EPTBattlefield 3 - Page 40
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Chenz
Sweden1197 Posts
| ||
|
Razith
Canada431 Posts
| ||
|
Evilmystic
Russian Federation266 Posts
On June 23 2011 06:43 Jswizzy wrote: I've been playing old FPS games lately in my library of games and COD is pretty much easy mode compared to any game before 2004. I'm trying to beat farcry right now on realistic and I forgot that weapon sway was something that was common in older FPS games and non regenerating health. Saying COD is hard for HC mode only really tells me that you don't know the maps because reaction time doesn't matter at all if have all the spots on the map memorized and pre aim when coming up to them. At least that's how I played HC and it normally got me a 2:1 or better KDR. I also miss sound whoring that was the best thing about older FPS games is that you could actually hear people moving around if they weren't crouched. Memorizing the maps only helps as long as you know them better than your opponents and if they are equally skilled then it still comes down to your reflexes. And I'm only comparing BF and CoD, not the other ones (well, only played CS besides these two). | ||
|
Strut
United States182 Posts
BF 2142 was probably my favorite as just a casual player with friends, but it was pretty unpopular with the hardcore gamers (probably because of the titan mode) | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On June 23 2011 06:59 sinii wrote: Indeed, Iv heard the limit of the human eye argument so often with fps in games, and yet I know from first hand experience I feel a tremendous amount of difference playing at 120fps on a 120hz monitor in comparison to 30fps or 60fps. Try these to tell if you can see a difference. I can but I'm using a 120 hz monitor. http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html | ||
|
affinity_12
172 Posts
I just had a look and the Radeon 6950 > Geforce 560 Ti in terms of performance in Crysis 2. And the Radeon 6950 is a bit cheaper than the Geforce 560 Ti too. http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-vs-geforce-gtx-560-ti-review/11 | ||
|
Lumberchuk
Canada7 Posts
| ||
|
andrewnguyener
United States548 Posts
 | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On June 23 2011 11:23 affinity_12 wrote: What graphics card is better? The Radeon 6950 or Geforce 560 Ti? I'm planning to play this game on 1280*1024 high settings... do I even need these cards? Do you guys recommend the Radeon 5770 instead? I just had a look and the Radeon 6950 > Geforce 560 Ti in terms of performance in Crysis 2. And the Radeon 6950 is a bit cheaper than the Geforce 560 Ti too. http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-vs-geforce-gtx-560-ti-review/11 Nvidia normally has less technical problems and DICE was using the 580 GTX for the PC demos so you know they have tested the game using Nvidia cards. | ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
On June 23 2011 11:23 affinity_12 wrote: What graphics card is better? The Radeon 6950 or Geforce 560 Ti? I'm planning to play this game on 1280*1024 high settings... do I even need these cards? Do you guys recommend the Radeon 5770 instead? I just had a look and the Radeon 6950 > Geforce 560 Ti in terms of performance in Crysis 2. And the Radeon 6950 is a bit cheaper than the Geforce 560 Ti too. http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-vs-geforce-gtx-560-ti-review/11 use the Bad Company 2 benchmark to compare since BF3 is using the same engine, just improved since BC2 release | ||
|
Shelke14
Canada6655 Posts
On June 23 2011 11:52 udgnim wrote: use the Bad Company 2 benchmark to compare since BF3 is using the same engine, just improved since BC2 release It's a different engine all together isn't it? | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On June 23 2011 11:58 Shelke14 wrote: It's a different engine all together isn't it? It's the same base code just updated. | ||
|
Perdac Curall
242 Posts
On June 23 2011 11:27 Lumberchuk wrote: Hey we should play Battlefield 2 again while we wait! Just found my CD key! Lol I been playing bf2 again for the last month or so, that's how psyched I am and can't efffffffing wait for bf3. The problem with bf2 is no buddy system, which they fixed with 2142, and I am almost certain will be in bf3. I bought my copy of Medal of Honor to get in the beta for bf3 the day before they announced they were going to make it open beta lololol fml. | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On June 23 2011 07:08 Razith wrote: I stop noticing a difference after 60fps. Thats when things seem to be really fluid and not choppy at all. But the difference between 30fps and 60fps is like day and night to me. I can't play games unless I have at least 60fps. I also need 60 fps to enjoy myself, though for hardcore FPS gaming in need 80+. Years of semi-competitive CS and CoD taught me to recognize framerate mostly through mouse responsiveness... I have backed off of the shooters in recent years, but there was a time where I could tell which "decade" (30s, 40s, 50s, etc) my FPS was in, every time, all the way up to 90fps. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On June 23 2011 06:52 relic wrote: You notice a huge amount of difference between playing at 70fps, and 150. It's the same with monitor refresh rates, and people say they notice no difference between 60 and 120, they obviously have either have no idea and never seen the two, or just have bad eyesight. I feel sorry for people who think it's the norm to play at 60fps probably on a 60hz monitor, must be awful! The human eye has a picture sampling rate of only 60Hz-65Hz. That's a physical limitation of the human eye that has nothing to do with better monitors. If you see a difference then it's because the game keeps going below 60 FPS even if the average FPS is 70. If your game flip flops between 55 and 85 FPS during a second, you will see a difference from one second to another even though the average rate is 70FPS. It's possible that your eye actually samples an image of your monitor while your monitor has just built half of it - but in that case you don't see spikes as with a game running at 15FPS, you will just experience something similar to ghosting in monitors. And that can indeed get better with better monitors, but it's a noticably different effect from seeing a game run at low framerates imo. | ||
|
Oneoldfogie
United Kingdom61 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n8uZZ.jpg) Just saw this on Reddit. Looking good so far, although I'm not entirely sure on the Recon myself. The Post: http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/ij55n/battlefield_3_what_the_classes_look_like/ | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3373 Posts
On June 24 2011 23:56 heishe wrote: The human eye has a picture sampling rate of only 60Hz-65Hz. That's a physical limitation of the human eye that has nothing to do with better monitors. If you see a difference then it's because the game keeps going below 60 FPS even if the average FPS is 70. If your game flip flops between 55 and 85 FPS during a second, you will see a difference from one second to another even though the average rate is 70FPS. It's possible that your eye actually samples an image of your monitor while your monitor has just built half of it - but in that case you don't see spikes as with a game running at 15FPS, you will just experience something similar to ghosting in monitors. And that can indeed get better with better monitors, but it's a noticably different effect from seeing a game run at low framerates imo. The Air Force ran tests on their pilots that showed they can register in 200 fps and up | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On July 08 2011 09:49 Body_Shield wrote: The Air Force ran tests on their pilots that showed they can register in 200 fps and up Source please. | ||
|
.Enigma.
Sweden1461 Posts
 | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3373 Posts
http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/How_many_FPS_human_eye_can_see I am unsure where to find the test results of USAF pilot's visuals | ||
| ||
