Frames per second ?????

[Robert McColl]

I am using rfactor as an example as it has the option when you push ctrl f

What differance does FPS really means ....e.g i use a suped up XP and my rF gives me 380------450 fps then on vista on the same computer it only shows 120---------150 but the game still works exactly the same.Would the XP machine be and advantage in RACE07 and Rfactor . :confused2: :confused2:

 

[James Yates]

I am using rfactor as an example as it has the option when you push ctrl f

What differance does FPS really means ....e.g i use a suped up XP and my rF gives me 380------450 fps then on vista on the same computer it only shows 120---------150 but the game still works exactly the same.Would the XP machine be and advantage in RACE07 and Rfactor . :confused2: :confused2:

You will not be able to see any difference between the two - anything over 60 shouldn't make a huge difference on a racing game. If i was getting that many FPS i would bump some of the settings up so i could have better looking graphics with good FPS - just make sure it doesn't dip below 25 at any point or you will see it jitter.

 

[Steve Clowes]

I vaguely recall reading something from ISI Jeremy at RSC that you should try to ensure rfactor stays above 50 fps, any lower will give you a lap time disadvantage.

 

[Kyle Evers]

I only get above 50 fps if it's a certain view. Other than that, it's in the 25-35 range.

 

[Lee Downham]

If you have a flat screen/TFT monitor, its frequency is 60hz, which means that they cannot display anything faster than 60fps anyway.

If your graphics card feeds more FPS than this to the monitor, its basically wasted energy IMO, but worse than that, it can lead to a degradation of image quality and produce a "tearing" effect on screen (eg. lines across the screen which make it look like its been torn or is splitting).
I don't think this tearing is noticeable in most racing games, but it can affect stuff like first person shooters quite badly.

Enabling vertical synch stops the graphics card from sending more than 60fps to the monitor, allowing it to spend more energy on pre-rendering which might help smooth out slight FPS drops (ie. drawing frames in advance of sending them to the display).

Vertical synch can be troublesome in some games or on some systems though, so maybe test it and see if it looks any better (or worse), and I suggest setting "max pre-rendered frames" to 3.

BTW: there is usually a setting for verticle synch in the graphics card options, and another one in rF and Race 07/Evo ... make sure you set them both to on or off just to be sure.
You should know if its working, because the max FPS you get will be 60.

BTW: I have this set and have a pretty solid 60FPS with all games.

A couple of other settings to look at that will help increase your image quality, reduce on screen "jaggies" and use your card to more effect than doing 300fps, are the AA and AF settings ... try shifting them up a notch or two and see if you can still maintain 60fps (or slightly more if you don't have vsynch enabled).

BTW: Vista is rather a bit hungrier than XP on system resources, hence the difference in your frame rates.

 

[Eric. K]

BTW: Vista is rather a bit hungrier than XP on system resources, hence the difference in your frame rates.

Not exactly Lee. A short version of the story is that Microsoft tried to be smart in Vista and for security reasons they moved all device drivers from Ring0 (lingo for lowest OS hardware access) and introduced an addition layer to protect "us". All device drivers now communicate with the hardware through that layer. While in XP it was a straight communication. Since Microsoft learned their lessons and made some changes in Windows 7 which is why you might see higher FPS, etc... than on Vista.

You are right about the 60fps. The human eye (or most flat panel displays) only see/show 60fps anything above is pointless.