FPS Cap Option broken

For discussion about Trine 2, released in December 2011 on Windows, Mac, Xbox, PlayStation Network and later on Linux and Wii U.
Borc
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:28 pm

FPS Cap Option broken

Postby Borc » Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:35 pm

http://s1.directupload.net/images/130617/qaqnp6p2.png
http://s7.directupload.net/images/130617/zzuod7s7.png

This option is broken. Doesn't work. FPS limited to max 100. Disabling it or even a custom fps cap has no effect.

fb_jlarja
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: FPS Cap Option broken

Postby fb_jlarja » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:36 am

Borc wrote:This option is broken. Doesn't work. FPS limited to max 100. Disabling it or even a custom fps cap has no effect.


Maximum is by design limited to 100. It should really be enforced in the menu, so people wouldn't have to wonder.

I'm not sure why we haven't raised the maximum, since 120 and 144 Hz displays have been available for a good while. Probably because it isn't quite as simple as just upping one number in code.

-JLarja

Borc
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: FPS Cap Option broken

Postby Borc » Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:30 pm

fb_jlarja wrote:
Borc wrote:This option is broken. Doesn't work. FPS limited to max 100. Disabling it or even a custom fps cap has no effect.


Maximum is by design limited to 100. It should really be enforced in the menu, so people wouldn't have to wonder.

I'm not sure why we haven't raised the maximum, since 120 and 144 Hz displays have been available for a good while. Probably because it isn't quite as simple as just upping one number in code.

-JLarja



Looks like you don't understand the problem. The option is just broken.

setOption(gameBaseApplicationModule, "FPSCapEnabled", true)

When I disable fps cap ingame it stays on true. That's why it doesn't work. If I set it manually in the ini to false I can reach over 300 fps.

fb_jlarja
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: FPS Cap Option broken

Postby fb_jlarja » Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:09 am

Borc wrote:Looks like you don't understand the problem. The option is just broken.

setOption(gameBaseApplicationModule, "FPSCapEnabled", true)

When I disable fps cap ingame it stays on true. That's why it doesn't work. If I set it manually in the ini to false I can reach over 300 fps.


Ah, yes, you are right. That seems to be a new option. The menu is dealing with old ones, which is why it doesn't work (unfortunately, fix isn't quite trivial). I'll file a bug report.

-JLarja

Zybex
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:02 am

Re: FPS Cap Option broken

Postby Zybex » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:54 pm

So THAT'S why I couldn't reach 120fps even on low detail. I'll try this manual .ini method.

How about physics? I get smooth 100fps at 100Hz but it seems that physics engine isn't working at the same speed (at least not all the time), making falling objects/enemies stutter a little. Absolutely not a big deal, but it would be nice to have it perfect.

BTW. Anyone at Frozenbyte tried Trine 2 on a LightBoost capable monitor?
http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/
Image
(click in LIGHTBOOST FAQ on blurbusters page for more info)

It reproduces the motion equally good as CRTs did. Trine 2 at 100fps/LB looks stunnig. (It looks even better in 3D on the same monitor, but not everyone wants to spend additional money for 3D glasses kit).
I'm glad it's not capped to 60fps, since it would ruin the advantage. I know 50fps is enough for smooth and clear motion, but it is unfortunately not that simple to achieve proper detail in motion by just displaying 50fps at 100Hz refresh rate. It's explained why here:
http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/


I hope Frozenbyte will NEVER change that, never go for 30 or 60fps cap in the future titles. It makes huge difference, especially in side-scrolling games. Your games are simply too beautiful to waste by becoming a victim of the awful LCD technology. I think going for some type of cap might seem reasonable while for example, developing on Xone or PS4, but please maintain you excellent quality and consumer attitude as it is. One day, OLED displays will become popular and then no frame caps might give your games a real advantage in more players eyes than now (let's be fair - not everyone plays on a good plasma or LB enabled LCD) and right now - noone knows what will be the Hz/fps requirement to properly display motion on OLEDs.
PS. First Zoya level is quite good if you'll decide to give LB a chance. Running through the level while mainaining ALL the detail - it's just eye-popping :) visuals are just stunning, ekhem... even more than before, cause they always were :D
PPS. Of course, to see the difference you need to run the game at constant 100+ framerate. CPU like 2500K overclocked to 4,5GHz and GTX660 is enough for 900p, 1080p would welcome gtx670, but even then - no AA is allowed since it will make the framerate dip below 100fps, ruining the whole thing. At lower quality settings, a much slower card might handle 100+fps just as well.

fb_jlarja
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: FPS Cap Option broken

Postby fb_jlarja » Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:48 pm

Zybex wrote:So THAT'S why I couldn't reach 120fps even on low detail. I'll try this manual .ini method.

How about physics? I get smooth 100fps at 100Hz but it seems that physics engine isn't working at the same speed (at least not all the time), making falling objects/enemies stutter a little. Absolutely not a big deal, but it would be nice to have it perfect.


I think physics are run at constant tick rate (67 Hz), because doing variable time step would break things if frame rate isn't high enough and stable enough. There's a difference between console and PC versions though, and I can't really remember the details too well (and may just remember wrong).

Zybex wrote:BTW. Anyone at Frozenbyte tried Trine 2 on a LightBoost capable monitor?

It reproduces the motion equally good as CRTs did. Trine 2 at 100fps/LB looks stunnig. (It looks even better in 3D on the same monitor, but not everyone wants to spend additional money for 3D glasses kit).
I'm glad it's not capped to 60fps, since it would ruin the advantage. I know 50fps is enough for smooth and clear motion, but it is unfortunately not that simple to achieve proper detail in motion by just displaying 50fps at 100Hz refresh rate. It's explained why here:
http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/


I hope Frozenbyte will NEVER change that, never go for 30 or 60fps cap in the future titles. It makes huge difference, especially in side-scrolling games. Your games are simply too beautiful to waste by becoming a victim of the awful LCD technology. I think going for some type of cap might seem reasonable while for example, developing on Xone or PS4, but please maintain you excellent quality and consumer attitude as it is. One day, OLED displays will become popular and then no frame caps might give your games a real advantage in more players eyes than now (let's be fair - not everyone plays on a good plasma or LB enabled LCD) and right now - noone knows what will be the Hz/fps requirement to properly display motion on OLEDs.
PS. First Zoya level is quite good if you'll decide to give LB a chance. Running through the level while mainaining ALL the detail - it's just eye-popping :) visuals are just stunning, ekhem... even more than before, cause they always were :D
PPS. Of course, to see the difference you need to run the game at constant 100+ framerate. CPU like 2500K overclocked to 4,5GHz and GTX660 is enough for 900p, 1080p would welcome gtx670, but even then - no AA is allowed since it will make the framerate dip below 100fps, ruining the whole thing. At lower quality settings, a much slower card might handle 100+fps just as well.


Though it is nice to see your enthusiasm, most people don't really see much difference between CRTs and normal (good but not great) LCDs when it comes to motion, so that's probably not something we will especially think about. That said, I happen to have 120 Hz monitor at home, so I'll be advocating for higher than 60 Hz support for sure :) .

Also, you don't really need that much CPU to run Trine 2 at 100 FPS. 2.7 GHz i7 860 is perfectly capable of doing > 300 FPS as long as GPU can handle it :) .

-JLarja

Zybex
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:02 am

Re: FPS Cap Option broken

Postby Zybex » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:55 pm

Thanx for the answer and the info about the CPU requirements. I saw some posts about CPU problems, but I guess those were about the Linux version. Glad to hear it doesn't require high-end CPU for 100-120fps :)

Like I said - this physics framerate isn't that important.
About the image in motion - I know, unfortunately you're right. But only about what people think, not what they want.
If you'll let me take 5 minutes of your time, I'll explain the phenomena, and if not - well.. please read at least the last section of this post, thank you.


It's sad that display manufactures and game publishers are stuck in a vicious circle:
No TV/monitors good in motion - no difference perceived by gamers. No good TVs/monitors in gamers houses -> no 60fps games on the market. Not much 60fps games on the market -> less gamers knowing the difference.

It's that simple - you don't know you're not content with your (standard) LCD unless you know and see the difference.
It's a complicated topic, really. And really hard to explain because of immediate hitting the wall called "Shut up, I know what I'm seeing, I know what I like or not". At this point - most people are closing for any arguments. Here's why:

- motion perception is complicated. We have blur in real life, we have only a small circle in eye sight, where we can see clearly (the point we're looking at). Depending on how and where you look at - it makes difference. People are lazy and don't want to even think about it, more less educate about it (I'm talking about the majority driving the market). But there is a difference between fast moving object (blur present even in real life) and the same object tracked by our eyes. There is no motion blur there in real life, but there is on 99% of today's TVs/monitors.
- people don't know how to look making a comparison. For example - playing a racing game, going straight - the gamer looks at the centre of the screen, where the motion is much slower. The same for the Trine series - it is possible to play, i.e. fight with enemies, on a non-moving background. All the details will be there, and moving enemies won't look bad, since they're moving relatively slow, or making an ultra-fast movement like swinging a sword - which would look a little blury even in real life. But as soon as someone starts running through the level - details deteriorate. The same in that racing example - on blur-free display, the gamer can enjoy the track surroundings (on a long straight at least ;) ) and he'll see every detail of the track even while cornering (slow corners - many details to appreciate, but a fast "panning" movement since car/camera horizontal movement is significant).
- many games have motion blur, making it really hard to see the benefits of blur-free displays. At below 60fps framerate, blur-free display doesn't even have a chance to show what it can do, and 90% of games these days are 30fps (you can clearly see that it changed drastically since people turned from blur-free displays to LCDs of today, that is the main reason of todays unfortunate "30fps era" even more than insufficient hardware performance or marketing advantage (30fps games look better on screenshots and trailers, since they might be more detailed than 60fps games)
- people don't know what they're missing - that's really interesting topic. Even those who played on CRTs for 10-20 years, after a few month - they forget... but they don't realize that - this is really hard to agree with, I know, but I personally experienced this phenomena a few times. And many of my friends disagreed with me and was forced to change their minds when I showed them the same game on two monitors side by side. I showed them a few games at my LCD (one of the fastest, TN based so motion clarity well beyond any TV can have, since in TVs there are no TN panels) and asked them "do you see any motion blur that annoys you or making the game look worse?" I got the same answer every time -"no". And then I switched on the second monitor (same viewable size). Not everyone saw the difference immediately, but after turning their eyes on the LCD - now everyone saw that "something is wrong"! That's really surprising, isn't it?
I was using two monitors for a few years. CRT for the games where the movement was important (FPS/fast side scrollers like Rayman). When I wasn't using the CRT for a few month - even I was forgetting. It seems there is no problem playing on a standard LCD, but there is, and becomes obvious the minute you see the proper image. :)

In games like GTA or 3D platform games like Ratchet&Clank or Jak&Daxter - the difference isn't "just a minor thing". It is a game changer! And no - it is NOT possible to judge this difference just by thinking and analyzing the "fun level" you get while playing. I was aware of motion clarity influence on playing for many years, and had many "experiments" done before I played one of my favourite series sequel - R&C Tools of Destruction on PS3. I played it like I always did on PS2, I finished it and sadly though "well... apparently I got bored with this genre or the game". Two days later I hooked up my VGA box and CRT monitor to PS3 and out of curiosity started R&C:ToD. I played a little. I wasn't planning to play for more than 5 minutes. I played 2 hours. And I really didn't want to stop, which wasn't the case while playing on the LCD. I finished the game quickly, started it from the beginning and finished it once more in the next few days. How can it be, if the first time was "boring"?
That is simple - I like the worlds in such games (the same goes for GTA, Mafia, Just Cause etc.) - I turn the camera alot while I play. On the blur-free display, I can enjoy the looks of those fictional worlds. Player gets a chance to go and see the sights. Traveling just for fun makes searching for some hidden bonuses much more interesting.
In Trine 2 - only on blur-free display (and I remind you - I'm comparing to the best TN LCDs out there, which are in majority almost on par with plasmas) I can see the light dancing on the knight shield. Only on blur-free I can really enjoy the ice and watter effects. And detail - man, detail level while running (even more while swinging on a rope) is simply incomparable
It makes the immersion so much better.
I could go on and on with examples, but I won't, cause I think anyone reading this "got the picture" by now. Well, maybe just one more ;] - Flatout:Ultimate Carnage - on normal LCD you can't see the water details close to the camera while going really fast. On blur-free display - you can and it's a difference bigger than many games show when changing some graphics levels from "ultra" to "medium/low". :]

As seen on the image above - your 120Hz monitor doesn't really make a big difference, since it's still refreshed in "sample and hold" technique. It needs to have a strobe backlight to make this huge impact on motion representation (of cours I'm not mentioning the influence the 120Hz has on steering (i.e. FPS games))

OLEDs are on the horizon. Situation might change (and might not). So I really hope I'll never see a Frozenbyte game on a PC that is FPS capped in any way below 100fps. It's not a big deal to include it in the game making at the start, but it is a huge problem when it is complete, so even if you would consider this step (capping at 30 or 60) because not many gamers know/care about this, please think about a possible remake in the future. I don't know how will OLED era turn out, but if there will be a breakthrough in motion - you could have much more work to do for example releasing some "HD" verion of your 2014 game in 2020. This has happened already with Double Fine and their games. They're struggling to remove 30fps cap in their PC games for months now :(
Sorry for wasting your time and thanx for reading this, if you did.
And a huge thanx for not capping Trine1/2.

fb_jlarja
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: FPS Cap Option broken

Postby fb_jlarja » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:47 am

Zybex wrote:Thanx for the answer and the info about the CPU requirements. I saw some posts about CPU problems, but I guess those were about the Linux version. Glad to hear it doesn't require high-end CPU for 100-120fps :)


The problems were with single-core processors running below 2 GHz. Of course, the target was only playable framerates (> 30 FPS), not over 100.

Zybex wrote:Like I said - this physics framerate isn't that important.
About the image in motion - I know, unfortunately you're right. But only about what people think, not what they want.
If you'll let me take 5 minutes of your time, I'll explain the phenomena, and if not - well.. please read at least the last section of this post, thank you.


I know what you are talking about, but I think you are overestimating the importance of it. How much different motion issues bother people is highly subjective. Just as it is with color reproduction, backlight flicker, DLP vs. LCD (vs. CRT) projectors etc. etc..

Many people choose 30 FPS locked console versions of games instead of faster running PC version, not because they don't know what they are missing, but because they don't feel extra FPS is that important. Do you think those people would be willing to pay even more to go for blur free displays and high framerates those require to make sense?

Personally, I'm not too sensitive to most of the little annoyances. I can usually see the difference (like going from 60 FPS to 120 FPS, having an IPS panel instead of TN panel and stuff like that), so I understand if someone wants to pay some extra or go through some extra trouble to get feature X. I'm not surprised that most people don't, though. I'm not planning to buy blur free monitor, simply because I much rather buy more CPU and GPU power instead. If I had unlimited funds, then sure, why not. I would have to start by buying a larger apartment first though :) .

To get back to development point of view, our engine must be able to run at 30 FPS (on consoles, slow PCs), and it would be crazy not to have it run at 60 FPS on fast PCs. Additional effort to make it run reasonably well at 120 FPS on high end PC shouldn't be too much. Anything more, though, and we have to start asking: what are we willing to give up to make very small part of our customers happier? With limited resources, there's always a compromise somewhere.

-JLarja


Return to “Trine 2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest