Because you monitor can totally show 1082 Frames Per Second.
Sent from my Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System using Tapatalk
actual issue here,
Because you monitor can totally show 1082 Frames Per Second.
Sent from my Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System using Tapatalk
Actually that is wrong.The human eye can only process 60 FPS
Sent from my Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System using Tapatalk
I noticed from this :Actually that is wrong.
Here we go again
The human eye does not see in discrete frames, but it also isn't unlimited. Individual rods and cones see at around about 200 fps under ideal conditions. ( I think the color ones are faster than the grayscale ones, but I always mix them up. ) However, the rods and cones are not synchronized, making things rather complicated.
The real issue actually comes from the brain. The brain is a massive pattern recognition machine, largely thanks to sight which uses the majority of "processing". Basically, it compresses the images immensely, looking for patterns to simplify things and ease the work it needs to do to recognize things. This is why there are a large number of optical illusions. They are situations where the processing of the brain actually screws things up. ( Such as seeing motion when there isn't any, seeing one object as longer when they are the same size, etc. )
I also have a huge problem with the very measurement of FPS It's an averaging over time, rather than a discrete measurement of performance. This is why some people will tell you they can see a huge difference between 120 fps and 60. Imagine an extreme case where you get 60 frames drawn in half a second, then nothing at all for half a second. That's 60 FPS, but it has an entire half second of lag. Some things will try to poll it faster than 1 second, but it usually is still largely worthless. A much better measurement would be maximum milliseconds per frame, with larger being worse.
One last thing to also consider: 1082 FPS in a clear vanilla world on a top end system is very different from say a heavily built up Monster world running on Bobs budget netbook. As such, I welcome all the performance improvements they can get. I would like to run Monster ( or its equivalent 1.8 modpack if they change names again. ), at 4k@120hz with over 120 fps ( to make sure it's a clean 120 hz ) in 3d
Also, the better it runs, the cheaper my server can be/the more people can be on it/the more we can do on it without performance issues.
The human eye can only process 60 FPS
Sent from my Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System using Tapatalk
I noticed from this :Wrong.
The whole hang-up with 60fps is the fact that in order to be cheap, American televisions were designed to sync to the 60Hz power line frequency... This was carried through to the refresh rate of CRT monitors of 60 frames/sec.
I suppose there are people around the world who think the eye can only detect 50fps because PAL TV did the same thing except their power frequency is 50 hz...
Let's not even mention the fact that cinema standardized on 24 frames per second to keep the cost of film lower. Now that movies have mostly gone digital streaming the frame rates are going up to improve the viewing experience, as are all the high-end HD televisions.
Here we go again
The human eye does not see in discrete frames, but it also isn't unlimited. Individual rods and cones see at around about 200 fps under ideal conditions. ( I think the color ones are faster than the grayscale ones, but I always mix them up. ) However, the rods and cones are not synchronized, making things rather complicated.
The real issue actually comes from the brain. The brain is a massive pattern recognition machine, largely thanks to sight which uses the majority of "processing". Basically, it compresses the images immensely, looking for patterns to simplify things and ease the work it needs to do to recognize things. This is why there are a large number of optical illusions. They are situations where the processing of the brain actually screws things up. ( Such as seeing motion when there isn't any, seeing one object as longer when they are the same size, etc. )
I also have a huge problem with the very measurement of FPS It's an averaging over time, rather than a discrete measurement of performance. This is why some people will tell you they can see a huge difference between 120 fps and 60. Imagine an extreme case where you get 60 frames drawn in half a second, then nothing at all for half a second. That's 60 FPS, but it has an entire half second of lag. Some things will try to poll it faster than 1 second, but it usually is still largely worthless. A much better measurement would be maximum milliseconds per frame, with larger being worse.
One last thing to also consider: 1082 FPS in a clear vanilla world on a top end system is very different from say a heavily built up Monster world running on Bobs budget netbook. As such, I welcome all the performance improvements they can get. I would like to run Monster ( or its equivalent 1.8 modpack if they change names again. ), at 4k@120hz with over 120 fps ( to make sure it's a clean 120 hz ) in 3d
Also, the better it runs, the cheaper my server can be/the more people can be on it/the more we can do on it without performance issues.
Yeah, and I am punching myself in the face because I just moved from a quad core AMD chip to a dual core Intel chip. In the snapshots they have the same damn performance now, before the Intel chip was doubling the performance.
Ouch, sorry to hear that. Modern games are even starting to require Quad-core as a minimum now.
Snapshot 14w30b with Far render and maximum FPS = 120FPS minimum, spiking up to 400 minimum when looking straight down from Y64.
1.6.4 with the same settings = 60FPS minimum, spiking up to 160 when looking straight up from Y64. Straight down has no effect.
Very impressive gains considering I am using only a dual core Intel Pentium. I have noticed even locking Minecraft back to a single core that chunks load and render much faster. I think 1.8 will be the first version in a long time that the whole community can support.
I think with 1.8, mods that hit performance hard(like Reika's mods) will have a whole lot more leeway.
I've seen a jump from 60fps under 1.7.10 to 120fps under the snapshot as well. My video card is several years old, which is probably why I don't have the 32 chunk render distance or the 1000fps+ some are reporting, but at 16 chunks and 1920x1080 resolution with all the highest settings I've seen absolutely no fps rate drops.
mine was actually almost exacty 900$ (laptop) and i run monster almost fine. (need to do some optimizations, but hey, its good training)I sure hope not. I would rather mod authors follow the actions of Mojang and take a version to work on performance. Imagine for a second that playing Monster had roughly the same FPS as vanilla.
That is because the Mojang employee that posted his FPS at the 32 chunk render distance is running a very high end machine with a i7 4770K and GTX 780. Its totally unreasonable to expect the average person to spend more than $900 on a computer just to hit that FPS.
yes. i am watching. i am always watching.
mine was actually almost exacty 900$ (laptop) and i run monster almost fine. (need to do some optimizations, but hey, its good training)