So, Are we getting that volumetric flamethrower in NS2 or what? It's four years overdue! May as well get it working in the source engine eh? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1572799:date=Nov 2 2006, 11:13 PM:name=Dadaya)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dadaya @ Nov 2 2006, 11:13 PM) [snapback]1572799[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I was just reading through this and was thinking about the different engines out there, and the thought of an NS MMOFPS tickled me a bit. Picture hundreds of skulks/gorges/lerks/fades/onos running the gauntlet to attack the marine stronghold <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" />.
Tickles me pink inside, but it's just a fantasy there! <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, it seems to be a fantasy for now.
After the release of NS2, if a regular income is found and if we help UWE to get bigger, it can happen that such a big "Natural Selection MMOFPS" project can be made by UWE.
<!--quoteo(post=1573317:date=Nov 4 2006, 11:36 AM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Nov 4 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]1573317[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> FPS does not make "a signifigant difference to your ability to spot a target and your reaction time" at all, so long as your FPS is above around 65 (incidentally the maximum refresh rate of most monitors) you cannot physically see any higher FPS - so I don't really see your point here. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
are you kidding? go play with 65 fps and tell me you can't see a difference between 65 and 100.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1573391:date=Nov 4 2006, 05:13 PM:name=enigma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(enigma @ Nov 4 2006, 05:13 PM) [snapback]1573391[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> are you kidding? go play with 65 fps and tell me you can't see a difference between 65 and 100. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thought I'd throw something in here. It's been established in psychology studies that we don't notice a difference above 25 fps, but that only applies to film. The important difference is that film has motion blur, and games at the moment don't. What happens when you are playing a game is that rather than seeing a nice smooth blur when something moves like you do in real life or in film, you see something roughly like the average of a few frames, and as a result higher framerates definitely look better.
Yay hopefully they will bring back 5-6 hour rounds <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Those were the good days.
<!--quoteo(post=1573404:date=Nov 4 2006, 12:41 PM:name=Cyborgguineapig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cyborgguineapig @ Nov 4 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]1573404[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yay hopefully they will bring back 5-6 hour rounds <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Those were the good days. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1572966:date=Nov 3 2006, 10:35 AM:name=Exploder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Exploder @ Nov 3 2006, 10:35 AM) [snapback]1572966[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> By the time NS2 is released, it would have underwent major graphical additions, so don't count on it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like half-life 1 did? Oh... that's right, HL1 only had a high-definition pack which took about an extra 10fps load.
<!--quoteo(post=1573444:date=Nov 4 2006, 04:16 PM:name=haymo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(haymo @ Nov 4 2006, 04:16 PM) [snapback]1573444[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Like half-life 1 did? Oh... that's right, HL1 only had a high-definition pack which took about an extra 10fps load. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, no, like Source did. As in HDR, phong shading, and facial animation improvements in Episode 1 or a new lighting system and outdoor rendering improvements in Episode 2 or multiprocessor improvements and real time particle physisc as shown in the newest Valve Tech Day or as in post-processing and color balancing in DoD:S.
I would like to see NS2 utilize multiple processors (multicore or other) and hyper-threading. NS3.2 already taxes hardware like crazy (and modern games that eat up the same resources don't suffer the same performance hits).
<!--quoteo(post=1573482:date=Nov 4 2006, 09:18 PM:name=digz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digz @ Nov 4 2006, 09:18 PM) [snapback]1573482[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I would like to see NS2 utilize multiple processors (multicore or other) and hyper-threading. NS3.2 already taxes hardware like crazy (and modern games that eat up the same resources don't suffer the same performance hits). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It´s really hard a client engine use other cores. It´s more useful for servers where you can easy thread tasks.
<!--quoteo(post=1573482:date=Nov 5 2006, 03:18 AM:name=digz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digz @ Nov 5 2006, 03:18 AM) [snapback]1573482[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I would like to see NS2 utilize multiple processors (multicore or other) and hyper-threading. NS3.2 already taxes hardware like crazy (and modern games that eat up the same resources don't suffer the same performance hits). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Source engine is being updated by Valve to include multicore and hyperthreading as we speak, so that won't be a concern if UWE chooses that one.
I'm suprised no-one has mentioned the Doom 3 engine. Something about marines, fighting creatures in dark corridors and alien environments seems to work so well with it?
On top of that it's a fantastic engine that runs extremely well.
<!--quoteo(post=1571861:date=Nov 1 2006, 05:53 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 1 2006, 05:53 AM) [snapback]1571861[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> He is professional, yes, but the Titan Quest engine runs badly on powerful computers and barely on bad computers. Not that I'm saying anything about him as a person, but still. It's slow as a dog. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, I have TQ and ir runs extremely smooth on my comp. The engine makes also an extremely stable impression (no crahes etc). The only thing I am concerned about TQ is the netcode. Either the netcode is bad, or most comps cant handle having more than 3 players in an mp session. Otherwise than that:
I love TQ. Good game, although they missed their chance to top D2, by NOT giving the players a closed platform to play on. (Server stored characters, closed bnet like)
<!--quoteo(post=1573891:date=Nov 6 2006, 10:04 AM:name=DyNaMiX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DyNaMiX @ Nov 6 2006, 10:04 AM) [snapback]1573891[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm suprised no-one has mentioned the Doom 3 engine. Something about marines, fighting creatures in dark corridors and alien environments seems to work so well with it?
On top of that it's a fantastic engine that runs extremely well. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think, that 12 players playing a doom3 based game are managable? (server and client side wise)
I mean: ID started limiting the default number of players allowed on a server to 4 for a reason. And although Prey and quake 4 seem to handle 8-10 players pretty well, there should be alot work involved in making the engine compatible to 12+ players AND allowing for fast moving players like skulks/lerks and fades.
yeah the player limit would be my only beef with the quake engine. I love doom3 and i think it would do wonders in the way of lighting fo rNS,2, I still like source though. easy medium to sell the game on, and a huge community of gamers to reach
<!--quoteo(post=1573892:date=Nov 6 2006, 04:08 AM:name=Faskalia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Faskalia @ Nov 6 2006, 04:08 AM) [snapback]1573892[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I mean: ID started limiting the default number of players allowed on a server to 4 for a reason. And although Prey and quake 4 seem to handle 8-10 players pretty well, there should be alot work involved in making the engine compatible to 12+ players AND allowing for fast moving players like skulks/lerks and fades. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They capped the number of clients on Doom3 because they didn´t want it to compete with Quake. Does the new ID engine can handle a lot of players? We need to wait Quake Wars to know.
<!--quoteo(post=1573393:date=Nov 4 2006, 04:18 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Nov 4 2006, 04:18 PM) [snapback]1573393[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Thought I'd throw something in here. It's been established in psychology studies that we don't notice a difference above 25 fps, but that only applies to film. The important difference is that film has motion blur, and games at the moment don't. What happens when you are playing a game is that rather than seeing a nice smooth blur when something moves like you do in real life or in film, you see something roughly like the average of a few frames, and as a result higher framerates definitely look better. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and no - your monitor will only show a maximum of 65-75 FPS (higher or lower based on your monitor's refresh rate - monst monitors are 65-75hz) if you have a framerate higher than this - you will not physically SEE with your EYES any more frames - regardless of what net_graph says, any FPS which is higher than the refresh rate of your monitor simply will not be shown, and is used for engine calculations ONLY. Seriously - I play Quake3 with like 400FPS but my monitor only shows 75 - because it's only a 75hz refresh rate.
Hope that clears a few things up.
EDIT : Just for reference - if films had camera's rotating 180-270 degrees in under a second - then YES you would notice a difference at 25hz - the point is that film doesn't, games do, and hence that point is fairly invalid as they are two completely different visual mediums.
<!--quoteo(post=1574083:date=Nov 6 2006, 11:03 PM:name=coris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(coris @ Nov 6 2006, 11:03 PM) [snapback]1574083[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I have 100 fps and my monitor shows 120 hz. Anything else is just a pain for the eyes :/
Do some googling on Windows XP and refresh rate if you want to "unlock" your refresh rate (certain video drivers also has this capability). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Overriding the monitors recommended refresh rate will certainly damage the monitor in the long run. I wouldn't take that chance.
Stick with the "safe" refresh rates and you'll have your monitor for a long long ti,e.
<!--quoteo(post=1573966:date=Nov 6 2006, 10:15 AM:name=wereangel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wereangel @ Nov 6 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]1573966[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> yeah the player limit would be my only beef with the quake engine. I love doom3 and i think it would do wonders in the way of lighting fo rNS,2, I still like source though. easy medium to sell the game on, and a huge community of gamers to reach <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Doom 3's lighting is nothing special really. I should ask if you've played Lost Coast and seen what is possible with the source engine <i>currently</i>.
<!--quoteo(post=1572804:date=Nov 2 2006, 11:21 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Nov 2 2006, 11:21 PM) [snapback]1572804[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> To be perfectly honest, the only reason framerates are so seemingly important is because two of the largest Esports enterprises (Counter-Strike and the Quake series) had a reliance on the client framerate for a lot of calculations - that's simply how they worked.
For example in the GldSrc engine, at higher FPS you can shoot faster, have less recoil, jump higher/further and/or have more air control depending on which mod you're playing. Same thing with the Quake series up to Q3 (GldSrc being understandably based on the Quake engine).
With newer games (for example Counter-Strike:Source, Painkiller, Battlefield 2) framerates are not so important for competetive gamers as there is no inherent advantage to having an FPS over 60-70 (If you think the human eye cannot distinguish between FPS's higher than 35 you are just plain wrong) like there are in games based on the Quake and GldSrc engines such as Quake3 and Counter-Strike - two of the flagship games of the Esports industry. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh what? In my opinion 100 fps isn't really important for any behind the scenes calculations, it's important because it's so much damn smoother. Even 85 Hz refresh rate kills my eyes. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes and no - your monitor will only show a maximum of 65-75 FPS (higher or lower based on your monitor's refresh rate - monst monitors are 65-75hz) if you have a framerate higher than this - you will not physically SEE with your EYES any more frames - regardless of what net_graph says, any FPS which is higher than the refresh rate of your monitor simply will not be shown, and is used for engine calculations ONLY. Seriously - I play Quake3 with like 400FPS but my monitor only shows 75 - because it's only a 75hz refresh rate.
Hope that clears a few things up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Err, no. My monitor is set to 100 Hz in 800x600, and I'm positive it can go higher than that. Download Reforce...
<!--quoteo(post=1574087:date=Nov 6 2006, 05:17 PM:name=Exploder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Exploder @ Nov 6 2006, 05:17 PM) [snapback]1574087[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Overriding the monitors recommended refresh rate will certainly damage the monitor in the long run. I wouldn't take that chance.
Stick with the "safe" refresh rates and you'll have your monitor for a long long ti,e. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you can find monitors all day long for cheap as crap, hell most businesses upgrade every 6-10 months and give their old ones away. *hugs monitor*
I wish I had gotten a CRT when I bought my new computer <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" /> I was so excited about it that I didn't bother to check the refresh rates and hrz of my flat screen. It only goes up to 70hrz, I need to get a cheep CRT.
<!--quoteo(post=1574116:date=Nov 7 2006, 12:33 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Nov 7 2006, 12:33 AM) [snapback]1574116[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Uh what? In my opinion 100 fps isn't really important for any behind the scenes calculations, it's important because it's so much damn smoother. Even 85 Hz refresh rate kills my eyes. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" /> Err, no. My monitor is set to 100 Hz in 800x600, and I'm positive it can go higher than that. Download Reforce... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah it can go a lot higher. Problem is, it kills your CRT. But as previously mentioned, new CRTs are cheap... and good.
<!--QuoteBegin-SpaceJesus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(higher or lower based on your monitor's refresh rate - most monitors are 65-75hz)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
didn't you understand?
You want to screw your monitor by forcing refresh rates? Be my guest, but some of us have expensive flatscreens. 75hz is more than enough for anyone, unless you're the kind of person who just *has* to have the 8800GTX as soon as it's released just <i>because</i>. These people fall into my category of "More money than sense".
Comments
I was just reading through this and was thinking about the different engines out there, and the thought of an NS MMOFPS tickled me a bit. Picture hundreds of skulks/gorges/lerks/fades/onos running the gauntlet to attack the marine stronghold <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" />.
Tickles me pink inside, but it's just a fantasy there!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it seems to be a fantasy for now.
After the release of NS2, if a regular income is found and if we help UWE to get bigger, it can happen that such a big "Natural Selection MMOFPS" project can be made by UWE.
FPS does not make "a signifigant difference to your ability to spot a target and your reaction time" at all, so long as your FPS is above around 65 (incidentally the maximum refresh rate of most monitors) you cannot physically see any higher FPS - so I don't really see your point here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
are you kidding?
go play with 65 fps and tell me you can't see a difference between 65 and 100.
are you kidding?
go play with 65 fps and tell me you can't see a difference between 65 and 100.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thought I'd throw something in here. It's been established in psychology studies that we don't notice a difference above 25 fps, but that only applies to film. The important difference is that film has motion blur, and games at the moment don't. What happens when you are playing a game is that rather than seeing a nice smooth blur when something moves like you do in real life or in film, you see something roughly like the average of a few frames, and as a result higher framerates definitely look better.
NS2 isnt going to make UnknownWorlds a bunch of millionaires
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly think it has the potential to.
Yay hopefully they will bring back 5-6 hour rounds <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Those were the good days.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
mmm nostalgia
healspray rush ftw
By the time NS2 is released, it would have underwent major graphical additions, so don't count on it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like half-life 1 did? Oh... that's right, HL1 only had a high-definition pack which took about an extra 10fps load.
Like half-life 1 did? Oh... that's right, HL1 only had a high-definition pack which took about an extra 10fps load.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, no, like Source did. As in HDR, phong shading, and facial animation improvements in Episode 1 or a new lighting system and outdoor rendering improvements in Episode 2 or multiprocessor improvements and real time particle physisc as shown in the newest Valve Tech Day or as in post-processing and color balancing in DoD:S.
Valve is upgrading Source constantly.
I would like to see NS2 utilize multiple processors (multicore or other) and hyper-threading. NS3.2 already taxes hardware like crazy (and modern games that eat up the same resources don't suffer the same performance hits).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It´s really hard a client engine use other cores. It´s more useful for servers where you can easy thread tasks.
I would like to see NS2 utilize multiple processors (multicore or other) and hyper-threading. NS3.2 already taxes hardware like crazy (and modern games that eat up the same resources don't suffer the same performance hits).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Source engine is being updated by Valve to include multicore and hyperthreading as we speak, so that won't be a concern if UWE chooses that one.
Something about marines, fighting creatures in dark corridors and alien environments seems to work so well with it?
On top of that it's a fantastic engine that runs extremely well.
He is professional, yes, but the Titan Quest engine runs badly on powerful computers and barely on bad computers. Not that I'm saying anything about him as a person, but still. It's slow as a dog.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, I have TQ and ir runs extremely smooth on my comp. The engine makes also an extremely stable impression (no crahes etc). The only thing I am concerned about TQ is the netcode. Either the netcode is bad, or most comps cant handle having more than 3 players in an mp session. Otherwise than that:
I love TQ. Good game, although they missed their chance to top D2, by NOT giving the players a closed platform to play on. (Server stored characters, closed bnet like)
<!--quoteo(post=1573891:date=Nov 6 2006, 10:04 AM:name=DyNaMiX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DyNaMiX @ Nov 6 2006, 10:04 AM) [snapback]1573891[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'm suprised no-one has mentioned the Doom 3 engine.
Something about marines, fighting creatures in dark corridors and alien environments seems to work so well with it?
On top of that it's a fantastic engine that runs extremely well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think, that 12 players playing a doom3 based game are managable? (server and client side wise)
I mean:
ID started limiting the default number of players allowed on a server to 4 for a reason. And although Prey and quake 4 seem to handle 8-10 players pretty well, there should be alot work involved in making the engine compatible to 12+ players AND allowing for fast moving players like skulks/lerks and fades.
I mean:
ID started limiting the default number of players allowed on a server to 4 for a reason. And although Prey and quake 4 seem to handle 8-10 players pretty well, there should be alot work involved in making the engine compatible to 12+ players AND allowing for fast moving players like skulks/lerks and fades.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They capped the number of clients on Doom3 because they didn´t want it to compete with Quake.
Does the new ID engine can handle a lot of players? We need to wait Quake Wars to know.
Thought I'd throw something in here. It's been established in psychology studies that we don't notice a difference above 25 fps, but that only applies to film. The important difference is that film has motion blur, and games at the moment don't. What happens when you are playing a game is that rather than seeing a nice smooth blur when something moves like you do in real life or in film, you see something roughly like the average of a few frames, and as a result higher framerates definitely look better.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and no - your monitor will only show a maximum of 65-75 FPS (higher or lower based on your monitor's refresh rate - monst monitors are 65-75hz) if you have a framerate higher than this - you will not physically SEE with your EYES any more frames - regardless of what net_graph says, any FPS which is higher than the refresh rate of your monitor simply will not be shown, and is used for engine calculations ONLY.
Seriously - I play Quake3 with like 400FPS but my monitor only shows 75 - because it's only a 75hz refresh rate.
Hope that clears a few things up.
EDIT : Just for reference - if films had camera's rotating 180-270 degrees in under a second - then YES you would notice a difference at 25hz - the point is that film doesn't, games do, and hence that point is fairly invalid as they are two completely different visual mediums.
Do some googling on Windows XP and refresh rate if you want to "unlock" your refresh rate (certain video drivers also has this capability).
I have 100 fps and my monitor shows 120 hz. Anything else is just a pain for the eyes :/
Do some googling on Windows XP and refresh rate if you want to "unlock" your refresh rate (certain video drivers also has this capability).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Overriding the monitors recommended refresh rate will certainly damage the monitor in the long run. I wouldn't take that chance.
Stick with the "safe" refresh rates and you'll have your monitor for a long long ti,e.
yeah the player limit would be my only beef with the quake engine. I love doom3 and i think it would do wonders in the way of lighting fo rNS,2, I still like source though. easy medium to sell the game on, and a huge community of gamers to reach
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Doom 3's lighting is nothing special really. I should ask if you've played Lost Coast and seen what is possible with the source engine <i>currently</i>.
That level is an amazing showcase for the engine.
To be perfectly honest, the only reason framerates are so seemingly important is because two of the largest Esports enterprises (Counter-Strike and the Quake series) had a reliance on the client framerate for a lot of calculations - that's simply how they worked.
For example in the GldSrc engine, at higher FPS you can shoot faster, have less recoil, jump higher/further and/or have more air control depending on which mod you're playing. Same thing with the Quake series up to Q3 (GldSrc being understandably based on the Quake engine).
With newer games (for example Counter-Strike:Source, Painkiller, Battlefield 2) framerates are not so important for competetive gamers as there is no inherent advantage to having an FPS over 60-70 (If you think the human eye cannot distinguish between FPS's higher than 35 you are just plain wrong) like there are in games based on the Quake and GldSrc engines such as Quake3 and Counter-Strike - two of the flagship games of the Esports industry.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh what? In my opinion 100 fps isn't really important for any behind the scenes calculations, it's important because it's so much damn smoother. Even 85 Hz refresh rate kills my eyes. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes and no - your monitor will only show a maximum of 65-75 FPS (higher or lower based on your monitor's refresh rate - monst monitors are 65-75hz) if you have a framerate higher than this - you will not physically SEE with your EYES any more frames - regardless of what net_graph says, any FPS which is higher than the refresh rate of your monitor simply will not be shown, and is used for engine calculations ONLY.
Seriously - I play Quake3 with like 400FPS but my monitor only shows 75 - because it's only a 75hz refresh rate.
Hope that clears a few things up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Err, no. My monitor is set to 100 Hz in 800x600, and I'm positive it can go higher than that. Download Reforce...
Overriding the monitors recommended refresh rate will certainly damage the monitor in the long run. I wouldn't take that chance.
Stick with the "safe" refresh rates and you'll have your monitor for a long long ti,e.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you can find monitors all day long for cheap as crap, hell most businesses upgrade every 6-10 months and give their old ones away. *hugs monitor*
Uh what? In my opinion 100 fps isn't really important for any behind the scenes calculations, it's important because it's so much damn smoother. Even 85 Hz refresh rate kills my eyes. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
Err, no. My monitor is set to 100 Hz in 800x600, and I'm positive it can go higher than that. Download Reforce...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah it can go a lot higher. Problem is, it kills your CRT. But as previously mentioned, new CRTs are cheap... and good.
<!--QuoteBegin-SpaceJesus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(higher or lower based on your monitor's refresh rate - most monitors are 65-75hz)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
didn't you understand?
You want to screw your monitor by forcing refresh rates? Be my guest, but some of us have expensive flatscreens. 75hz is more than enough for anyone, unless you're the kind of person who just *has* to have the 8800GTX as soon as it's released just <i>because</i>. These people fall into my category of "More money than sense".