|
Post by I Am Hollywood5 on Nov 28, 2012 10:24:15 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. So... I'm terrible at calculating this kinda stuff. Can someone tell me what would be the highest possible fps I could have without hitting the 937 rpm limit?
|
|
|
Post by ohbliveeun on Nov 28, 2012 11:14:46 GMT -5
I'm too retarded for this fucking math shit So basically, due to the framerate drops, lower RPM guns will be more consistent while high RPM guns would be outclassed due to the drops in RPM caused by the framerate?
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 28, 2012 13:51:25 GMT -5
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. Not strictly correct, firing the weapon as soon as possible is contingent on your frame rate and its fire rate being factors of each other and nothing else. As in Den’s example, every frame rate between 47-59 lowers the fire rate of a 937.5 RPM weapon, but 46 increases it because of a lower remainder when dividing. So... I'm terrible at calculating this kinda stuff. Can someone tell me what would be the highest possible fps I could have without hitting the 937 rpm limit? Every frame rate into which 0.064 evenly divides, as Den said. To check this, invert the fire time (1 / 0.064 = 15.625) and then any multiple of that number will work. So for 937.5 RPM, the following frame rates would work in theory: 15.625 31.25 46.875 62.5 ...and so forth. But none of these are supported by the Quake engine ("Viable Frame rates (FPS) = int(1000 / N)"). The first frame rate that does is 125 FPS (1000/8) (and the others are 250, 500, and 1000, but good luck with that). As with Den's example, any fluctuation in the frame rate will most probably reduce fire rate by introducing remainders when dividing. Note that the 120 FPS frame limit setting in BO2 is actually 125 FPS, as again, 120 FPS is a not a viable frame rate. So basically, due to the framerate drops, lower RPM guns will be more consistent while high RPM guns would be outclassed due to the drops in RPM caused by the framerate? Not necessarily. All fire rates are affected by this, as seen in this graph. (Can't direct link at work.) As you can see, fire rates decrease as you move down from the magic frame rate, but it shoots back up when the fire rate evenly divides into the frame rate again. There are some specific frame rates where a 750 RPM gun will have a comparable rate of fire, but that's very specific: for this to be of any note, you would have to sustain that frame rate, which should never happen as these frame rates are well below 60 anyway. This is why the MW3 MP7 is markedly different on consoles and on PC: at the console frame rate of 60, the MP7 has a fire rate of 720 and 900 RPM. On PC with a frame rate of 90 (locked in MW3), it has a fire rate of 900 and 1080 RPM.
|
|
|
Post by theuberelite on Nov 28, 2012 15:46:31 GMT -5
Also 500 and 1000 FPS are dumb to use because lets lower our jump height by 10% woo physics bugs Either way, you could still use the Limit Video FPS option of DXTory to help you figure out some things, but I'm not sure, I haven't done much with DXTory limit yet.
Also MW3 locked at 91 (1000/11 = 90.90909...) but was set to 85.
Perhaps I'll take the time, assuming DXTory Frame limit works properly, to see what framerates the guns do best at.
|
|
|
Post by I Am Hollywood5 on Nov 28, 2012 15:47:52 GMT -5
wonder if I should get an external app to cap frame rate at 62... I wont be getting exactly 937 rpm but I think it would be close
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 28, 2012 16:01:11 GMT -5
Also MW3 locked at 91 (1000/11 = 90.90909...) but was set to 85. Rather, it was set to 85 and thus realized 91 FPS, as 85 is not a valid value for com_maxfps. wonder if I should get an external app to cap frame rate at 62... I wont be getting exactly 937 rpm but I think it would be close I'm curious as to what the 60 FPS limit is in practice as it's either 62 or 58 FPS (unless they use an artifical means such as V-sync to lower it from 62 to 60). Try it and see what you get.
|
|
|
Post by theuberelite on Nov 28, 2012 16:09:41 GMT -5
Also MW3 locked at 91 (1000/11 = 90.90909...) but was set to 85. Rather, it was set to 85 and thus realized 91 FPS, as 85 is not a valid value for com_maxfps. wonder if I should get an external app to cap frame rate at 62... I wont be getting exactly 937 rpm but I think it would be close I'm curious as to what the 60 FPS limit is in practice as it's either 62 or 58 FPS (unless they use an artifical means such as V-sync to lower it from 62 to 60). Try it and see what you get. That's what I meant on the 91fps thing. I would imagine it uses VSync on console. Also DXTory does work, but doesn't keep the framerate very consistent. I would say the best framerate to use if any would be 1 below the theoretical best since FPS likes to fluctuate up or down 1. And fluctuating up 1 at a max would obviously not be a good thing, though I dont' think it would make much of a difference either... EDIT: It seems like it very rarely ever fluctuates up 1 actually, its more often down, so I guess theoretical best is best. EDIT2: Did some tests. Using Type 25, I got 62 frames to empty at 47 FPS, and 55 frames to empty at 125 FPS. Course, there's inconsistentcy in how fast I was recording and stuff. Recorded at 30 FPS btw.
|
|
|
Post by bm01 on Nov 29, 2012 5:28:34 GMT -5
Not strictly correct, firing the weapon as soon as possible is contingent on your frame rate and its fire rate being factors of each other and nothing else. As in Den’s example, every frame rate between 47-59 lowers the fire rate of a 937.5 RPM weapon, but 46 increases it because of a lower remainder when dividing. What I meant is the higher your framerate is (higher than 200 let's say), the closer your RoF will be to the theoretical value, even if it's variable, but it has to be pretty huge. Protip: Depth of Field is really bad for your framerate.
|
|
Evan950
True Bro
PSN: xXCrazyBarksXx
Posts: 869
|
Post by Evan950 on Nov 29, 2012 6:16:01 GMT -5
i could run 125fps on pc, but i dont have bo2 on pc maybe when steam puts it free for the weekend
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 29, 2012 11:38:12 GMT -5
What I meant is the higher your framerate is (higher than 200 let's say), the closer your RoF will be to the theoretical value, even if it's variable, but it has to be pretty huge. Someone didn't click the graph.
|
|
|
Post by bm01 on Nov 29, 2012 15:28:30 GMT -5
Probably you, because that's exactly what I said, so either you don't understand the graph or you don't understand what I'm saying. Since the framerate is variable, the more you have the higher your minimum RoF will be.
|
|
|
Post by bm01 on Nov 29, 2012 15:33:37 GMT -5
...you did a pretty bad job of conveying that thought then Honestly, what's the difference between "In the end the only way to ensure that you don't loose much RoF is to have a huge framerate" And "Since the framerate is variable, the more you have the higher your minimum RoF will be. " ?
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 29, 2012 15:34:31 GMT -5
While there is some truth to that, you're missing the fundamental principle as to why fire rate reductions occur: RPM is reduced because it cannot be evenly divided by a given frame rate.
A frame rate that oscillated between 200 and 500 FPS would, overall, fire a 937.5 RPM slower than a frame rate that was locked at 125 FPS for this reason.
|
|
|
Post by bm01 on Nov 29, 2012 15:42:25 GMT -5
The point is you can't really lock your framerate at 125 without the use of a third party program / dll, the in-game option doesn't seem to make it stable enough, occasionally it drops to 124 or goes to 126. ... Anyway, the max fps in ranked games seems to be 200 according to the description, so having a huge framerate isn't an option.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 29, 2012 16:38:27 GMT -5
The point is you can't really lock your framerate at 125 without the use of a third party program / dll, the in-game option doesn't seem to make it stable enough, occasionally it drops to 124 or goes to 126. Sure you can. Lower your settings.
|
|
|
Post by bm01 on Nov 29, 2012 17:45:36 GMT -5
Are you just trolling or what? Of course I lowered my settings before testing the stability of the framerate limiter, actually I tested at min and max settings during actual gameplay to exclude this possibility. Also if it was a performance issue it would never go above 125.
Anyway, like I said, due to technical limitations there is no way to have a perfectly constant framerate, not only on Black Ops 2 but on any game, ask any programmer. Most of the time the variation is small enough to not be considered as a framerate change by the counter, but that doesn't mean it's stable. Framerate counters aren't meant to be accurate, they round up / down the actual value and sometimes they even average the duration of the last X frames to make things easier to read (like Fraps does). They're merely here to tell if things are going well or not.
The real question, if there is any, wouldn't be about the existence of an instability, but about the consequence of a small and normal instability on the RoF.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 29, 2012 18:26:04 GMT -5
I'm well aware of that, but you cannot exceed the frame rate cap purely as an engine limitation and the downward variation is greatly minimized (to the point of impracticality) by making the game more efficient.
However, you do bring up a good point about the effects of changing frame rate on fire rate.
All our discussions have assumed that frame rate is constant. However, when the frame rate is fluctuating, you could theoretically have a remainder be generated twice and miss two or more shots in a row due to unfavorable numbers.
In this regard, your previous argument, that higher frame rates minimize fire rate variation, is true because in the above scenario the next frame will occur sooner, thus removing the remainder.
|
|
|
Post by Voice from the Basement on Nov 29, 2012 23:43:57 GMT -5
Well, I'm breaking your discussion, but…well, I got used to play with the highest settings and they're causing me to have 70–125 "swimming" framerate. Now I have no wonder why sometimes I can dominate the CQC with retarded SCAR-H and lose all the CQCs while using SMGs. My problem is that I can't minimize my settings 'cause it will cause the blur of textures meaning I won't notice some targets anymore, especially cаmpers. My computer is not an ancient one, but with "Low" Depth of the Field (everything else – on the highest quality) I have only 100 FPS in the worst circumstances. :( And, as I said, minimizing anything else will cause me to be less alarmed. I'm just wondering is anybody else here thinking that better settings is better than "perfect" framerate, especially due to the last thread's conclusion of "unstable stable" framerate? And you're extremely lucky if you got used to the lowest settings – you get double advantage.
|
|
|
Post by theuberelite on Nov 30, 2012 16:21:50 GMT -5
For me, shadows on low to see people coming around corners in some maps is helpful. Ambient Occlusion helps you see through smoke (been like that since CoD4 thus why in promod, AO isn't allowed) Depth of Field is a really bad thing and I wish you could turn it off because it helps you see better when looking through something like a fence while ADS.
Being able to acquire targets more easily will probably help you better than that perfect framerate. There's so many things to consider though. Generally though those milliseconds saved by firing 50 RPM faster than another guy isn't gonna help you much. There also comes the issue of 120Hz monitors - if you have to go below 120 FPS to get that perfect rate it's not gonna be too fun. And then there's the small jump height advantage due to the Quake engine at 125 FPS, though thats not gonna help you much in this game if at all lol
Perhaps in a competitive environment it would be more useful. Who knows.
|
|