We have made small progress as of late in deviating from PS2 limitations on PC/360. It is now time to upgrade our frames/second. Let's get 60fps at long last!
Keep upgrading our graphics!
Printable View
-
07-12-2011, 05:02 AMInvaderKeep upgrading our graphics!
-
07-12-2011, 05:05 AMTsukino_Kaji
The human eye can't precive higher then like 30. lol
-
07-12-2011, 06:21 AMInvaderThe animations in FFXI look better at 60fps than they do at 30fps imoQuote:
Originally Posted by Tsukino_Kaji
-
07-12-2011, 07:14 AMShadotter
there have been tests that show that while the difference is relatively minor, you can actually percieve frame rates up to 200 fps, though anything higher than 60 generally isn't worth it
-
07-12-2011, 07:45 AMTsukino_Kaji
I must have been thinking 60 then. lol
-
07-12-2011, 10:39 AMAlex
Oh, on the subject of technical updates, bring some of the 360 improvements to the PC. Surround sound, better shadows, native 360 pad support.
-
07-12-2011, 10:49 AMShadotter
just update it to direct x 9, or maybe even 10 or eleven for people not on xp
-
07-12-2011, 11:50 AMMirageWhile 20-30 is generally the lower limit for what humans percieve as actually being a video, rather than a lot of still frames, it greatly depends on what kind of content you are viewing. a 24 fps movie with normal amounts of motion blur can easily look more fluid than a 35 fps video game with sharp contrasts and no motion blur. It also depends a lot on how fast the objects on screen are moving (and the camera, of course). A slow pan will look fluid at lower framerates than something that moves at great speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsukino_Kaji
So yeah, 60 fps yes please :>. -
07-12-2011, 03:59 PMZiyyigo-TipyigoThe XIV forums just called...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadotter
-
07-12-2011, 07:10 PMMirage
FFXVI doesn't use DX10 or 11.
-
07-12-2011, 08:13 PMBumbeen
I would crap my pants if this game got 60fps. But I don't see it happening, since any hacks you can do to increase the fps, also increase your movement speed.
-
07-12-2011, 11:12 PMDragoy...
Nuu, no DirectX...
OpenGL all the way, danggg it!
But alas, I can't really see any major improvements happening unless the support for the old consoles is finally dropped, which probably will not happen, ever, unless the players keep playing for a considerable amount of time to come, and keep the game up. -
07-13-2011, 06:04 AMDalorian
I'd just like to say thank you square enix for finally improving the bg res ^^ it looks so much better than the old 1024x1024 limit and the added detail to the title screen and icons above your chars head make the game much easier on the eyes. Next lets try and work on better draw distance settings for environment, mobs, and objects like the trees that change shape and texture as you get closer to them. That would make the world so much more immersive accompanied by the new res settings. Could make some really nice screenshots with something like that too ^^.
As much as I would love to see this game max out at 60 fps I doubt it will happen any time soon or ever. They would have to redo all the animations for all the char, mob, & npc models, etc ... that's a lot of work, a monumental amount of work in comparison to the recent patch update. But in a realistic approach to the situation the above idea isn't a bad one at all and should take minimal effort on the dev's part and would really boost the appearance of the game.
I hope SE see's my post and really considers the idea.
What do you guys/gals think? -
07-13-2011, 06:59 AMArconThat's actually commonly misquoted. Very low FPS is needed for humans to associate frames as a moving display. 20~30 is when humans recognize it as fluid. But the discernment in perception is up to pretty high numbers, don't know the exact values but think it's in the 100 area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsukino_Kaji
"No" all the way to that. OpenGL needs to accept its fate already, it was designed to fail, and it didn't disappoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoy
-
07-14-2011, 03:22 AMDragoyOh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcon
I humbly disagree. Or were you actually part of the designers of it? Micro$oft might have the majority believe in that, but I don't quite see it. I may be wrong, sure, but I'd prefer OpenGL any time.
What is there not to like about?
Hmm, I wonder if I can find a certain, old'ish article.
Oh yes, here it is. Something you (and maybe others) might or might not find an interesting read:
http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX
And yes, I'm a Linux user, and I certainly do not miss windoze. :] -
07-14-2011, 04:15 AMArconThat explains it all. Keep moving, nothing to see here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoy
-
07-14-2011, 08:47 PMArioche
It's completely possible to overhaul the game without having the "PS2 limitations". PC and xbox can both receive updated models and textures while the ps2 continues to use the old files, it would have no compatibility issues. But, as most have said regarding the issue, it's just too much work.
-
11-08-2011, 12:28 PMSkie
I think what everyone means by 60 fps is smoother animation. And I am all for that as well. Not to mention other things such as updated higher res textures, maybe better lighting, such as a smoother transition from night to day and vice verse.
But before all this, PLEASE make it so that sandstorms do not drop your fps to 10 or cause as much lag as the other weather effects. -
11-08-2011, 08:00 PMsaevelUntrue and mostly biased as all get out. And this from a Solaris geek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoy
DirectX won as the gold standard for games because MS was much faster at updating it and supporting game producers. OpenGL was designed not for 3D gaming but for 3D CAD / CAM and industrial applications. All of the big supporters and creators were industrial companies. During the start of HW accelerated 3D gaming there was a push to get better 3D OpenGL support for games, the industrial heavyweights ignored this support and considered 3D gaming to be "toys" and a "passing fad". This resistance to change allowed MS's competing standard to catch up and eventually surpass the OpenGL standard. Basically OpenGL was ruled "by committee" with most of the committee members being industrial CAD/CAM people who had absolutely zero desire to update / redesign their platforms for a new standard. OpenGL's loss as the desktop standard wasn't due to a technical limit but due to lack of support from it's creators for gaming which is what drove desktop 3D development. OpenGL was a better standard, that changed as of DirectX 8/9, now it's the lessor of the two and slowly losing support in the desktop world. Still used as the standard of choice for CAD/CAM industrial people and it's the only standard available for Unix / Linux people.
I would rather MS release binaries for Linux / Unix, then we could get some real interoperability going on. -
11-09-2011, 04:00 AMTeranikuThank them for what? It was always possible to do this but required a registry tweak. They just added the new resolutions to the configuration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalorian
-
11-09-2011, 06:42 AMwish12ozhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GTtOh_t7-QQuote:
Originally Posted by Dalorian
-
11-09-2011, 07:19 AMMirage
It would also be nice if new parts of terrain and foilage in addition to showing up at a greater distance, maybe also had a sort of fade-in. It looks a bit bad when trees just pop up instantly out of nowhere as you're moving across the fields.
-
11-09-2011, 08:46 AMKaizersan
Sadly for any updates like FPS or visuals they would have to drop ps2 support and we all know the answer to that.
-
11-09-2011, 08:51 AMMirage
False. There already is a cutscene in the game that runs at 60 fps.
-
11-09-2011, 09:58 AMKaizersan
Lol are you talking about the opening because that doesn't count that is not in game graphics.
-
11-11-2011, 06:19 AMWindbladeUh, maybe YOUR eyes can't, but if I can see the flicker on my monitor at 70 Hz, then I am perceiving at least 70 frames per second. I run my monitor at 85Hz (1600 x 1200) and I can still barely see a little flicker. Furthermore, I can most definitely tell the difference in a game between 30 frames per second and 60 frames per second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsukino_Kaji
-
11-11-2011, 03:10 PMArconSeveral WotG CS are 60 capped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizersan
The human eye can distinguish far higher, up to 100 FPS and maybe more depending on the person. From 15 FPS or so we perceive images as "in motion", which is something entirely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Windblade
-
11-11-2011, 06:52 PMMirageNo, I am not talking about the opening cut scene, but thanks for assuming I can't tell pre-rendered videos from FF11's ingame graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizersan
I was talking about a CoP cutscene actually, but as Arcon pointed out, there are apparently several WotG ones as well. -
11-12-2011, 03:36 AMDaniel_Hatcher
Isn't Windows 8 dropping what FFXI needs to run, I think if anything would make then drop PS2 then that'd be it.
-
11-12-2011, 01:50 PMRitsuka
The humon eye can red 60 or 75 frames per second i think and yes i dont see why they cant update the graphics on PC only for us and if they wonna drop the ps2 they at least make a good HD version for the PS3 ppl they can switch. I'm pretty sure if somebody has a ps2 they have or well be getting ps3 if anything for the blu ray player~
-
11-13-2011, 02:27 PMsaevelWell there is a difference between noticing a high contrast flicker vs actually perceiving movement or detail. Example, show a queen of spaded at 60fps, on the 40th frame insert a jack of hearts. Show this to someone and ask what they see, most will not notice that something changed, a few people will say that something happened in the middle, and nobody will be able to tell you it what card was on that 40th frame. This is in contrast to something like a white screen then showing a jack of hearts for 1/60th of a second (16.6ms). Pretty much everyone will be able to tell you that something happened, some might even be able to tell you it was red, no one will be able to tell you what the card was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritsuka
So basically the human brain (its the brain no the eye technically) can discern high contrast changes in light patterns at high rates. Human brain can't discern details under 33.3~40ms (30fps approx) but can discern motion and changes. Motion and low-contrast changes are no longer discernible at 16.6~20ms (50~60fps). A low contrast change would be going from one light pattern to another that are similar vs a high contrast change like going from black (no light) to white (pure light).
Anyhow, if they put developers towards it they could update the PC client's graphics engine without effecting PS2 code. The code base for the client is three separate sets of code, their not compatible although their highly similar. The 360 already has a better graphics engine then the PC, so there's nothing saying they can't rewrite it from DX8.1 single surface render to a proper DX9 engine.