Well, to be fair, imposing some sort of caps is a result of how outdated the tech is. The higher end PCs right now could probably render BLOPS2 (unless of course it runs like the first one ) at hundreds of frames per second. If they are saying that too high a framerate is causing technical issues on the server side, then a cap is understandable.
The number 120 appeared only after he posted the "120 probably" (he even did it in parenthesis - like this ) probably thinking it was high enough to satisfy everyone (apparently not). The main point being (allegedly) - they need the cap, but it will be high enough so one might as well say there isn't one.
If the cap was 200, would it matter just as much?
Don't know about all the other stuff people apparently hate them for (never cared really ), so I won't try to argue with those.
@ shakabutt: News flash: if the game can render at more FPS, in most engines that also means a lot of input (mouse, keyboard, movement, often even netcode) is processed more, giving more accurate results. Especially in CoD's Tech 3..sorry, IW engine (as much as they want to deny it, it still has very obvious Tech 3 roots; just like Tech "5" is Tech 4+MT really), that holds true. There's reason all of us wanted 125 FPS back in Q3, it allowed for some weird movement to work. It made the game accurate enough to make some jumps, which you couldn't at 60 FPS; an example being the bridge to rail jump on Q3DM6. Obviously these are also the game in which low FPS will affect your performance a lot (and any Quake derivative suffers from this, just try CS with even 60 FPS); a game like BF3 or the Source engine has the netcode decoupled from framerate, resulting in the elimination of this odd behaviour and a game that's more playable with less FPS.
Same shit holds true for CoD, at 125 FPS there are some jumps you can make which you can't on 60 FPS. The monitor might not display every frame, doesn't mean rendering them is useless.
@ shakabutt: News flash: if the game can render at more FPS, in most engines that also means a lot of input (mouse, keyboard, movement, often even netcode) is processed more, giving more accurate results. Especially in CoD's Tech 3..sorry, IW engine (as much as they want to deny it, it still has very obvious Tech 3 roots; just like Tech "5" is Tech 4+MT really), that holds true. There's reason all of us wanted 125 FPS back in Q3, it allowed for some weird movement to work. It made the game accurate enough to make some jumps, which you couldn't at 60 FPS; an example being the bridge to rail jump on Q3DM6. Obviously these are also the game in which low FPS will affect your performance a lot (and any Quake derivative suffers from this, just try CS with even 60 FPS); a game like BF3 or the Source engine has the netcode decoupled from framerate, resulting in the elimination of this odd behaviour and a game that's more playable with less FPS.
Same shit holds true for CoD, at 125 FPS there are some jumps you can make which you can't on 60 FPS. The monitor might not display every frame, doesn't mean rendering them is useless.
Grabbing at straws yo sigh
Your eyes still see 60 FPS...your hands react to the information your eyeball receives.
Yo guys , did you know that even tough your GPU muscles out 250 frames per second ...... your monitor only displays frames based on REFRESH RATE ?
So stop fucking talking voodoo shit about 120+ frames....if your stinky ass monitor has a refresh rate of 60 (the majority) you only "SEE" 60 frames per second even tough fraps is telling you 250 .
If you have a 120 Hz moniter....good on you, you and the other 1 % of the pc gaming populace who has that kind of graphics power to maintain CONSTANT 120 FPS can bitch all you want.(or not since the limit is 120 derp)
Seriously guys sometimes you are more derper than the console derps.
And the game has a 80 degree FOV...how is that not sufficient for monitors 23 inch and above...75 is natural for a 23 inch .
Again maybe how many peeps here have a monitor higher than 24 inch ?
@ shakabutt: News flash: if the game can render at more FPS, in most engines that also means a lot of input (mouse, keyboard, movement, often even netcode) is processed more, giving more accurate results. Especially in CoD's Tech 3..sorry, IW engine (as much as they want to deny it, it still has very obvious Tech 3 roots; just like Tech "5" is Tech 4+MT really), that holds true. There's reason all of us wanted 125 FPS back in Q3, it allowed for some weird movement to work. It made the game accurate enough to make some jumps, which you couldn't at 60 FPS; an example being the bridge to rail jump on Q3DM6. Obviously these are also the game in which low FPS will affect your performance a lot (and any Quake derivative suffers from this, just try CS with even 60 FPS); a game like BF3 or the Source engine has the netcode decoupled from framerate, resulting in the elimination of this odd behaviour and a game that's more playable with less FPS.
Same shit holds true for CoD, at 125 FPS there are some jumps you can make which you can't on 60 FPS. The monitor might not display every frame, doesn't mean rendering them is useless.
Grabbing at straws yo sigh
Your eyes still see 60 FPS...your hands react to the information your eyeball receives.
Placebo. vodoo nonsense on all that jump stuff
It's not about what you see at all... and the eyes still "see" more than 60
Although now I am not sure if you are just trying to make a graceful exit
Edit: It seems like it takes me more time to type out a short response than for ixi to make an animated gif about it
And it doesn't matter how fast you can react. It matters how fast and accurate the engine can deal with the incoming netcode - and a slight hint here: you can't see network packets.
Oh wow ...are you guys actually trying to troll me ?
ha ha ha.
I was saying you see 60 fps cause your monitor doesnt display data ABOVE 60 fps (unless you have a 120 Hz display) ...so untill you show me some sidebyside comparisson video of guys doing mad jumps y'all trippin.
infact trained fighter pilots have been recorded to see up to 240 frames per second, so no our eyes are not "capped" at 60 fps
But i bet your monitor is dude.
Okay, I get this point, but again - it's not at all about what you see or your reaction times, so none of you arguments are actually relevant. There are whole articles documenting the issue with measured results - there is no point in arguing with this
Oh wow ...are you guys actually trying to troll me ?
ha ha ha.
I was saying you see 60 fps cause your monitor doesnt display data ABOVE 60 fps (unless you have a 120 Hz display) ...so untill you show me some sidebyside comparisson video of guys doing mad jumps y'all trippin.
First random result, I picked CoD4 on purpose since that is "officially" the "IW Engine". Now shut the hell up please, you're embarrassing yourself.
Then tell me, how can i clearly SEE the difference between 30/60/91/125 fps in CoD1.
And no, not with jumps, just by running around and looking at the screen on my "shitty" 60 Hz monitor.
I could tell, without having ANY fps meters on, EXACLTY what fps cap it was at.
Proud member of Frustrated Association of International Losers Failing Against the Gifted and Superior (F.A.I.L.F.A.G.S)
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
