this subject..... imho we would be still in the stoneage with that kind of thinking:(

From twitter:

asjonish: Discussions in lab tonight about 120 vs 60hz displays. Do you think 120hz isn't salient or just not important?

ID_AA_Carmack: 120 fps win is subtle for fixed displays, but 120 hz update also enables 40 fps sync, which is broadly useful.

asjonish: Helicopter pilots told a co-worker they are less aggressive in our hard 60hz sims because of optical flow/feedback vs reality.

ID_AA_Carmack: I re-did 60/120/180 fps tests recently. I think 120 is critical for truly believable head tracking, but hard to tell on a cntrlr.

ID_AA_Carmack: combat heli pilots are going to be like elite gamers; it definitely matters at that level, but most people can't really tell.

asjonish: Agree, but I've never bought the ">60hz isn't worthwhile" argument. Those subtle cues = immersion. Needs empirical data...

asjonish: Helicopter pilots told a co-worker they are less aggressive in our hard 60hz sims because of optical flow/feedback vs reality

And that is true for quake, remember tourneys on 60/75hz monitors and tourneys on 120hz, all players mentioned that they were force to be such pussies cos of lower aim.

dont talk. make a new quake. fast. end of story...

not sure if I'll play a new 60fps quake game.