EA UFC 2 60FPS

[smokeface]

Quote: Originally Posted by sam223

the game is rendered at 30 fps theres nothign more to it. You can make a video with any fps you want and theres multiple methods to do that, all up to the video maker, nothing to do with the source (source never changes) i worked 40 years in the movie industry in asia

Well what I was looking for was to know if I am correct in my previous statement. Would a 30FPS game rendered in 60FPS by some other software mean we are seeing the same frames twice, meaning its no different than just watching it in 30FPS?

[TheVirus]

Quote: Originally Posted by tissues250

i have watched several times but honestly, i don't know what is different from the original game.

Make sure to at least run the video at 720p on youtube and make sure your computer/laptop can actually run 720p video smoothly.

However, there is a big difference between the two both in visuals and how it feels.

Visually, everything is a lot more smoother, maybe a little unnaturally smooth at first to the point where it might seem like it's in fast motion, but a lot of people (including me) prefer 60fps over 30fps if theres a choice just because it's a lot nicer to play with and feels more like a smooth responsive game.

With how it feels, controls feel a lot more responsive and the timing feels more 'tight' as when you push a button, you get a smooth, faster response compared to 30fps.

Even though it's kind of a taboo thing to like in the gaming industry, I do like a lower fps like 30fps with motion blur in very specific scenarios just because some games looking too 'gamey' can spoil the feel and 'visuals' of an experience, i'd be okay with a horror game for example being locked to 30fps if it meant a more immersive creepy experience.

HOWEVER, a game based on movement, timing, and precise striking like UFC 3 with a lower FPS will always feel clunky and less snappy compared to 60fps, and of course in a game where even the smallest delay or mistake could cause you to get countered and knocked out, you need all the responsiveness you can get.

With the rumoured and basically confirmed features like moving while striking and leaning, more stamina loss for missed strikes and i'm sure a lot more subjects we'll learn about in the future, having the most responsive and precise controls and visual feedback is a MUST.



The video I posted above is a nice little explanation of what and how 60fps effects games.

[ZombieRommel]

Quote: Originally Posted by smokeface

I'd like to see someone post an experiment on here with a game running 30 fps and the same game running 60 fps on a player that doesn't specifically tell you what it's running at. Then have everyone say which one they think is the 60 fps video. After maybe 20 or more votes reveal the truth. I've seen this done else where and the votes were pretty much split 50/50. It's not as drastic as everyone would make you believe, it is far more noticeable by playing than watching. A fun twist would be to have them both running at 30. Trust me the placebo would be real.

If you have good vision, or if you have been playing PC games at variable frame rates for a very long time (like I have), then the difference between 30 and 60FPS is literally night and day. Like not even a question as to which one is which.

One is juttery and ugly, the other is smooth and fluid.

https://www.testufo.com/

http://www.30vs60fps.com/

It's really hard to communicate how vast and obvious the difference is to people who don't immediately see it. It's a bit like trying to explain color to a blind person.

I don't agree with your statement: "It's not as drastic as everyone would make you believe."

No, it really is, for some people (myself included). I can detect when I'm playing a game at 60FPS and there's a drop to 50. Some people say (and I believe them) that they can't tell a difference between 30 and 60FPS. This is a difference in baseline visual acuity between people and their ability to detect motion on a granular level.

An audio engineer probably has better hearing than I do -- he can probably hear tones that I can't. Maybe it's because I blew my hearing out, or maybe it's just genetic.

By the same token, I think it's probably the case that the people who can easily detect the difference between 30 and 60FPS are genetically predisposed to recognize subtle differences in motion.

I think it's also a matter of exposure. I've been playing 3D games since about 1995, and I've been playing them on the PC since about 1998. I'm used to playing games at baseline of 60FPS (many old CRT monitors actually defaulted to 75hz). So when I go back to 30FPS, it feels like a massive step down because my brain has been conditioned to accept 60FPS as "normal". If you drove a Corvette every day to work and then I made you ride to work in a horse and buggy, it would feel a lot slower to you than if you'd been riding in a horse and buggy your whole life. Someone in this thread actually cited how awful it feels to play Undisputed at 60FPS and then go back to EA UFC at 30. The difference is much more jarring when you condition your brain to expect a certain level of speed and fluidity.

And that is what modern console developers are doing to people who come from a PC gaming background when they force 30FPS. It's like they are making us get out of the Corvette into the horse and buggy. Meanwhile, you look over at the console player riding in the buggy with you, who has never been in a Corvette. You tell him how slow it feels to be in the buggy, and he looks at you like you're some crazy person. He tells you that he can't tell the difference between the Corvette and the horse and buggy and that the difference isn't as drastic as everyone would have you believe, that you're probably just imagining it, that it's just placebo.

In fact, he dares you to ride in a Corvette and a horse and buggy side by side and say which one is faster. Then he says that something like this was done and the results were 50/50. What he doesn't say is that half of the study participants were people who'd never been in a Corvette before and think their buggy is plenty fast as is.

[Dave_S]

If a horse and buggy is 30hz a new corvette would 13.65kHz or so.

Is twice the frames twice the data? My only potential concern would be lag. I'd be down for a million fps, the game is just laggy enough online already. (Depending on who you are playing)

[TheVirus]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dave_S

If a horse and buggy is 30hz a new corvette would 13.65kHz or so. Is twice the frames twice the data? My only potential concern would be lag. I'd be down for a million fps, the game is just laggy enough online already. (Depending on who you are playing)

Having the game running at 60fps means the game is running BETTER then if it was running at 30fps (unless it was locked at that by the devs).

Achieving 60fps isn't some graphics setting that makes your console work harder, if anything it's the opposite, the higher fps, the less lag and delay because your hardware isn't being strained as hard and is strong enough to reach them speeds, unless we're talking about proper internet lag which is on your internet, the player you're playing with and the servers EA uses, if that's the case, EA can't do nothing about that really.

[kevinmastah]

GPD is scratching behind his ears right now.
“Thinking” Chips I knew we forget something to change in UFC3.
:-D

[Dave_S]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheVirus

Having the game running at 60fps means the game is running BETTER then if it was running at 30fps (unless it was locked at that by the devs). Achieving 60fps isn't some graphics setting that makes your console work harder, if anything it's the opposite, the higher fps, the less lag and delay because your hardware isn't being strained as hard and is strong enough to reach them speeds, unless we're talking about proper internet lag which is on your internet, the player you're playing with and the servers EA uses, if that's the case, EA can't do nothing about that really.

I'm not trying not to debate that 60hz isn't better than 30hz. I just thought double the frames might be a decent amount more overall data.

[ZombieRommel]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheVirus

Having the game running at 60fps means the game is running BETTER then if it was running at 30fps (unless it was locked at that by the devs). Achieving 60fps isn't some graphics setting that makes your console work harder, if anything it's the opposite, the higher fps, the less lag and delay because your hardware isn't being strained as hard and is strong enough to reach them speeds, unless we're talking about proper internet lag which is on your internet, the player you're playing with and the servers EA uses, if that's the case, EA can't do nothing about that really.

This isn't technically correct. All things equal, rendering 60 frames per second is more difficult for the hardware to to do than rendering 30 frames per second. So I'm not sure where you got that conclusion from.

Given that nothing else changes (resolution, anti-aliasing, shadow detail, etc.) rendering more frames on-screen requires more computations from the hardware from moment to moment.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dave_S

If a horse and buggy is 30hz a new corvette would 13.65kHz or so. Is twice the frames twice the data? My only potential concern would be lag. I'd be down for a million fps, the game is just laggy enough online already. (Depending on who you are playing)

The answer to your question is a little complicated.

In a game, there are two threads running at any given time: the sim thread and the render thread.

Render is "what you see on-screen" and is independent of the sim thread. Mainly handled by the GPU.

Sim is the amount of gameplay computations per second taking place. And the sim thread determines the amount of data sent between players online, NOT the render. This is mainly handled, from what I understand, by the CPU.

Tekken is an example of a game that is simmed AND rendered at 60FPS. This means every frame you see on screen has gameplay implications. If I throw out an attack, there are 60 frames in a given second in which you can interrupt my attack with one of your own.

EA UFC is a game that has, so far, been simmed and rendered at 30FPS. Meaning if I throw out an attack, there are 30 frames in a given second in which you can interrupt my attack with one of your own (because of the sim thread being 30FPS). So compared to Tekken, you have half the amount of frames per second during which your inputs can register. If you hit a button during a "between" frame, you're waiting slightly longer for the input to register and be rendered.

Does that make sense?

You can think of Tekken like this: 1,2,3,4,5 all the way up to 60 in a given second.

EA UFC is like this: 1...2...3...4...5 all the way to 30. The "..." are the dead spaces where nothing is being computed COMPARED to a game that's being simmed at 60FPS.

NOW. There are two things you need to consider. On the client side, you can set the render to whatever the hell you want. In Counter-Strike Global Offensive, a lot of the servers have a tick rate of 64. What does this mean? It means that the server refreshes 64 times a second when simulating the game world. Let's say the server only refreshed 1 time per second. Then you would have people warping all over. If it refreshes 64 times a second, then you can track people moving fluidly because the server is updating rapidly.

So... let's say I'm on a CSGO server with a tick rate of 64. I can still RENDER the game at 144FPS on my end (client-side). I'm STILL only communicating with the server 64 times per second. So in other words, ONLY THE SIMULATION THREAD matters when it comes to data sent online. The render thread is CLIENT SIDE ONLY. If someone with a powerful computer hops onto a CSGO server, he doesn't lag out the server, because he's still sending the same amount of data packets per second as someone with a crap PC.

NOW, does 60 updates per second (as with Tekken) strain connections in the way you are imagining it might? When other controls are in place, NO. 60 updates per second being sent and received is not a lot. What affects the lag more, in a peer to peer game (which EA UFC is) is your ping to the other player.

For example, if someone from the US is matched with someone from Russia, the data packets have to physically travel A LOT further than if someone from the US is matched against someone from the US. This is why I and others have been asking for region lock.

The influence of ping to your opponent on connection quality is FAR GREATER than the influence of doubling the amount of data sent and received in-game from 30 times a second to 60 times a second. Now, this does depend on the amount "stuff" being simulated in the game world. If you look at a game like PUBG - it's a 100 player game with vehicles, weapons, environmental destruction, bullet physics, etc. That's a LOT of data to send 60 times a second, so they aren't. They are teetering at about a 20 tick rate right now, which isn't great, but is understandable considering all the data the server has to account for. In a fighting game (or 1v1 MMA game), you have to account for only two players locked into a small arena, so the amount of data that has to pass from client to client isn't much.

You can test this for yourself if you play Tekken 7 online against someone in the same country as you. Just set the game to only search for 5 bar (low ping) opponents. There will be, usually, very little lag. The game is sending twice the data (since its simming at 60FPS) compared to the EA UFC games but lagging far less because you can set ping thresholds and therfore force it to NOT match you against someone from Russia.

That said, the developers could choose to run the sim thread at 30FPS and run the render thread at 60FPS. So the game would render twice as many frames on-screen but the same amount would be "usable" as before. Meaning you would SEE 30 extra frames per second rendered on-screen, but the simulated frame rate would still limit when your input would register per the game logic.

This would result in the same amount of data being sent over the connection as before (30FPS sim) but a smoother looking and feeling game on the client-side.