DecoyJoin Date: 2012-09-11Member: 159037Members, Super Administrators, Playtest Lead, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts, Retired Community Developer
@wangus There have been threads like this for an extremely long time. Often, players who don't care enough to balance the teams also don't care enough to read the forums :P
My recommendation is to find a nice community server to play on, one with active admins. It doesn't guarantee you'll get better games, but I've found it helps a lot.
@wangus Go play on KKG Captains server, it doesn't stop stacked games entirely but it does help a lot because people can't intentionally stack due to team picking but also you get a higher standard of players relatively speaking, not competitive level but at a good pub level.
@coolitic the difference that lightboost makes is pretty staggering. I remember when I first got my 144Hz monitor and set it up at 120hz with lightboost. The amount of information your eyes see compared to 60Hz is mind blowing. Suddenly things feel like slow motion. I went back to 60Hz for a pcw a while back and did really badly. It makes a difference all right!
So basically ppl say that if you have more monitor FPS you will play better ?
Let me list the stack. The complete one.
: Server receive information from client PC
: Server make calculation to "place" entitie on the map
: Server sends the result in the form of message to the Client PC
: Then internet has lag...
: Client PC receive update from server
: Client PC render image , store in a dedicated buffer and change screen address (swap screen if you prefer).
: Image is sent to monitor via connection from the video card
: Monitor emits light
: Eyes do not capture light but are hit by light.
: Chemical and electrical reactions kick in.
: Converted informations travel through optical nerve
: Information are received in a special brain area located in the back
: From there many processes get activated. Usually a lot and they take time.
: The Brain interprets information and activate or not consolidated circuits which can lead to triggering of reflexes.
: Brain decide to make the hand move 1 cm on the left (of push the forward key)
: So Brain start to activate the dedicated circuits to do so.
: It activates a chain of external organs that goes from the neck to the end of your finger. With their own response delay.
...then client PC render another image.
All these require delay. Influence of the monitor is barely significant as it is one amongst many delay you have to add in the end.
30 to 35 hz is the minimum for you to see an fluid motion on a screen. Unless it is a Tranformer movie you won't see a blurred image. Below that you can detect it. example: Old movie theater at 24FPS. Numerical are at a higher FPS now. But above... there may NOT be a consensus about that. It may be 0.1% of the population when the guy is fully awake (that moment of the day), with a incredible load of vitamins in the body, and when planets are perfectly aligned.
These 120hz use an illusion. They produce more light in order to make ppl think they see better. Not entirely true. You think you see better because you receive more light which make your eye produce a stronger response (towards brain). One of the side effect of getting hit by more light is your body will reduce the production of melatonin. That keeps you awake longer. Same effect as sun or daylight. It finally induce fatigue that you finally don't feel at the moment but later. ex : Glued eyes the next morning...
60 FPS with no disturbance (images are swapped at that exact frequency); you won't see the difference. It is still 1 60th of a second.
The only thing is : there are a lot of bad programmers in this world that can't cope with synchronization stuff (or how a computer works). They usually come from the "high level language" world. Assembler programmer (low level) are always deep into these problems. Games are made with high level languages (Object oriented for the most part). So in the "today game world" it is better not to use sync as it's not use or done the proper way.
Bottom line is :
With all these super-elite_monitor+Uber-PC+mouse_stuff-of-gamer; if you're a dumb f***k; it won't be better.
how is showing an image of stacked teams on a post called "PLEASE STOP THE STACK" out of context, tell me where is the right context for this? @F0rdPrefect
God forbid that we accidently had fun that game aswell, but it dosent change the fact aliens both was stacked and totally Annihilated us - u can still enjoy the game however.
What dopedog said, although I would have formulated it differently. If you want to discuss this more, send me a PM. No need to derail this even further.
So basically ppl say that if you have more monitor FPS you will play better ?
Let me list the stack. The complete one.
: Server receive information from client PC
: Server make calculation to "place" entitie on the map
: Server sends the result in the form of message to the Client PC
: Then internet has lag...
: Client PC receive update from server
: Client PC render image , store in a dedicated buffer and change screen address (swap screen if you prefer).
: Image is sent to monitor via connection from the video card
: Monitor emits light
: Eyes do not capture light but are hit by light.
: Chemical and electrical reactions kick in.
: Converted informations travel through optical nerve
: Information are received in a special brain area located in the back
: From there many processes get activated. Usually a lot and they take time.
: The Brain interprets information and activate or not consolidated circuits which can lead to triggering of reflexes.
: Brain decide to make the hand move 1 cm on the left (of push the forward key)
: So Brain start to activate the dedicated circuits to do so.
: It activates a chain of external organs that goes from the neck to the end of your finger. With their own response delay.
...then client PC render another image.
All these require delay. Influence of the monitor is barely significant as it is one amongst many delay you have to add in the end.
30 to 35 hz is the minimum for you to see an fluid motion on a screen. Unless it is a Tranformer movie you won't see a blurred image. Below that you can detect it. example: Old movie theater at 24FPS. Numerical are at a higher FPS now. But above... there may NOT be a consensus about that. It may be 0.1% of the population when the guy is fully awake (that moment of the day), with a incredible load of vitamins in the body, and when planets are perfectly aligned.
These 120hz use an illusion. They produce more light in order to make ppl think they see better. Not entirely true. You think you see better because you receive more light which make your eye produce a stronger response (towards brain). One of the side effect of getting hit by more light is your body will reduce the production of melatonin. That keeps you awake longer. Same effect as sun or daylight. It finally induce fatigue that you finally don't feel at the moment but later. ex : Glued eyes the next morning...
60 FPS with no disturbance (images are swapped at that exact frequency); you won't see the difference. It is still 1 60th of a second.
The only thing is : there are a lot of bad programmers in this world that can't cope with synchronization stuff (or how a computer works). They usually come from the "high level language" world. Assembler programmer (low level) are always deep into these problems. Games are made with high level languages (Object oriented for the most part). So in the "today game world" it is better not to use sync as it's not use or done the proper way.
Bottom line is :
With all these super-elite_monitor+Uber-PC+mouse_stuff-of-gamer; if you're a dumb f***k; it won't be better.
Are you arguing that humans cannot see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz?
Because if so, I hate to point out that the '24fps' argument is a complete and utter fallacy. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is massive. The difference between 60fps and 120fps isn't as large, but it is still considerable and very noticeable.
And Lightboost actually makes your monitor appear dimmer, not brighter. It stops the bleeding of one frame into the next, thereby reducing motion blur at the expense of brightness. This visual effect is entirely noticeable, and testable in an objective way (go to blurbusters.com to see examples of this). The effect is nothing to do with 'stronger light making people think they see better' - I have no idea where you got that nonsense from.
You can't compare games to movies because they transmit images/light in a different way. Movies have a constant framerate. The framerate of games fluctuates. Even minimal fluctuations make motion seem extremely less fluid to the human eye, which is why you can't limit FPS to 30 or 60 or whatever and be done with it.
Now, due to the way the human eye perveives light and the brain processes it, a much higher framerate and refresh rate is needed for games to create the illusion of a steady framerate and therefore a fluid motion. In addition, Lightboost uses the monitor's backlight to emit light exactly 120 times a second at a constant speed to enhance the illusion of fluidity even further.
Then again, had you ever actually used a Lightboost or 144hz monitor, you would know there is a massive, MAAAAAASSIVE difference.
Are you arguing that humans cannot see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz?
Because if so, I hate to point out that the '24fps' argument is a complete and utter fallacy. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is massive. The difference between 60fps and 120fps isn't as large, but it is still considerable and very noticeable.
And Lightboost actually makes your monitor appear dimmer, not brighter. It stops the bleeding of one frame into the next, thereby reducing motion blur at the expense of brightness. This visual effect is entirely noticeable, and testable in an objective way (go to blurbusters.com to see examples of this). The effect is nothing to do with 'stronger light making people think they see better' - I have no idea where you got that nonsense from.
I think he's saying that 120Hz monitor doesn't help with 60fps compared to 60Hz, which is kinda true. 120Hz still has double the chance of hitting the most up to date frame. But if people are interested in this kind of stuff, here is a good article of this topic.
You can definitely tell & feel the difference going from 60hz to 120hz or 144hz for that matter. I had an original ASUS VG248qe 144hz using light boost and modified it with a g-sync module so it would display refresh rates dynamically (this meant i had to loose the light boost), the switch from static (light boosted) to dynamic (with out light boost) 144hz refresh rate boggled my mind as i had thought that regular 144hz(light boosted) looked amazing, i was wrong.
This technology really needs to be in every PC monitor.
Are you arguing that humans cannot see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz?
Because if so, I hate to point out that the '24fps' argument is a complete and utter fallacy. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is massive. The difference between 60fps and 120fps isn't as large, but it is still considerable and very noticeable.
And Lightboost actually makes your monitor appear dimmer, not brighter. It stops the bleeding of one frame into the next, thereby reducing motion blur at the expense of brightness. This visual effect is entirely noticeable, and testable in an objective way (go to blurbusters.com to see examples of this). The effect is nothing to do with 'stronger light making people think they see better' - I have no idea where you got that nonsense from.
You talk about monitor quality. I just say your brain won't see the difference. Therefor, you can't be faster because your monitor is faster. Or more intelligent in the game. We both know it's not a matter of "hardware".
I said "light"; i should have used "flash". FPS is same as Hz. It's a measurement. 60 Frame per sec is same as 60 time per seconds.
If you make a white box "move" at 1px / frame @ 40Hz you won't see the difference. 60 Hz (Or FPS) is enough for humans and will be enough for the image size of any monitor. As long as image is perfect. CRT monitors; if you knew it, could provide such a test. Today it may work on most of LCD monitors.
or look for "Persistence Of Vision"
That's also one of the reason developers keep effects in software interfaces. If you are a programmer, test it for yourself. Make a interface that will only draw the next panel directly without delay and eye candy effect. Say it's a Windows grey panel switching to another grey panel with different text and button. Using it for a while you will surely get stuck for a 1/2 second waiting for the next panel... but it's already there dude!!! ... funny moments (especially if you're a little tired). We're humans, nothing more.
You can't compare games to movies because they transmit images/light in a different way. Movies have a constant framerate. The framerate of games fluctuates. Even minimal fluctuations make motion seem extremely less fluid to the human eye, which is why you can't limit FPS to 30 or 60 or whatever and be done with it.
Now, due to the way the human eye perveives light and the brain processes it, a much higher framerate and refresh rate is needed for games to create the illusion of a steady framerate and therefore a fluid motion. In addition, Lightboost uses the monitor's backlight to emit light exactly 120 times a second at a constant speed to enhance the illusion of fluidity even further.
Then again, had you ever actually used a Lightboost or 144hz monitor, you would know there is a massive, MAAAAAASSIVE difference.
Game don't produce light. hmm... flashes. It's you monitor. The refresh rate of your monitor is constant. The game calculation for a frame (the so called framerate which is dumb from the POV a true programmer) can be behind (especially with NS2 would say some) or on time, and usually before time of sync (vertical sync). But that doesn't matter. If programmed properly, the screen buffer swap (the frame picture) is instantaneous. And the data is converted to light one byte/word at a time. We have linear memory systems (sorry) but they're faster than you.
As you said : "Illusion of fluidity". So if your framerate is above 60FPS and your monitor is 60Hz. Unless of dumb programming, you don't need more. Except image quality which is the main issue with LCD. Marketing just align number to say "we re better than before (or the competitor)". Of course technology improves but more Hz only reduce the time slot size of a frame to be processed. It won't accelerate you'r brain, reflexes, hand / eye coordination.
You may feel more comfortable but it's an illusion. In reality more flashes make your body reduce melatonin production. But it's doesn't alleviates the fact you will need more rest after that... And no ; coffee won't save the world. The body needs rest on a regular basis, and 8 hours of sleep is not for nothing (chemically speaking).
Lightboost uses the monitor's backlight to emit light exactly 120 times a second at a constant speed to enhance the illusion of fluidity even further.
that's not a very accurate description of what lightboost does. the difference with lightboost is that your backlight turns off between each frame. it doesn't really change timing or fluidity. it reduces blur and therefore increases clarity.
you seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that our brains process visual information in a way analogous to "fps." that's a common mistake. visual processing in the brain is much more complex than that. the brain doesn't break visual stimulus into discrete samples. i'm going to stop right there because i'm not a neuroscientist, and it's obvious you're not either.
what it comes down to is that you're arguing the case that refresh rates higher than 60hz won't make a significant difference in the quantity of information successfully communicated and usefully interpreted by the brain. this is verifiably false. it has been proven false and is not a valid subject for debate.
given a crt monitor at 60hz most viewers will experience a perceptible flickering effect. at around 75-80hz this flickering will no longer be perceptible to most viewers. this is known as the flicker fusion threshold ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold ). this by itself easily defeats your argument. for clarity's sake, lcd monitors generally do not exhibit this same flickering, because their illumination is persistent. their pixels do not switch to black between frames. they simply stay at whatever value they were last and wait for new information to come along. this results in motion blur or "ghosting." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision#Computer_monitor ) this effect is less distracting but also perceptible. this is the entire reason "lightboost," an image strobing solution, exists. the point here is that 60hz is around the minimum refresh rate necessary for comfortable viewing. anything lower is pretty distracting or has tons of motion blur (movies). that being said, the maximum rates at which the eye can perceive information and the brain can process it are significantly higher than this.
the thing with stacking is, i've seen plenty of one-sided games. they're usually not because one side is stacked. they're usually just because of how the early game played out. for instance, if the alien comm drops two harvesters first thing, and marines just happen to kill both, and no aliens respond, the game will often play out in pubs, even though it's effectively over. from that point on it's going to be a stomp. if aliens had any idea what they were doing they would start looking for coordinated all-in plays, because that's their only chance at this point. but aliens have no idea that this is the case or how to execute that. on the other side, marines don't realize how far ahead they are and that they could just walk into the hive and end it. so the game goes on for another 15 minutes. aliens are just getting more and more stomped as marines get further and further ahead. so it's a stomp. and then people claim stack. but if you ask them who specifically is stacking, they'll just point out random baddies.
pubs in ns2 are a chaotic complex system. shit is just happening at random and can sway the tide of the game in ridiculous ways. most of the participants have no idea what they're doing or how it affects the game. the random chance of ignorant players leads to games being completely one-sided.
whenever i pub i'm just along for the ride. i only do it for mindless diversion, that's all it's good for. i'm usually at the top of the scoreboard (but sometimes i'll be at the bottom in one-sided games!) and sometimes people will accuse my side of stacking. i only play a few rounds at a time and generally don't know anybody else on any of these servers. i just switch back and forth, usually starting on marines. marines, aliens, marines, aliens, quit for a month.
to be fair, i've definitely seen real stacks happen. i've seen div 1 players all join a server together on mumble and say "stack marines." those games don't generally get past five minutes. also the happen almost never. pretty much all those people have quit ns2. also, what i've written above is representative of NA servers. ime euro servers seem slightly more skilled.
that's a common mistake. visual processing in the brain is much more complex than that. the brain doesn't break visual stimulus into discrete samples. i'm going to stop right there because i'm not a neuroscientist, and it's obvious you're not either.
what it comes down to is that you're arguing the case that refresh rates higher than 60hz won't make a significant difference in the quantity of information successfully communicated and usefully interpreted by the brain.
Nope i'm talking about the whole stack. From server to eye hand coordination.
given a crt monitor at 60hz most viewers will experience a perceptible flickering effect.
What content exactly ? Still image ? If it's a test like cutting the screen in two part; one black; one white and finally make it flicker... yes... but we are far away from the game world or any decent movie (or tv show). right ?
at around 75-80hz this flickering will no longer be perceptible to most viewers. this is known as the flicker fusion threshold ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold ). this by itself easily defeats your argument.
Far from it. Re-read the 7 bullet points given in the Wikipedia page. Narrow isn't it ?
for clarity's sake, lcd monitors generally do not exhibit this same flickering, because their illumination is persistent. their pixels do not switch to black between frames. they simply stay at whatever value they were last and wait for new information to come along. this results in motion blur or "ghosting." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision#Computer_monitor ) this effect is less distracting but also perceptible. this is the entire reason "lightboost," an image strobing solution, exists. the point here is that 60hz is around the minimum refresh rate necessary for comfortable viewing. anything lower is pretty distracting or has tons of motion blur (movies). that being said, the maximum rates at which the eye can perceive information and the brain can process it are significantly higher than this.
BBC Research (i laughed then stated i should read till the end) had successfully demonstrated in 2008 that increasing the frame rate can significantly improve the portrayal of motion even at standard definition. Their tests were conducted by shooting 300 fps on a Phantom V5.1 camera, but displayed at 100 fps on a Christie Mirage S+4K projector due to limitations in display technology.
Considering all of the above, I believe the frame rate of the human eye is about 120 fps.
This is a note, not a study. Any decent study do not belieeeeeve. They do know, confirm or DON'T (negate or not conclusive). You probably have some readings to do.
The moment i did read "BBC" i got back 20 years ago when the first HD tv prototype where exposed in some apple expo. Of course BBC and all competitors are interested in doing HD stuff with the number argument in frontline. They compete for market share. So they won't kill the TV dealer business. They would look stupid. Plus BBC announced 7 or 8 years ago they gonna go HD... Do you really need a car that can go 400Km/h while limitation are at... say 100 KM/h ? I doubt that.
Even if the eye and solely the eye is capable of such a thing there is no proof a human being interprets and react faster with a 120hz monitor better than a 60hz or whaever. The whole chain is as weak as....
What I'm talking about is: Put together; the whole stack of elements from server side, inter-network, client PC, monitor to hand/eye coordination. Having a super +100hz monitor :
1 It won't improve your person.
2 still render black as... black. Unless you have pink skulks on the screen; dark area are still black. Even at 500Hz...
3 make you a bigger dumb f***k while you're in the dark when PN goes down or when you let your base unprotected and you never come back.
dePARAJoin Date: 2011-04-29Member: 96321Members, Squad Five Blue
NS2 is a relative complex game and yes, if you own the best hardware and dont understand the basics this equipment wont help you much.
But if you play on an relative high level this equipment gives you the little advantage over your opponent you need to win the engagements.
- you can hear them earlier cause you have a good soundcard and headset
- you can track them better cause exact mouse and much smoother gameplay cause 144 hz
In the hand of an "pro" all this hardware makes sense.
But im sure a premium div player can stomp a normal pub player with an ball mouse on an 80€ 60hz tft anyway.
lmao @UncleCrunch , the armchair neurologists breaking down how the brain works for everyone. And then to top it off, calling people "dumb fucks". Brilliant presentation, Doctor.
Let's get off the topic of monitor discussion eh? Let's just all be mature adults (or whatever you may be) and get back on topic.
Good god, that's rich coming from you, Mr '60Hz is all you need'
@unclecrunch let me break down one argument that you might understand.
You turn 180 degrees with the flick of a mouse. It takes, let's say 100ms (a very slow estimate). At 60fps/60Hz you will render 6 frames, that's one every 30 degrees.
At 120fps/120Hz, you will render 12 frames, one every 15 degrees. That's still not great, but it is twice as many as before.
Your eyes may need to catch 1 or 2 of those frames to notice a skulk incoming, or something else, a higher lifeform, maybe.
At 120fps/120Hz, you have twice as much chance of seeing that thing you needed to see. Furthermore, if you see it on more than one frame, you have a chance of guestimating its speed and extrapolating its movement.
This effect is MASSIVELY increased if you're running with lightboost, because the frames are much clearer with very low blurring.
That is JUST ONE reason why I personally, subjectively, find my gaming to improve when I switch on lightboost at 120Hz (even over 144Hz with no lightboost, already a good step up from 60Hz). I tend to find my game improves because I see 'more.'
It doesn't make you aim better, or position yourself better, or look at the map, or call out enemy positions, or respond to threats, or lane block better. No-one is suggesting that, but they way you're writing seems to be making this false impression that somehow that's what we're claiming.
What >60Hz gaming brings to the table is more information that your brain *can* process, more chance of bringing that 1 frame that you needed to observe something that you may easily have missed before. It also brings a fluidity of movement, especially in turning and close-quarters combat, that helps to provide much more information to allow your brain to interpolate better.
I know, because I've used it extensively, and have used 60Hz extensively, and tested my own system out a lot to see for myself what the difference was. I haven't done the double blind trial, I'm not going to and I don't need to. If you're content to use 60Hz, that's fine for you, congrats. Don't come running to me to ask why I didn't let you know how much better 120Hz/lightboost is when eventually you're exposed to it, though.
I recently purchased a 144hz monitor, because I needed a new monitor, and wanted to see if there was a difference. Was there? Yes. A very minimal one. Lightboost was where the real difference was. It is night and day how much smoother gameplay is. I can actually see the lerk spinning around me now.
@Unclecrunch there is NOTHING you can legitimately disagree with in my post.
The maths is correct, and I even stated that my opinion is subjective.
Outrageous.
Yeah, before this ends in an all-out flamewar, can you guys please go to OT to discuss this, or just leave it be?
I think by now it's clear that no side is going to be convinced by the other's arguments, so all you are fighting over is who is in the right, and seriously, you are adults. You are better than that.
What I'm talking about is: Put together; the whole stack of elements from server side, inter-network, client PC, monitor to hand/eye coordination. Having a super +100hz monitor :
1 It won't improve your person.
2 still render black as... black. Unless you have pink skulks on the screen; dark area are still black. Even at 500Hz...
3 make you a bigger dumb f***k while you're in the dark when PN goes down or when you let your base unprotected and you never come back.
There are things a 1xxHz monitor won't do...
having realized that you're wrong, you're now trying to shift the argument away from your original position. obviously if you're a bad player you'll play bad. that has no bearing on the discussion.
@F0rdPrefect@Roobubba@ns2isgood@dePARA this guy has shown that no matter how much he is refuted he's just gonna keep conflating the argument until everybody gives up, because he can't accept that he's wrong. no point in continuing.
It is hard to not stack in this game. There are more vets playing ns2 than greens. In a pub, people quit and people join during the round (if it's long enough). One player can carry a team. Two good players on a team can be an immediate gg. If there were more players then this wouldn't be such a big issue.
Well, when I move my mouse in a circle on the desktop of my 120Hz main monitor I see the curser twice as often as on my 60Hz second monitor. Either...
... my eyes or brain are just beyond human (which I would love to be true but highly doubt it is...)
... or the brighntess of the monitor is tricking me and making me think I see the curser more often
... or humans actually can see and/or feel that fast motions are more fluid on 120Hz monitors compared to 60Hz monitors
The statement that better hardware won't make you play better is (at least for my person) simply not true.
I think I can count myself to the above average players in this game and I have played it on different computers with different mice and different monitors.
The upgrade from my 60Hz monitor to my 120Hz monitor was definitely worth it. When that one was delivered I did a lot of testing and comparing and at least for me NS2 felt and played a LOT smoother. Also a decent gpu and more than all a good cpu will help a lot to maintain high fps in endgame making it a lot easier to aim.
Comments
My recommendation is to find a nice community server to play on, one with active admins. It doesn't guarantee you'll get better games, but I've found it helps a lot.
So basically ppl say that if you have more monitor FPS you will play better ?
Let me list the stack. The complete one.
: Server receive information from client PC
: Server make calculation to "place" entitie on the map
: Server sends the result in the form of message to the Client PC
: Then internet has lag...
: Client PC receive update from server
: Client PC render image , store in a dedicated buffer and change screen address (swap screen if you prefer).
: Image is sent to monitor via connection from the video card
: Monitor emits light
: Eyes do not capture light but are hit by light.
: Chemical and electrical reactions kick in.
: Converted informations travel through optical nerve
: Information are received in a special brain area located in the back
: From there many processes get activated. Usually a lot and they take time.
: The Brain interprets information and activate or not consolidated circuits which can lead to triggering of reflexes.
: Brain decide to make the hand move 1 cm on the left (of push the forward key)
: So Brain start to activate the dedicated circuits to do so.
: It activates a chain of external organs that goes from the neck to the end of your finger. With their own response delay.
...then client PC render another image.
All these require delay. Influence of the monitor is barely significant as it is one amongst many delay you have to add in the end.
30 to 35 hz is the minimum for you to see an fluid motion on a screen. Unless it is a Tranformer movie you won't see a blurred image. Below that you can detect it. example: Old movie theater at 24FPS. Numerical are at a higher FPS now. But above... there may NOT be a consensus about that. It may be 0.1% of the population when the guy is fully awake (that moment of the day), with a incredible load of vitamins in the body, and when planets are perfectly aligned.
These 120hz use an illusion. They produce more light in order to make ppl think they see better. Not entirely true. You think you see better because you receive more light which make your eye produce a stronger response (towards brain). One of the side effect of getting hit by more light is your body will reduce the production of melatonin. That keeps you awake longer. Same effect as sun or daylight. It finally induce fatigue that you finally don't feel at the moment but later. ex : Glued eyes the next morning...
60 FPS with no disturbance (images are swapped at that exact frequency); you won't see the difference. It is still 1 60th of a second.
The only thing is : there are a lot of bad programmers in this world that can't cope with synchronization stuff (or how a computer works). They usually come from the "high level language" world. Assembler programmer (low level) are always deep into these problems. Games are made with high level languages (Object oriented for the most part). So in the "today game world" it is better not to use sync as it's not use or done the proper way.
Bottom line is :
With all these super-elite_monitor+Uber-PC+mouse_stuff-of-gamer; if you're a dumb f***k; it won't be better.
God forbid that we accidently had fun that game aswell, but it dosent change the fact aliens both was stacked and totally Annihilated us - u can still enjoy the game however.
Are you arguing that humans cannot see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz?
Because if so, I hate to point out that the '24fps' argument is a complete and utter fallacy. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is massive. The difference between 60fps and 120fps isn't as large, but it is still considerable and very noticeable.
And Lightboost actually makes your monitor appear dimmer, not brighter. It stops the bleeding of one frame into the next, thereby reducing motion blur at the expense of brightness. This visual effect is entirely noticeable, and testable in an objective way (go to blurbusters.com to see examples of this). The effect is nothing to do with 'stronger light making people think they see better' - I have no idea where you got that nonsense from.
Now, due to the way the human eye perveives light and the brain processes it, a much higher framerate and refresh rate is needed for games to create the illusion of a steady framerate and therefore a fluid motion. In addition, Lightboost uses the monitor's backlight to emit light exactly 120 times a second at a constant speed to enhance the illusion of fluidity even further.
Then again, had you ever actually used a Lightboost or 144hz monitor, you would know there is a massive, MAAAAAASSIVE difference.
I think he's saying that 120Hz monitor doesn't help with 60fps compared to 60Hz, which is kinda true. 120Hz still has double the chance of hitting the most up to date frame. But if people are interested in this kind of stuff, here is a good article of this topic.
http://www.bytemedev.com/the-truth-about-frames-per-second-fps/
It's more about 30fps vs 60fps but gives nice info also about 120Hz to 300Hz.
All the good fps on one monitor?
Sorry, im a bit confused.
This technology really needs to be in every PC monitor.
You talk about monitor quality. I just say your brain won't see the difference. Therefor, you can't be faster because your monitor is faster. Or more intelligent in the game. We both know it's not a matter of "hardware".
I said "light"; i should have used "flash". FPS is same as Hz. It's a measurement. 60 Frame per sec is same as 60 time per seconds.
If you make a white box "move" at 1px / frame @ 40Hz you won't see the difference. 60 Hz (Or FPS) is enough for humans and will be enough for the image size of any monitor. As long as image is perfect. CRT monitors; if you knew it, could provide such a test. Today it may work on most of LCD monitors.
or look for "Persistence Of Vision"
That's also one of the reason developers keep effects in software interfaces. If you are a programmer, test it for yourself. Make a interface that will only draw the next panel directly without delay and eye candy effect. Say it's a Windows grey panel switching to another grey panel with different text and button. Using it for a while you will surely get stuck for a 1/2 second waiting for the next panel... but it's already there dude!!! ... funny moments (especially if you're a little tired). We're humans, nothing more.
And no monitor... flash light will change that.
Game don't produce light. hmm... flashes. It's you monitor. The refresh rate of your monitor is constant. The game calculation for a frame (the so called framerate which is dumb from the POV a true programmer) can be behind (especially with NS2 would say some) or on time, and usually before time of sync (vertical sync). But that doesn't matter. If programmed properly, the screen buffer swap (the frame picture) is instantaneous. And the data is converted to light one byte/word at a time. We have linear memory systems (sorry) but they're faster than you.
As you said : "Illusion of fluidity". So if your framerate is above 60FPS and your monitor is 60Hz. Unless of dumb programming, you don't need more. Except image quality which is the main issue with LCD. Marketing just align number to say "we re better than before (or the competitor)". Of course technology improves but more Hz only reduce the time slot size of a frame to be processed. It won't accelerate you'r brain, reflexes, hand / eye coordination.
You may feel more comfortable but it's an illusion. In reality more flashes make your body reduce melatonin production. But it's doesn't alleviates the fact you will need more rest after that... And no ; coffee won't save the world. The body needs rest on a regular basis, and 8 hours of sleep is not for nothing (chemically speaking).
@RadimaX
Sorry.
Stack won't stop as long as there a "you can loose something".
that's not a very accurate description of what lightboost does. the difference with lightboost is that your backlight turns off between each frame. it doesn't really change timing or fluidity. it reduces blur and therefore increases clarity.
you seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that our brains process visual information in a way analogous to "fps." that's a common mistake. visual processing in the brain is much more complex than that. the brain doesn't break visual stimulus into discrete samples. i'm going to stop right there because i'm not a neuroscientist, and it's obvious you're not either.
what it comes down to is that you're arguing the case that refresh rates higher than 60hz won't make a significant difference in the quantity of information successfully communicated and usefully interpreted by the brain. this is verifiably false. it has been proven false and is not a valid subject for debate.
given a crt monitor at 60hz most viewers will experience a perceptible flickering effect. at around 75-80hz this flickering will no longer be perceptible to most viewers. this is known as the flicker fusion threshold ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold ). this by itself easily defeats your argument. for clarity's sake, lcd monitors generally do not exhibit this same flickering, because their illumination is persistent. their pixels do not switch to black between frames. they simply stay at whatever value they were last and wait for new information to come along. this results in motion blur or "ghosting." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision#Computer_monitor ) this effect is less distracting but also perceptible. this is the entire reason "lightboost," an image strobing solution, exists. the point here is that 60hz is around the minimum refresh rate necessary for comfortable viewing. anything lower is pretty distracting or has tons of motion blur (movies). that being said, the maximum rates at which the eye can perceive information and the brain can process it are significantly higher than this.
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-motion-and-the-frame-rate-of-the-human-eye/
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf
Lets stack CRT monitors.
pubs in ns2 are a chaotic complex system. shit is just happening at random and can sway the tide of the game in ridiculous ways. most of the participants have no idea what they're doing or how it affects the game. the random chance of ignorant players leads to games being completely one-sided.
whenever i pub i'm just along for the ride. i only do it for mindless diversion, that's all it's good for. i'm usually at the top of the scoreboard (but sometimes i'll be at the bottom in one-sided games!) and sometimes people will accuse my side of stacking. i only play a few rounds at a time and generally don't know anybody else on any of these servers. i just switch back and forth, usually starting on marines. marines, aliens, marines, aliens, quit for a month.
to be fair, i've definitely seen real stacks happen. i've seen div 1 players all join a server together on mumble and say "stack marines." those games don't generally get past five minutes. also the happen almost never. pretty much all those people have quit ns2. also, what i've written above is representative of NA servers. ime euro servers seem slightly more skilled.
Nope i'm talking about the whole stack. From server to eye hand coordination.
Could you give me the article references in serious publications ?
What content exactly ? Still image ? If it's a test like cutting the screen in two part; one black; one white and finally make it flicker... yes... but we are far away from the game world or any decent movie (or tv show). right ?
Far from it. Re-read the 7 bullet points given in the Wikipedia page. Narrow isn't it ?
Quote from the Dr Optoglass
This is a note, not a study. Any decent study do not belieeeeeve. They do know, confirm or DON'T (negate or not conclusive). You probably have some readings to do.
The moment i did read "BBC" i got back 20 years ago when the first HD tv prototype where exposed in some apple expo. Of course BBC and all competitors are interested in doing HD stuff with the number argument in frontline. They compete for market share. So they won't kill the TV dealer business. They would look stupid. Plus BBC announced 7 or 8 years ago they gonna go HD... Do you really need a car that can go 400Km/h while limitation are at... say 100 KM/h ? I doubt that.
Even if the eye and solely the eye is capable of such a thing there is no proof a human being interprets and react faster with a 120hz monitor better than a 60hz or whaever. The whole chain is as weak as....
What I'm talking about is: Put together; the whole stack of elements from server side, inter-network, client PC, monitor to hand/eye coordination. Having a super +100hz monitor :
1 It won't improve your person.
2 still render black as... black. Unless you have pink skulks on the screen; dark area are still black. Even at 500Hz...
3 make you a bigger dumb f***k while you're in the dark when PN goes down or when you let your base unprotected and you never come back.
There are things a 1xxHz monitor won't do...
But if you play on an relative high level this equipment gives you the little advantage over your opponent you need to win the engagements.
- you can hear them earlier cause you have a good soundcard and headset
- you can track them better cause exact mouse and much smoother gameplay cause 144 hz
In the hand of an "pro" all this hardware makes sense.
But im sure a premium div player can stomp a normal pub player with an ball mouse on an 80€ 60hz tft anyway.
Let's get off the topic of monitor discussion eh? Let's just all be mature adults (or whatever you may be) and get back on topic.
Good god, that's rich coming from you, Mr '60Hz is all you need'
@unclecrunch let me break down one argument that you might understand.
You turn 180 degrees with the flick of a mouse. It takes, let's say 100ms (a very slow estimate). At 60fps/60Hz you will render 6 frames, that's one every 30 degrees.
At 120fps/120Hz, you will render 12 frames, one every 15 degrees. That's still not great, but it is twice as many as before.
Your eyes may need to catch 1 or 2 of those frames to notice a skulk incoming, or something else, a higher lifeform, maybe.
At 120fps/120Hz, you have twice as much chance of seeing that thing you needed to see. Furthermore, if you see it on more than one frame, you have a chance of guestimating its speed and extrapolating its movement.
This effect is MASSIVELY increased if you're running with lightboost, because the frames are much clearer with very low blurring.
That is JUST ONE reason why I personally, subjectively, find my gaming to improve when I switch on lightboost at 120Hz (even over 144Hz with no lightboost, already a good step up from 60Hz). I tend to find my game improves because I see 'more.'
It doesn't make you aim better, or position yourself better, or look at the map, or call out enemy positions, or respond to threats, or lane block better. No-one is suggesting that, but they way you're writing seems to be making this false impression that somehow that's what we're claiming.
What >60Hz gaming brings to the table is more information that your brain *can* process, more chance of bringing that 1 frame that you needed to observe something that you may easily have missed before. It also brings a fluidity of movement, especially in turning and close-quarters combat, that helps to provide much more information to allow your brain to interpolate better.
I know, because I've used it extensively, and have used 60Hz extensively, and tested my own system out a lot to see for myself what the difference was. I haven't done the double blind trial, I'm not going to and I don't need to. If you're content to use 60Hz, that's fine for you, congrats. Don't come running to me to ask why I didn't let you know how much better 120Hz/lightboost is when eventually you're exposed to it, though.
I actually would love to get a 144hz display for eye candy. Also, my 60hz display looks noticeably smoother after oc'ing it to 75hz.
The maths is correct, and I even stated that my opinion is subjective.
Outrageous.
Yeah, before this ends in an all-out flamewar, can you guys please go to OT to discuss this, or just leave it be?
I think by now it's clear that no side is going to be convinced by the other's arguments, so all you are fighting over is who is in the right, and seriously, you are adults. You are better than that.
Leave it be.
not faster, better. more information to work with, more able to respond to the situation.
having realized that you're wrong, you're now trying to shift the argument away from your original position. obviously if you're a bad player you'll play bad. that has no bearing on the discussion.
@F0rdPrefect @Roobubba @ns2isgood @dePARA this guy has shown that no matter how much he is refuted he's just gonna keep conflating the argument until everybody gives up, because he can't accept that he's wrong. no point in continuing.
Well, when I move my mouse in a circle on the desktop of my 120Hz main monitor I see the curser twice as often as on my 60Hz second monitor. Either...
... my eyes or brain are just beyond human (which I would love to be true but highly doubt it is...)
... or the brighntess of the monitor is tricking me and making me think I see the curser more often
... or humans actually can see and/or feel that fast motions are more fluid on 120Hz monitors compared to 60Hz monitors
The statement that better hardware won't make you play better is (at least for my person) simply not true.
I think I can count myself to the above average players in this game and I have played it on different computers with different mice and different monitors.
The upgrade from my 60Hz monitor to my 120Hz monitor was definitely worth it. When that one was delivered I did a lot of testing and comparing and at least for me NS2 felt and played a LOT smoother. Also a decent gpu and more than all a good cpu will help a lot to maintain high fps in endgame making it a lot easier to aim.