Well, I was referring exclusively to those cases, but rendering multiple frames for the same physics "time step" isn't necessarily a waste, depending on the rendering scheme.

You could, for instance, only render the player's cone of vision, so even if the physics itself doesn't update, what part of it you're seeing is. Again, I do lots of that in my internship as well, zooming around results of simulations with Z-buffer type rendering programs.

When I said "unchanged scene data", I was imagining that to the extreme of constant viewpoint*.

But yes, decoupling physics and user view response in that way could potentially make sense in some applications. Doing lots of motion extrapolation between "real" frames in VR, for instance, could solve ghosting/blur issues that happen when people eye-track static objects while rotating their head (which can evidently arise because of the actual movement of the screen relative to the eyeball during the display of each frame).

*edit: But I suppose Cody's post I replied to had specifically said "physics."

You could, for instance, only render the player's cone of vision, so even if the physics itself doesn't update, what part of it you're seeing is. Again, I do lots of that in my internship as well, zooming around results of simulations with Z-buffer type rendering programs.

The physics and input sample rates don't need to be the same as the frame rate.

That's not really correct. You have to run the physics every frame to see what's changed and where things need to be on the new frame.

That doesn't make ZackDark wrong. Obviously if you render multiple frames based on unchanged scene data, you're doing redundant work for no reason. But running game logic cycles multiple times per frame can improve the game's temporal precision (and ZackDark was mostly referring to these cases).

The physics and input sample rates don't need to be the same as the frame rate.

That's not really correct. You have to run the physics every frame to see what's changed and where things need to be on the new frame. In fact, many games have tricks that are only possible on high or low frame rates (depending on the trick). The ones you all probably know the best are the jumps in Halo that only work in PAL's 25fps, but there are others like jumps in Quake and the graveyard skip in Bioshock Infinite.

The physics and input sample rates don't need to be the same as the frame rate. Of course, if they're not multiples of the frame rate, it'd be awkward, but they can easily be a lot higher than the latter.

Hell, I do it all the time in simulator projects in my internship. Physics usually do about a thousand iterations before the screen updates while screen updates at 30fps.

Of course, but that doesn't contradict what I said.

That "average 25ms" figure I gave was, as I noted, purely the contribution of rendering performance in a simple situation where game logic cost is assumed to be negligible.

Accounting for what the player is doing at a high frequency and with low latency isn't going to completely make up for low-frequency high-latency player feedback.

What is this? Why do some people think virtual reality is so great that it will become the standard? Am I the only one who thinks seeing a game as though it was right there would be midly unpleasant and kind of annoying?

In certain situations I think it could be fun, but overall I would find it annoying, mostly because I like being able to interact with the real world easily whenever I need or want to, which VR will make more of an inconvenience.

Haha just kidding. Sort of.

I dunno. I really prefer 60fps, but I notice that I'm beyond fine with 30fps and rarely seem to care. Only a few games bug the living daylights out of me if they aren't displaying at 60fps. I've also just sort of accepted the fact that consoles have never kept up with what my PC can do, so I've never really minded.

Don't get me wrong, 60fps has some massive benefits to gaming as a whole, and I honestly think you would benefit from games going this route (and yes, it may even increase your level of fun and immerse you further), but it does really depend. As a whole, I think it'd be great if Bungie went the 60fps route.

Hell, I do it all the time in simulator projects in my internship. Physics usually do about a thousand iterations before the screen updates while screen updates at 30fps.

Game consoles should output a spatially two-dimensional analogue function which varies continuously in time.

Why?

Who cares?

Why should I care?

Why do people give a shit about FPS in gaming?

I just don't get it. It's one of the silliest pissing contests in PC and console gaming.

Oh game X on PS4 is XFPS but less FPS on Wii U [ooooooooooo.jpg]

I don't care.

I just want my games to be fun.

A game can look like "shit" and still be fun.

Look at these graphics! LOOK AT THEM! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH THE GRAPHICS OMG

\end rant

Sorry.

It is partly an aesthetic thing; smoother motion often just plain looks better.

But it's very much a gameplay discussion. Games with fast game logic and graphics cycles offer a more nuanced view of input and response, and have lower input lag (if we imagine a classically double-buffered case and assume non-graphics costs are negligible, the average time from button press to screen response will be 25ms faster in the 60fps case than the 30fps one; the difference is frequently more extreme in real-world cases).

Or look at it this way: would you still say framerate is irrelevant to fun if someone locked your Xbox to output to something silly low like 10fps? Obviously it will start to seem meaningfully if you push it low enough. Is 30fps high enough that we shouldn't care? It sure isn't high enough that would can't perceive or make use of higher.

I can understand people not caring that much, but people who prefer 30 over 60 are strange, strange people.

What we need are frameless renderers so we can all get over this childish pissing contest of 'FPS', 'Render Resolution' and 'Graphics' and can focus directly on more important stuff like Perceptual Image Quality, Aesthetics and Responsiveness. (heh)

Destiny is a game I know I'm already interested in though, and am buying unless the Beta turns out to be horrid. So I really don't care about these details.

// I've been reading a lot about advanced rendering techniques recently. I'm kinda sad I was a kid (or unborn) for the most of the interesting generations of games in the past, but I'm pretty excited I'm an adult just in time for VR ^_^

I am not a smart man.

I do not know much.

But I do know this:

The way I define fun, and the way you define fun are vastly different :P

Enjoy your superior FPS, I'm too busy to notice!

Why?

Who cares?

Why should I care?

Why do people give a shit about FPS in gaming?

1. Action games play much better when they are smoother.
2. The world is more immersive and immediate when it is smoother.
3. VR is the future and high framerate is essential there.

I don't care.

I just want my games to be fun.

A game can look like "shit" and still be fun.

Look at these graphics! LOOK AT THEM! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH THE GRAPHICS OMG

\end rant

Graphics are the primary way you feedback with a game. How they are presented impacts your 'fun' a great deal. The hardware is clearly there to do it. Even Halo is getting the 60fps treatment with Halo 5, and it's been a series stuck at 30. It's important. Shooting things is way more satisfying at 60fps. Navigating the world is way more satisfying at 60fps. It makes the game more fun!