Follow me on Twitter, I should have Backbreaker on the 19th

[SouthernBrick]

Quote: Originally Posted by jdr4693

Steve_OS, will you be allowed to post videos, or has 505 games put out an embargo for the review copies?

That would be great but, I doubt he will be able to. I believe he will be under an embargo because, he doesn't know what he will be able to talk about yet.

[Wazzer99]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blzer

Highly unlikely. They merely said that they were able to simulate tackles at 90 FPS when testing the framerate, but things change when building your game and you add onto things, which is why I want to be sure that the framerate stays the same. At any rate (no pun intended), I'm hoping that it's locked at 60. I'm not even sure if I'd like that it jumps up to 90 during tackles.

Apologies to Steve_OS for continuing this tangent away from his original point, but...

I've seen this "90fps" thrown about a fair bit, and from my understanding I think people have taken it slightly out of context and are confusing a couple of things.

As Blzer said, "Highly unlikely". What is actually much more likely is that the physics and tackles are simulated at 90Hz. This is very different from saying the game runs at 90fps.

As it happens, you wouldn't actually want a game that ran at 90fps because - counterintuitively - it would actually look terrible. This is because our TV sets update at a fixed 60Hz, so even if the game devs could update the image they're sending to the TV 90 times per second, what you would in fact see would be the top half of the screen and the bottom half out of sync and showing different frames, and each half would also be very stuttery and jerky also since every-other-frame they would be skipping a frame as well. Basically it would look a million times worse than if they just locked to 60.

Physics engines on the other hand love running at high frequencies. You basically want to update it as often as possible with small timesteps. The less distance things move between iterations, and the more often you get to recalculate velocities and accelerations, the more accurate and stable the results are. Whereas if you have fewer iterations and longer between them, then things start to become very unstable - springs can "explode" and objects can pass right through each other for example.

So, assuming this "90" figure is still relevant today, logically I would guess that the game probably runs at 30fps, but each frame their physics engine is iterated 3 times with a timestep of 1/90th of a second. I say this because if the game ran at 60fps, the physics would update twice one frame, once the next, then twice, then once. And it wouldn't make sense to do that.

Anyway, just my opinion, guess we'll find out soon enough.

[wheelman990]

Quote: Originally Posted by Wazzer99

Apologies to Steve_OS for continuing this tangent away from his original point, but... I've seen this "90fps" thrown about a fair bit, and from my understanding I think people have taken it slightly out of context and are confusing a couple of things. As Blzer said, "Highly unlikely". What is actually much more likely is that the physics and tackles are simulated at 90Hz. This is very different from saying the game runs at 90fps. As it happens, you wouldn't actually want a game that ran at 90fps because - counterintuitively - it would actually look terrible. This is because our TV sets update at a fixed 60Hz, so even if the game devs could update the image they're sending to the TV 90 times per second, what you would in fact see would be the top half of the screen and the bottom half out of sync and showing different frames, and each half would also be very stuttery and jerky also since every-other-frame they would be skipping a frame as well. Basically it would look a million times worse than if they just locked to 60. Physics engines on the other hand love running at high frequencies. You basically want to update it as often as possible with small timesteps. The less distance things move between iterations, and the more often you get to recalculate velocities and accelerations, the more accurate and stable the results are. Whereas if you have fewer iterations and longer between them, then things start to become very unstable - springs can "explode" and objects can pass right through each other for example. So, assuming this "90" figure is still relevant today, logically I would guess that the game probably runs at 30fps, but each frame their physics engine is iterated 3 times with a timestep of 1/90th of a second. I say this because if the game ran at 60fps, the physics would update twice one frame, once the next, then twice, then once. And it wouldn't make sense to do that. Anyway, just my opinion, guess we'll find out soon enough.

Interesting theory, but dont forget e=mc2 and then you devide by pie. I think your conclusion is unsound.

[Afrikan]

Quote: Originally Posted by wheelman990

Interesting theory, but dont forget e=mc2 and then you devide by pie. I think your conclusion is unsound.

LMAO...

I was with you most of the way Wazzer but this...

"I say this because if the game ran at 60fps, the physics would update twice one frame, once the next, then twice, then once." BOOM!

but this is where my mind exploded.

[Steve_OS]

Sorry fellas. Just got word I can't post anything until June 1.

[SouthernBrick]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steve_OS

Sorry fellas. Just got word I can't post anything until June 1.

Wow big let down Steve, big let down. We'll find out soon enough though. Demo hurry up and get here!

Well can you at least tell us If you enjoyed the game or not?

OR can you not post ANYTHING?

[mestevo]

Probably means there's a reviews embargo until 6/1 too then, unless they're afraid you'll beat some of the reviewers to the punch so they don't want you talking about it?

[NoDakHusker]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steve_OS

Sorry fellas. Just got word I can't post anything until June 1.

Awwww...I was looking forward to an early review of it. Although I can't say I'm surprised that you can't post anything about it until release.