banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on Nov 25, 2012 13:56:03 GMT -5
Since xbox runs at 60 fps when you test the rate of fire of something like the type it comes out as 900 but pc it's 937. Does that mean the type in the xbox is still 937 it's just that you can't see it?
|
|
mmacola
True Bro
the brazilian guy
Posts: 1,995
|
Post by mmacola on Nov 25, 2012 14:58:50 GMT -5
Nope, the COD engine is faulty in a way that makes your framerate limit your rate of fire. If you are at 30fps in a situation where your enemy isn't, both are shooting the same weapon, he will kill you first. Some things that cause this is looking at bullet holes on unbreakable glass or being inside a smoke grenade.
|
|
|
Post by Pegasus Actual on Nov 25, 2012 16:07:58 GMT -5
My BO2 frame rate on Xbox has been pretty good. It drops far less often than BO1 did, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by y260 on Nov 25, 2012 19:39:02 GMT -5
If you are at 30fps in a situation where your enemy isn't, both are shooting the same weapon, he will kill you first. So, lower frame rate wins? I'm a bit confused.
|
|
mmacola
True Bro
the brazilian guy
Posts: 1,995
|
Post by mmacola on Nov 25, 2012 19:45:43 GMT -5
If you are at 30fps in a situation where your enemy isn't, both are shooting the same weapon, he will kill you first. So, lower frame rate wins? I'm a bit confused. It depends. A certain rate of fire may be actually better at a low framerate, but huge differences like 30fps vs 60fps usually means the 30fps one will lose. You can see some examples in the link below (mw3 example btw) denkirson.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=4075&page=4#103341
|
|
banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on Nov 25, 2012 21:01:34 GMT -5
Nope, the COD engine is faulty in a way that makes your framerate limit your rate of fire. If you are at 30fps in a situation where your enemy isn't, both are shooting the same weapon, he will kill you first. Some things that cause this is looking at bullet holes on unbreakable glass or being inside a smoke grenade. That's the stupidest engine design ever
|
|
|
Post by volgon on Nov 25, 2012 21:08:39 GMT -5
Nope, the COD engine is faulty in a way that makes your framerate limit your rate of fire. If you are at 30fps in a situation where your enemy isn't, both are shooting the same weapon, he will kill you first. Some things that cause this is looking at bullet holes on unbreakable glass or being inside a smoke grenade. That's the stupidest engine design ever Well, the base engine is 12-13 years old. Things have progressed a lot since 1999 lol
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Nov 25, 2012 22:32:11 GMT -5
the lower the rate of fire of the weapon the less impacted it is by the frame rate.
go ask anyone that played W@W on console. the MP40 in practice was a king in CQB in core. the reason is because as soon as you bring any other SMG infront of it and an explosion or smoke hit. the MP40 is still chugging along with it's weak 500rpm ROF. while the ppsh's 1200rpm just went out the window at 20fps. as soon as the FPS comes back up, the guy with the mp40 keeps running and everyone else is dead.
yes, the newer the cod the better they are at maintaining the frame rate.
yes, the frame-rate does vary with your resolution choice on console. the lower the resolution the higher/more stable/quicker to recover the frame rate.
|
|
|
Post by willij5 on Nov 26, 2012 8:36:12 GMT -5
So if the game is designed to run at 60fps max and it drops below that at certain intervals, does that mean you are then behind the 'actual' gamestate or does it just mean what your seeing on screen is more jittery / jerky because there are less frames on your screen per second?
For example if you fall to 30fps for that second, are you then 30 frames behind?
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Nov 26, 2012 10:35:17 GMT -5
Guns on the console versions of COD have the same behavior as how Planetside 2 used to behave in the beta until I made a detailed post about it on the PS2 forums. In the patch after that post and the brouhaha that came from it, SOE put it on a separate thread instead of being bound to the frame rate.
The shot does not take place until the next frame. Assuming a perfect 60 FPS, the typical Treyarch 937.5 RPM of 0.064 seconds would be slowed down to 900 because the next, nearest frame is rendered at 0.066 seconds at 60 FPS.
With 60FPS, the guns would fire one shot every four frames. At 30 FPS, it'd be one shot every two frames, but would still be 900 RPM. At 45 FPS, One shot every three frames, and again still at 900 RPM. At 15 FPS, one shot every frame, but still 900 RPM. All four of these have the nearest frame after the FireTime hit 0.066 seconds.
However with more likely Frame rates dipping into the mid and low 50s...
59 FPS, the next frame would be 0.06779 seconds, an RPM to 885. 58 FPS, the next frame would be 0.06896 seconds, an RPM of 869. 57 FPS, the next frame would be 0.07017 seconds, an RPM of 855. 56 FPS, the next frame would be 0.07142 seconds, an RPM of 840. 55 FPS, the next frame would be 0.07272 seconds, an RPM of 825. 54 FPS, the next frame would be 0.07407 seconds, an RPM of 810. 53 FPS, the next frame would be 0.07547 seconds, an RPM of 795.
Lower and lower, the gun will continue to fire more slowly on the fourth frame (the lowest being 705 RPM at 47 FPS) until... At 46 FPS, the third frame would be ahead of the 0.064 Firetime, on 0.06521739(and so on) seconds, giving the console weapon a 920 round rate of fire.
And 31 FPS would be the ideal for the 937.5 weapon. The second frame would be 0.064516 seconds, giving it 930 RPM.
|
|
Tyzerra
True Bro
Stay sharp.
Posts: 10,989
|
Post by Tyzerra on Nov 26, 2012 11:21:29 GMT -5
And Den saves the day once again
|
|
|
Post by I Am Hollywood5 on Nov 26, 2012 16:16:26 GMT -5
It is absolutely fucking retarded that RoF is tied to Frame Rate in CoD games. Horrible programming/engineering, very lazy and short-sighted. One of the things I hate the most about the CoD engine.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 26, 2012 16:22:49 GMT -5
It made perfect sense in Quake 3 when we didn't have no stinking 1800 RPM SMGs (and we rail gunned with rail guns).
|
|
Evan950
True Bro
PSN: xXCrazyBarksXx
Posts: 869
|
Post by Evan950 on Nov 27, 2012 8:02:52 GMT -5
so is it possible to limit frame rates on PC or console to gain an advantage?
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 27, 2012 12:53:44 GMT -5
On pc yeah but its never 100% stable On your rig. promod actually limits frame rate specifically to prevent odd behavior at specific and very high frame rates, such as described here. At extreme frame rates (like in excess of 600 FPS), some really odd behavior can happen
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Nov 27, 2012 13:04:29 GMT -5
Thats fckin crazy. I want PS3 version @ 125FPS :[
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 27, 2012 13:33:10 GMT -5
I configured MW2 to run at 125 FPS and while I'm pretty sure you don't get free Lightweight like that article describes (which is primarily a result of abusing bunny hopping in Quake...a technique that reduces momentum in Call of Duty), it resulted in the most smooth and crisp Call of Duty experience I've ever had, especially when playing on dedicated servers with sub-50 ping (via AlterIW). And when I say 125 FPS, I mean 125 FPS. Constant. Always. No dropped frames. Period. I'm presently running at BO2 at very close to constant 125 at max settings and I'll probably drop some of them to stabilize my performance and see if it smoothes the game at all (I find that higher resolutions make it easier to see targets from afar so it's a mixed bag). (Coincedentally, 125 FPS has the inverse of 0.064 as a factor, meaning that it will fire a 937.5 RPM weapon at its full fire rate...and any fluctuations in frame rate would drop the fire rate so I might need to look into this.) so is it possible to limit frame rates on PC or console to gain an advantage? To summarize the link I posted, you can configure your frame rate in Quake 3 so as to potentially move 7% faster. I saw someone in the promod circuit talking about how some extreme frame rates near the engine cap of 1000 FPS do result in faster movement, even in CoD4, and silent movement (actual movement and foot steps fall of sync). With CoD4, it's conceivable that a modern high end rig could achieve such frame rates, if you really want the edge on 24/7 HC Tactical Crouch Wetwork servers.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 27, 2012 13:44:01 GMT -5
Uh, sure. There are no best settings. You need to use settings that are sensible for your machine. Except for V-sync: V-sync sucks.
On PC, is fire rate still tied to the client's frame rate or is it run on a separate thread? If the former, then I'm lowering my settings to get a constant 125 FPS, heh.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel4 on Nov 27, 2012 13:47:27 GMT -5
Except for V-sync: V-sync sucks. no u Tearing sucks.
|
|
tiesieman
True Bro
mental lagger
Posts: 1,401
|
Post by tiesieman on Nov 27, 2012 13:48:45 GMT -5
so does input lag
|
|
|
Post by Marvel4 on Nov 27, 2012 13:49:28 GMT -5
I don't have any input lag.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 27, 2012 13:49:33 GMT -5
Don't tear with constant frame rate.
|
|
|
Post by bm01 on Nov 27, 2012 16:01:12 GMT -5
Don't tear with constant frame rate. Of course there's still a tearing effect even with constant framerate, your monitor doesn't have a constant refresh rate. The vsync is more complicated that most people think. Anyway even if the refresh rate was constant, the separation would still be visible when the scene moves quickly. However having a high framerate, no matter if it's constant or not as long as it stays above 90 let's say, makes the tearing effect less noticeable. I wouldn't recommend vsync on any FPS game unless you manage to enable triple buffering on it. But even then there's still a slight input lag (which should be called display lag). I don't have any input lag. You just don't notice it.
|
|
|
Post by ElysMustache on Nov 27, 2012 18:14:15 GMT -5
So what happens with "dropped" frames? Does a duplicate frame get sent? With my Blackmagic capture card connected to my console, it only likes the 720p/59.96 fps setting (actually 60000/1001). So it is not seeing true 60 fps or even any other lower value below 59.96 if I understand correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 27, 2012 19:20:12 GMT -5
The feed is sent to the TV (and your card) at 60 FPS, but how often that feed actually updates does and will vary. When your frame rate drops below 60, the same frame is just sent again to your TV.
The only way to see your frame rate is to hack your Xbox and set cg_drawfps to 1.
|
|
|
Post by theuberelite on Nov 27, 2012 19:51:18 GMT -5
Well if any PC bros have DXTory and want to do some tests to get results there's an option in DXTory to limit your video frames called "Limit Video FPS" so we could get some tests done like this. Might do it myself.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Nov 27, 2012 19:57:09 GMT -5
I get 120-150FPS.... On max settings
|
|
|
Post by I Am Hollywood5 on Nov 27, 2012 23:44:20 GMT -5
I'd like to know what the game files have the Fire Time for each weapon listed at. If the fire time really does limit a weapon to 900 rpm, than hitting 61 fps will delay shots and significantly hurt the RoF on high RPM weapons. If the fire time is set for 937 rpm, we have some wiggle room.
The problem is that the FPS cap is pretty ineffective. My PC cannot hit 120 fps without significant visual quality sacrifice (and my monitor is only 60Hz anyway) , so I cap it at 60. I no longer do V-Sync because the input lag puts me at a noticeable disadvantage to those not synced. I hate screen tearing but my scores and accuracy improved significantly when disabling V-Sync. Instead, capping at 60 gives me minimal tearing (although it's still there) while also making my mouse movements WAY more responsive. However, for some reason, even thought the absolute max FPS should not exceed 60 fps, it still does. I'm still fluctuating between 58 and 62. I'm wondering if I'm losing RPM when the game is running itself at 61 or 62, when it's not even supposed to.
|
|
|
Post by bm01 on Nov 28, 2012 3:01:41 GMT -5
The only thing I can tell is that it's technically impossible to have a perfectly constant framerate. Because of your OS (mostly), when a thread is put to a sleep for X milliseconds, you're just guaranteed that the sleep will last for at least X milliseconds. On the simplest program the difference isn't noticeable (still measurable), but on a game like Call of Duty it can be pretty significant specially when a lot of process are running in the background. In your case, by a few frames. (By the way you may notice an improvement if you put the priority of CoD's process to "Highest" in the Task Manager)
In the end the only way to ensure that you don't loose much RoF is to have a huge framerate. Or maybe to enable vsync (though this wouldn't work for 937.5 RpM weapons), I don't know how vsync is implemented in CoD games.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Nov 28, 2012 3:47:02 GMT -5
the good news is that they let the frame rate tank in single player for effects. MP is much more stable.
|
|