Stable/Playable fps for SC2? - Page 2

never_Nal

Costa Rica676 Posts

February 28 2010 02:39 GMT

#21

Does it really matter?, the human eye can only see 24 FPS, normaly a internet vid would have between 25 and 29.7 Frames per second, and it still looks smooth :D

qazqwezxc

Canada91 Posts

February 28 2010 02:41 GMT

#22

yea but the problem is my computer cant handle 24+ fps T_T and its on LOW settings... maybe too much gay pr0n?

udgnim

United States8024 Posts

February 28 2010 02:48 GMT

#23

haven't played beta, but have run replays with the beta client

30 FPS doesn't seem that bad with Starcraft 2. I'm guessing it's because of the top down view. anyways, this has already been mentioned, but ideal is whatever your monitor's refresh rate. ideal and playable framerate are two very different things though, and people have different views of what they consider playable (different tolerances for framerate hitching, framerate drops, and screen tearing).

qazqwezxc

Canada91 Posts

February 28 2010 02:50 GMT

#24

well im just trying to play the 'sandbox' version of the game with these specs, but i barely maintain the minimal 24+fps for a playable version

TheYango

United States47024 Posts

February 28 2010 02:51 GMT

#25

lol people are missing the point.

It's not that 24-30 fps isn't playable, it's the fact that 1) in heated combat, things drop lower, and 2) if he's got everything toned down to low, his hardware should VERY CLEARLY be getting better performance than that.

Cpt.Cocaine

Canada299 Posts

February 28 2010 03:00 GMT

#26

On February 28 2010 11:39 never_Nal wrote:
Does it really matter?, the human eye can only see 24 FPS, normaly a internet vid would have between 25 and 29.7 Frames per second, and it still looks smooth :D

24fps is the standard for TV broadcast, but the human eye can potentially see much more than that.

Tropics

United Kingdom1132 Posts

February 28 2010 03:03 GMT

#27

the human eye doesnt see in frames, people need to get the fuck out with that shit. been seeing this on forums since 2001, you'd think everyone would learn that its wrong. If you can't tell the difference between 24 fps and 60 you need to get your head checked, although here's a better idea when you have no comprehension of framerate just stop posting

so like i said, the human eye doesnt see in frames, but air force pilots have been reported as being able to spot an image at up to 500 frames per second, so take from that what you will.

mahnini

United States6862 Posts

February 28 2010 03:07 GMT

#28

the 24 fps myth comes from the actual film for movies only recording at 24 fps. most people probably don't notice because A) the film contains motion blur which supposedly helps smooth out the playback and B) most people aren't focusing intensely on one part of the screen.

RiGun

Argentina155 Posts

February 28 2010 03:18 GMT

#29

When I used to play quake 3 I could notice the difference between 120hz and 100hz monitors and the difference is quite big but that game is uber fast paced compared to SC2 screen movements, I'd say that anything above 45-50 is decent and above 60 is good for competitive play.

SirNeb

United States243 Posts

February 28 2010 03:44 GMT

#30

I personally don't play with anything less than 100 for most games, especially RTS.. maybe only 60 is needed because of refresh rate on my lcd but you can certainly tell by the smoothness. But this argument has been around forever, whatever sc1 fps was, you need to be able to play that smoothly imo. In the end, just play with what you feels comfortable with.

Prev 1 2 All

Please or register to reply.

Stable/Playable fps for SC2? - Page 2

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming