|
The Kins posted:There's a real emphasis on visuals and flashiness over gameplay, sometimes to the extent of crippling the engine, and a lot of those gameplay design decisions take their cues from the pre-COD Medal of Honor games, which haven't aged enormously well. It's another Tormentor667 project, in other words.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
BOA looks absolutely gorgeous. but my laptop ends up melting, even on lower setups. Trying to enjoy it on my native resolution means that I'll have to hear the screams of my poor Alienware i5 Intel GTX460 8GBRAM laptop trying to run the game at single digits while my professional laptop-stand has to deal with temperatures high enough to boil an egg. It just means that you have waaay too much stuff on your map. They just need to cut down on a few things. The graphical options on the other hand are perfect. You can pretty much adjust almost anything. The Wool Ball ones on the other hand can probably run on a toaster. I can still run Doom with GZDoom on my old Galaxy S5 with no problems. But with BOA they just need to cut down on all the fluff or just switch to another engine altogether. Unity is perfect for this sort of thing and works better with all the lighting and texturework they're trying to pull off. Shadow Hog posted:16 channels, of which channel 10 (or 9, if you count from 0 instead of 1, which I think the SC-55 might) is always percussion (unless I'm mistaken and you can change the channel - I know later SoundCanvases can do that, or even have two percussion channels). Every note played in a single channel will have the same instrument, volume, panning, reverb, chorus etc, but you can play more than one note per channel. The limit there is about 24 notes playing at once (28 if you have an SC-55mkII), I believe. Big thanks for this. I was concerned I was hitting my limit and I couldn't find simple answers to my questions, but it looks pretty good so far. Channel 9 is always percussion. Not sure at what point two percussion channels end up being the thing, but I'm guessing it's from SC-88 onwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
The Kins posted:PS1 textures are fun to poke at, to see how developers did so much with so little. Cage pulled a bunch from MGS1 if you're curious. those guns are beautiful, its annoying how so many 'retro' indie fps games go with models for the first person guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 06:47
|
|
juggalo baby coffin posted:those guns are beautiful, its annoying how so many 'retro' indie fps games go with models for the first person guns. The guns look great, but for some reason I'm fixated on the computer screens in the background of picture #2. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Wanna shoot alotta bad guys with those guns
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
Cage is likely the one of the artists for the Bombshell prequel too and that's looking very promising so far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
Uncle Kitchener posted:It just means that you have waaay too much stuff on your map. They just need to cut down on a few things. It's interesting to note that Tormentor came to Graf with questions about what could be done to improve BoA's performance. The Count took a look at the project and said there was over 14000 things being processed on one map and that it would probably be better to trim them. S'drat pretty, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
So I got a 144hz monitor and had to do a spot of research for the console command to get Quakespasm up to 144fps. I saw mention in several places that Quake's physics have a safety ceiling of 72hz, and above that things can get loopy. I bombed through Ep1 at 144hz and didn't notice anything weird. What confuses me is that I've definitely played Quake at 120hz on a CRT in several occasions, and never saw anything out of the ordinary or even heard about the possibility of broken physics until now. Is this 72hz thing actually a thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Yeah. It depends on the engine, but definitely in the original engine and Quakespasm. You'll probably most see issues with "movers", like when riding an elevator. e: Comments about that at http://quakeone.com/forums/quake-help/quake-clients/11901-proquake-singleplayer-bugs.html#post162651 Also here's some stuff about modern QW clients that separate physics tic from rendering FPS, apparently there are some considerations there still apart from just "crank it up": http://wiki.quakeworld.nu/Smooth_Quake#Independent_physics http://www.quakeworld.nu/blog/140/the-theory-of-smooth-qw JLaw fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Johnny Law posted:Also here's some stuff about modern QW clients that separate physics tic from rendering FPS, apparently there are some considerations there still apart from just "crank it up": This stuff seems tangential to the "No VSync\Max Framerate" online play crowd whom I have never understood. I can perceive smoother framerates and the varying smoothness of differing display technologies, but I have never felt any sort of lag in my mouse because I had vsync on. In that second link he is giving examples of how and why to set maxfps to 308 and 1001, impossible framerates to resolve, let alone perceive, so the concern is all about how your brain feels about the sub-ms relationship between when your mouse moved and when the screen started to tear in half. And this is largely in service of your actions being received by a remote server and interpreted in a timely-er fashion, or else you can't possibly hope to compete. I never understood that side of things. It always seemed like pseudoscience to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Some of the remaining QuakeWorld crowd is really concerned with achieving many hundreds of frames rendered per second yeah. That part really (to me) smacks of special audiophile levels of self-delusion, so I ignore it. The parts about the relationship between physics tick and render speed is more interesting IMO, although not something I've ever bothered with changing my config to address. The ezQuake defaults feel OK to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Johnny Law posted:Some of the remaining QuakeWorld crowd is really concerned with achieving many hundreds of frames rendered per second yeah. That part really (to me) smacks of special audiophile levels of self-delusion, so I ignore it. FPS above 100 are absolutely not audiophile delusions. I can pick a 144hz video from a 100hz video from a 60hz video from a 30hz video EVERY TIME. I will take that pepsi challenge any day, any where, and I'll win. So that's clearly not the same thing. You definitely do get diminishing returns though, so above say 200fps I doubt you'd be able to tell. And if your monitor caps at 60fps then you're really not getting much from it. I have a 144hz 1440p monitor and its the best thing in the universe. Especially with g-sync so you never ever ever see a tear but you also don't have to deal with vsync latency. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Aren't control inputs usually tied to frame rate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:FPS above 100 are absolutely not audiophile delusions. I can pick a 144hz video from a 100hz video from a 60hz video from a 30hz video EVERY TIME. I will take that pepsi challenge any day, any where, and I'll win. So that's clearly not the same thing. yeah but you're not picking up on the framerate, you're picking up on how well it syncs up with your monitor
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Try playing with framerate locked to 72 and Vsync on, it should sync perfectly to 144 Hz since it's a straight factor 2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:FPS above 100 are absolutely not audiophile delusions. Well, when I said "many hundreds of frames per second" I meant it. I.e. dudes inconsolable about not being able to get 600 or 700 FPS. I'm open to arguments about why that is a real concern but I'm, let's say, skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
100 FPS or higher makes me motion sick.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Buca di Bepis posted:Aren't control inputs usually tied to frame rate? That's usually my concern when it comes to framerate. The game can look like poo, but it runs well, then I'm fine with it, and having a high, stable frame rate helps in not having any hiccups with control. That's why I usually keep Vsync turned off, since it seems like that always affects the performance, and I don't really mind the screen tearing too often. For me, the whole 30/60 FPS debacle really boils down to the game in question. Some games do just fine at 30FPS, and some benefit from having 60FPS. This is sort of veering off into another topic, but super-high refresh rates don't really sit well with me. With video games, it seems like it would be pretty good, but movies and TV shows, it makes movement look really weird (I think because most movies and shows are recorded at 24 FPS).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:
That's not high framerates that looks weird, that's faked high framerates generated by a cheap frame interpolation system from low framerate input (which is often working from frame interpolation from 24 fps to 30 fps to create the input you received as a home consumer). And no, most TV shows aren't recorded at 24 fps, they're recorded at 30 fps or 60 fps particularly for live events.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
juggalo baby coffin posted:yeah but you're not picking up on the framerate, you're picking up on how well it syncs up with your monitor Uh, no? Not at all? Like, with tearing, yes. That's what tearing is. But I can set my computer/monitor to run at 30fps, 60fps, 100fps, 120fps, 144fps, whatever I want, because of g-sync, and I won't get any tears on any of those speeds. And I can tell the difference, I promise you. Its dramatically smoother, even completely ignoring tearing issues by using gsync. You can tell the difference. Johnny Law posted:Well, when I said "many hundreds of frames per second" I meant it. I.e. dudes inconsolable about not being able to get 600 or 700 FPS. I'm open to arguments about why that is a real concern but I'm, let's say, skeptical. Yeah that's pretty silly, but there could be some possible input processing effect of having a high frame rate like that in some older game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:This is sort of veering off into another topic, but super-high refresh rates don't really sit well with me. With video games, it seems like it would be pretty good, but movies and TV shows, it makes movement look really weird (I think because most movies and shows are recorded at 24 FPS). fishmech posted:That's not high framerates that looks weird, that's faked high framerates generated by a cheap frame interpolation system from low framerate input (which is often working from frame interpolation from 24 fps to 30 fps to create the input you received as a home consumer). Its both actually fishmech. I'm a big techie about this stuff. You're usually right that usually high frame rate live action video is usually interpolated. I have an interpolating TV and I like the way it looks, although it does produce artifacts. But; there are exceptions. The Hobbit was actually shown in theaters at 48fps, recorded at 48fps. It was actually recorded at 48, and yet some people still hated it. I love it, and I like how smooth and real it makes things feel. But if you're not used to it, it gives a "soap opera" feel to everything, almost like you're watching a camcorder. We're so used to watching movies at 24fps and we don't really realize how much that lets your brain fill in the gaps and make animations seem kinda more... majestic? Its hard to explain, but 24fps does seem to really make live action look better than it does when its actually at real-life smooth speeds. But personally I think if you expose yourself to it for awhile, you start to get used to it, and that "soap opera" feel goes away. Video games don't seem to have the same issue. Since the graphics are already these smooth animations that were made by artificial animators, making the action more smooth usually just makes them look better. I know people who don't like high frame rate live action video, but do like high frame rate video games. That said, people also post saying they prefer 30fps, but I have no idea of they're being genuine or not, or if they're just Stockholm syndrome'd or what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:I'm a big techie about this stuff. You're usually right that usually high frame rate live action video is usually interpolated. I have an interpolating TV and I like the way it looks, although it does produce artifacts. This is why you can tell these things. To a person not invested in that field, anything above 60-ish would seem to have pretty much the same quality of smoothness. Nobody is doubting you have the magic ability to tell when something is running at 120+ fps because as unlikely as that is, someone who bothered to learn the difference would be able to know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:The Hobbit was actually shown in theaters at 48fps, recorded at 48fps. It was actually recorded at 48, and yet some people still hated it. I love it, and I like how smooth and real it makes things feel. But if you're not used to it, it gives a "soap opera" feel to everything, almost like you're watching a camcorder. We're so used to watching movies at 24fps and we don't really realize how much that lets your brain fill in the gaps and make animations seem kinda more... majestic? Its hard to explain, but 24fps does seem to really make live action look better than it does when its actually at real-life smooth speeds. But personally I think if you expose yourself to it for awhile, you start to get used to it, and that "soap opera" feel goes away. The problem with The Hobbit's visuals wasn't so much the framerate, rather the 360-degree shutter they used during capture. It added a heavy amount of motion blur which greatly contributed to the "smooth" look that you describe. Games obviously don't suffer from that unless they use a motion blur post-process filter and even then it's usually best when it's a light touch, particularly at 60fps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Mark me as another person who loved The Hobbit's 48FPS. More than I actually liked The Hobbit films! I mean they were aight, I guess I'm actually kind of miffed it's not available outside of that limited theatrical run. Just do a 2-1-1-1-1 pulldown if you have to...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Uh it's actually not an audiophile type thing guys *segues into audiophile type ramble*
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
I'm the best frame-seeing guy in this thread. The rest of you... *puts on gunnar glasses* ...just don't rate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
was jedi knight: mysteries of the sith any good i was too young to remember
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:You can tell the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:The problem with The Hobbit's visuals wasn't so much the framerate, rather the 360-degree shutter they used during capture. It added a heavy amount of motion blur which greatly contributed to the "smooth" look that you describe. Games obviously don't suffer from that unless they use a motion blur post-process filter and even then it's usually best when it's a light touch, particularly at 60fps. Yeah this. It also just wasn't a very good movie at all, which didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Ostentatious posted:was jedi knight: mysteries of the sith any good i was too young to remember Yes, but the consensus is that the level design wasn't as good as Jedi Knight, and the last couple levels are confusing as gently caress. The added weapons and force powers are cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:This is why you can tell these things. To a person not invested in that field, anything above 60-ish would seem to have pretty much the same quality of smoothness. Nobody is doubting you have the magic ability to tell when something is running at 120+ fps because as unlikely as that is, someone who bothered to learn the difference would be able to know. NO. Finish reading my loving post. I can tell even without the artifacts. Unless you're saying "You can tell the difference because you've had a chance to notice the difference" which is like, duh? But its not because of the artifacts. IronicDongz posted:I know people who own monitors that can run at 144. I cannot tell the difference between that and 100(and can barely tell any difference between 60 on a monitor that only goes that high and 144 on a "nicer" monitor). Well, some people are colorblind or 3d stereoblind.  I can def tell a difference, and many people can. Its not all smoke and mirrors. If you don't care, you get to live with cheaper 60hz monitors, so cool.
Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Its both actually fishmech. I just know that when I was younger, I'd watch something like Law and Order, and then change over and see something like a sports broadcast or a soap opera like you said, and I saw there was something different in how it was filmed. I even remember a scene of some show or made-for-TV movie where it changes over in one scene, like it was shot later on a different camera. It was one of those things that I found infuriating, because I didn't really understand what it was at the time, and I didn't know how to describe it to someone. I don't really know about people preferring 30FPS (maybe the Order:1886 devs), but I know the reason why a lot of games don't or can't run at higher frame-rates is because in some cases, game logic is tied to frame-rate. If you've ever played one of the older 3D Grand Theft Auto games like GTA3 or Vice City, there's an option to disable the frame limiter. If you do, though, it messes with how the game works in a lot ways (ex. you can no longer reverse in cars). Jehde posted:Yes, but the consensus is that the level design wasn't as good as Jedi Knight, and the last couple levels are confusing as gently caress. The added weapons and force powers are cool and good. Maybe this is just me, but I've always found the level design for the Dark Forces/Jedi Knight games to be really confusing in general. It seems like with every one of the Jedi Knight games, I've had to pull up an FAQ or video because I get stuck in a level and can't figure out where I'm supposed to go. For example, in the first or second level of Jedi Outcast, there's a bit where in order to progress, you have to drop down off a catwalk into a pipe that runs back underneath the base you're in. Later on, there's a block you have pull/push with your force powers in order to make it through the area later. In either case, the way forward doesn't seem that obvious, and feels more like something reserved for a secret area.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
isnt the soap opera effect something that refers to the type of weird frame smoothing poo poo some tvs use
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
juggalo baby coffin posted:isnt the soap opera effect something that refers to the type of weird frame smoothing poo poo some tvs use Yeah like I said, it definitely can be, but some people reported feeling that way even about The Hobbit at 48 which was shot native at 48 with no interpolation or smoothing. But then it did have that shutter issue. Basically anything people aren't used to is going to feel uncomfortable. It'll take a bit of society getting used to it, which requires the technology to be used more. Problem is most directors would rather just avoid the issue and shoot at 24 and make the money and call it a day. But regardless, it shouldn't really effect games. The only reason to avoid smoothing on games is because TV smoothing introduces massive latency, which you don't notice on a tv show but you do notice on an interactive game. But higher frame rates being rendered on the PC or console generally should feel more responsive and look smoother in games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:I just know that when I was younger, I'd watch something like Law and Order, and then change over and see something like a sports broadcast or a soap opera like you said, and I saw there was something different in how it was filmed. Soap operas are shot absolutely dirt cheap. Among other things they always use the cheapest recording method that can still be used for TV broadcasting, they always have terrible sets, they always have terrible lighting, they always have lovely editing and they rarely do more than one take of any scene. This is because they usually do like 250 episodes a year and there's simply not time to do it right let alone money. Essentially a soap opera is produced to the standard of "generate the absolute bare minimum quality that people can accept watching and don't spend a single penny to go above that bar". So any one bad thing that shows up in another genre of TV will often remind you of soap operas because they do EVERYTHING poorly. Sports broadcasts don't have the opportunity to do much in the way of mood lighting or dramatic cuts. The action is what it is, and you just take what you can get. They will however be shot with the highest quality recording method possible, because they're a great way to get high quality content. Sports will almost always be shot and broadcast at the fastest framerate possible, these days often being done at full 60 fps. It simply looks better that way. News broadcasts will also be about the same as sports broadcasts for similar reasons - much of it is being done live on air or with maybe a few second delay, so there's no room for getting really fancy besides the pre-produced segments. A show like Law & Order has a massive budget, even when it was just getting started, and the luxury to take lots of time to put out like 13-26 episodes a year. That means plenty of time to get the lighting just right, to have very careful camerawork, all that poo poo that looks good. And before the late 2000s really, all those sorts of shows were shot on movie-quality film stock at 24 fps because that was simply the higher quality practical method (you can run such film stock at 30 fps to match TV if you want, but then you're using 25% more physical film and that causes all sorts of practicality problems). Since the late 2000s as digital video cameras have gotten good enough for movie quality, most of these sorts of shows are moving to native digital recording which is usually done at 30 fps or rarely 60 fps. They still look real nice though because they've got the budget and time for it. Really, the lighting is one of the biggest things people notice when it's done poorly, even if they don't know why the show looks bad. Proper lighting requires a lot of work to fine tune for different framerates, and 24 fps lighting is the most widely known, shall we say, due to how the movie industry has been using it for ~90 years. And a lot of people get trained properly only in lighting 24 fps but then largely do work in 30 fps stuff, so it leaves the lighting a bit off. Separately people who have been watching movies in the theater for a long time get used to the blurring the low frame rate causes, and associate that with "good". Higher framerates naturally have less blur, and attempts to replicate 24 fps blur in higher framerates are both common and easy to gently caress up/look bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Law & Order is worth pointing out because it was always shot on 24fps film, even during the first 1991 season when that was very uncommon. This is also why it's the earliest show that could simply be redone for HDTV because it was all done on film and just needed to be resampled or whatever. And 24 fps is great and let's just keep doing that forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Law & Order is worth pointing out because it was always shot on 24fps film, even during the first 1991 season when that was very uncommon. This is also why it's the earliest show that could simply be redone for HDTV because it was all done on film and just needed to be resampled or whatever. Nah 24 fps is trash that we had to put up with because 1930s technology couldn't really handle anything too much faster. Before standardizing on 24, it was common for wide release movies to be anywhere between 18 and 35 fps, and we almost ended up with the standard going to 30 to match then-emerging TV experiments frame rates. But studios decided they'd accept the jerkier 24 fps as it saved a decent chunk of change on expensive film stock. It's long past time that it got thrown in the dustbin like SDTV, especially since shooting on actual film stock is getting very rare and new movies being released to theaters on film is practically nonexistent. 30 fps would be a good first step since it merges nicely with refresh rates on most modern displays and broadcast standards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Soap operas are shot absolutely dirt cheap. Among other things they always use the cheapest recording method that can still be used for TV broadcasting, they always have terrible sets, they always have terrible lighting, they always have lovely editing and they rarely do more than one take of any scene. This is because they usually do like 250 episodes a year and there's simply not time to do it right let alone money. Essentially a soap opera is produced to the standard of "generate the absolute bare minimum quality that people can accept watching and don't spend a single penny to go above that bar". So any one bad thing that shows up in another genre of TV will often remind you of soap operas because they do EVERYTHING poorly. I'll say that I've also seen the same high frame-rate look in other things like sitcoms and shows shown on public television. It's probably the same case as you said, though; it's shot on the cheap in most cases, and probably shot on video instead of film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:I'll say that I've also seen the same high frame-rate look in other things like sitcoms and shows shown on public television. It's probably the same case as you said, though; it's shot on the cheap in most cases, and probably shot on video instead of film. Neither video nor film are really used these days, and they really haven't been for quite some time at this point. It's all just digital native video, broadcast digitally or streamed/downloaded in other digital formats. Even rather low budget TV has at least been shot on like MiniDV camcorders for quite a while, which is fully digital media. You're not really seeing a high framerate look, you're seeing a "we don't have a bunch of time to clean this up for broadcast" look.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
TIL why newer TV shows look weird to me. In the early FPS megathread of all places.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 05:11
|
|
