Variable fps cap

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :geek: :ugeek: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :3: :wub: >:( :blergh:
View more smilies
BBCode is OFF
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Variable fps cap

by kc32 » Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:38 pm

Well, it looks like crap on my flatscreen.

by jallamann » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:11 pm

WoW runs anywhere between 15-30 FPS and sometimes 40 if a place is empty of other players... Even at 15 FPS it doesn't look like a slideshow.

Re: heh

by Jim » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:03 am

Gendo wrote:35 fps being a slideshow? man, you exagerrate, most of divx is 25 fps or something close to that, afair.
That is not the same. Pre-rendered video can use motion-blur to make things look more fluid using fewer frames. Video games cannot do this.

However, I do agree that 35 fps is quite playable and far from the lower limit of what I tolerate when I play video games.

by DoomRater » Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:57 pm

A few PS/2 mice that had a terrible resolution felt like slideshows to me... or maybe just an old time movie.

heh

by Gendo » Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:35 pm

35 fps being a slideshow? man, you exagerrate, most of divx is 25 fps or something close to that, afair.

by DoomRater » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:32 am

Foreverhood is unplayable on my laptop, getting 1fps. I'd hate to even try The Island, considering that maps nowadays don't come with the nodes built to save space... that ALSO eats up so much time on my laptop! (Good thing I only have to use it on road trips for that...)

Oh yeah, Randy? You forgot to potato-ize those links.

by Arcane » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:20 am

Man, Graf would hate my computer.

I get 30 on a small map. <_< The Island gave me 6fps.

by kc32 » Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:44 pm

I want an fps somewhere in the middle, something like 70-80 instead of 35 or around 220.

by HobbsTiger1 » Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:20 pm

EDiTAGE: Nevermind, people have a right to their own opinion on decent fps. But if you want a lot of it don't whine about cpu usage.

by Graf Zahl » Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:23 pm

HobbsTiger1 wrote:
kc32 wrote:I would like to play at a decent framerate without loading my CPU and possibly overheating it.
1. 35 fps is quite decent thank you very much.
No, it is not. 85 is but 35 feels like a slideshow.

by Lemonzest » Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:46 pm

/me get's 200+ at 1024x768 but still locks at 35

by Kirby » Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:28 pm

randy wrote:play play
:lol: sounds like fun :lol:

by HobbsTiger1 » Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:52 pm

kc32 wrote:I would like to play at a decent framerate without loading my CPU and possibly overheating it.
1. 35 fps is quite decent thank you very much.
2. If by loading you mean using 100% of your CPU, why should it matter? Nothing else should be actively running anyway EDIT: FRAPS (or such) would be an exception, however in this case you should set cl_capfps to 1
3. Unless you are overclocking your CPU it will not overheat if consistently used at or near 100%. I have a textbook that states this and find it to be completely true from experience.

by kc32 » Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:22 pm

I would like to play at a decent framerate without loading my CPU and possibly overheating it.

by randi » Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:01 pm

kc32 wrote:It's still doing ~220 fps and using 100% CPU.
Then your video card probably doesn't support vsync properly.
kc32 wrote:I'm not really sure why it's even there.
Because some people like to play play at 35 FPS.

Top