Are we ever goin to get a Good Preformance patch Egosoft?

[yoyolll]

Just to make clear when I say at least 30fps, I mean 30fps on average, with minimum at least 20. Otherwise the recommended, is in fact minimum spec.

To me, performance less the 30 FPS is noticeable and unacceptable. I realize some people may be happy with 20 FPS minimum, but I am not one of those people.

Jesus when did 30 become the standard? What happened to 60? It should be going up, not down.

Same shit happened with Skyrim. They made some minor improvements, but the game still runs like ass (how ****** hard is it for a massive team of developers to solve an input lag problem?). What's sad is it's still more well optimized than games like Sleeping Dogs, Alpha Protocol, GTAIV, not to mention XR.

I think it's gotten to the point where people just accept that any game they buy on the PC will need hours of googling and tweaking so that they can play with an average FPS of 30 and use a gamepad. I completely understand and side with the people on this forum asking devs tough questions. Otherwise XR will just go down as another shit PC game that's a pain in the ass to play.

[Observe]

Just to make clear when I say at least 30fps, I mean 30fps on average, with minimum at least 20. Otherwise the recommended, is in fact minimum spec.

To me, performance less the 30 FPS is noticeable and unacceptable. I realize some people may be happy with 20 FPS minimum, but I am not one of those people.

Jesus when did 30 become the standard? What happened to 60? It should be going up, not down.

This has been studied extensively. If you do a Google search for "game acceptable framerate" you see most of the experts talking in terms of 30 FPS being the acceptable "norm", and anything higher is only marginally (if at all) noticeable by the average person.

[SupraRZ]

Just to make clear when I say at least 30fps, I mean 30fps on average, with minimum at least 20. Otherwise the recommended, is in fact minimum spec.

To me, performance less the 30 FPS is noticeable and unacceptable. I realize some people may be happy with 20 FPS minimum, but I am not one of those people.

Jesus when did 30 become the standard? What happened to 60? It should be going up, not down.

This has been studied extensively. If you do a Google search for "game acceptable framerate" you see most of the experts talking in terms of 30 FPS being the acceptable "norm", and anything higher is only marginally (if at all) noticeable by the average person.

Try playing with adaptive half refresh rate vsync if you have a nvidia card its not ideal but its smooth as silk ......
No annoying screen tear or choppiness/stutter ......

Running gtx 680/i7330k@4.2/ssd

Running 1.25 beta hotfix 1 latest drivers

Hoping ES sort performance out for everyone........
BTW I love this game and looking toward to more content

[Rabiator der II.]

The point is, where is Egosoft going to draw the line and say it is good enough? In a COTS environment it is the developer/publisher that has to decide this not the customer. Individual customers can disagree with the assessment but that is a whole different ball game.

Well, one can draw comparisons with other space sims and complain with some justification if X:Rebirth is much slower (for similar graphics quality) on the same hardware.

Candidates for such comparisons are rare at the moment, as both X3 and Freelancer are a bit dated. But once Elite:Dangerous, Star Citizen and Limit Theory are out, those comparisons will be drawn.

Egosoft can obviously decide to stop optimizing before parity is reached, but then they must live with the complaints...

[khartsh]

The point is, where is Egosoft going to draw the line and say it is good enough? In a COTS environment it is the developer/publisher that has to decide this not the customer. Individual customers can disagree with the assessment but that is a whole different ball game.

Well, one can draw comparisons with other space sims and complain with some justification if X:Rebirth is much slower (for similar graphics quality) on the same hardware.

Candidates for such comparisons are rare at the moment, as both X3 and Freelancer are a bit dated. But once Elite:Dangerous, Star Citizen and Limit Theory are out, those comparisons will be drawn.

Egosoft can obviously decide to stop optimizing before parity is reached, but then they must live with the complaints...

Star Citizen is DX11 and has some of the most demanding hardware requirements in any gaming genre.

If I can play SC at 60 FPS and Rebirth is chugging along at 30, we are going to have one pissed off person here.

[dzhedzho]

Just to make clear when I say at least 30fps, I mean 30fps on average, with minimum at least 20. Otherwise the recommended, is in fact minimum spec.

To me, performance less the 30 FPS is noticeable and unacceptable. I realize some people may be happy with 20 FPS minimum, but I am not one of those people.

Jesus when did 30 become the standard? What happened to 60? It should be going up, not down.

This has been studied extensively. If you do a Google search for "game acceptable framerate" you see most of the experts talking in terms of 30 FPS being the acceptable "norm", and anything higher is only marginally (if at all) noticeable by the average person.

It depends on your monitor, vision and most importantly the content. Not unlike music where you often can't make the difference in quality when listening pop or hip-hop, most people will hear difference when listening classical/opera.

Basically the faster and more realistic the movement, the more fps you require. You can perfectly well play flash based tower defense at 12fps, and you'll barely notice any difference with 60fps. (As extreme example - looking at still, you can hardly make the difference between 2 and 100fps);
On the other hand, an element moving fast on circular path will appear to behave differently depending on fps.

Mini-games and quick-time events are particularly affected by fps.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

30fps is one of the most widely accepted standard metrics for VR based training systems where any stutter is deemed undesirable and accuracy of motion is very important. Whether you believe the studies or not what Observe says is correct in general terms.

But this is all rather moot as we still do not know what level of frame rate Egosoft are aiming for.

[BigBANGtheory]

minimum requirements = fluid flight and fps experience on low settings and sub 1080p res

recommended requirements = fluid flight and fps experience on mostly high settings at 1080p res and a small amount of AA

fluid experience = above 25fps

anything below that is smoke & mirrors

[Rabiator der II.]

30fps is one of the most widely accepted standard metrics for VR based training systems where any stutter is deemed undesirable and accuracy of motion is very important. Whether you believe the studies or not what Observe says is correct in general terms.

For what it's worth, this matches my experience with playing Day Of Defeat (a FPS that is somewhat sensitive to lag and stutter, albeit not as fast as some others). 30 fps or more used to be OK, but I found that lower framerates seriously reduced my ability to compete with other players.

Based on that, I agree with Observe

[dzhedzho]

Your ability to detect fps, depends even on things such as the size and distance to your monitor. Your peripheral vision is more sensitive to movement.

Anyway for most people, 30fps will be acceptable.


On the other hand I seem to have significantly better results in PvP when running 60fps than 30 Or then few milliseconds matter anyway.

My guess is if your machine is struggling, it might struggle also as things such as the input etc, or synchronizing its state with what you actually see onscreen.

[Jharii]

30fps is acceptable, but it should never be the target average, but instead the target minimum. If you target a higher average fps, then various inevitable performance hits will hopefully not lower the fps below 30.

If your average fps is 30, then roughly half of your time is spent below 30fps.

[dzhedzho]

30fps is acceptable, but it should never be the target average, but instead the target minimum. If you target a higher average fps, then various inevitable performance hits will hopefully not lower the fps below 30.

If your average fps is 30, then roughly half of your time is spent below 30fps.

30 fps average, is acceptable, although still bad performance.
30 fps average on low resolution and low detail, is admittedly horrible, but I don't think I expect more than that from XR at the moment.

[khartsh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nU2_ERC_oE

There ya go big guy, if you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 then you need to see an eye doctor.

The reason you can tell the difference on your monitor is the refresh rate... pro tip

[B_O_L_T]

If you cannot tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, it is because you are running a poor quality monitor with poor image latency. Try playing any game on a decent monitor such as a 120 hz model and the difference is all too apparent.

As to the comments concerning VR based training systems and the use of 30 fps, VR adopted the pal standard that runs at 30 fps to enable the use of recording equipment that was already widely available. All Current VR systems have to include a level of image latency in their design to prevent motion sickness and headaches that observers would otherwise experience viewing at such a low frame rate.

FWIW the human eye can detect differences over 200 fps, but the technology required to display images with no image latency at the required bandwidth is not cheap and outside the pockets of normal users.

The assertion that 30 fps is considered acceptable is nonsense, it is about as low as you can display moving images and get away with creating the illusion of smooth movement. WHEN your design takes advantage of image latency and its ability to fool the brain, NOTHING more.

If you are the owner of a decent quality monitor 30 fps in a game involving rapid changes in viewing direction is no where near "acceptable".

[Jharii]

The assertion that 30 fps is considered acceptable is nonsense, it is about as low as you can display moving images and get away with creating the illusion of smooth movement. WHEN your design takes advantage of image latency and its ability to fool the brain, NOTHING more.

Actually, 24fps is about as low as you can display moving images with creating the illusion of smooth movement. That is why the film industry has been using it for decades. Only until recently have they really started dabbling with 48fps.

And 30 fps is still acceptable. It's not nonsense. And you specified why: because it still provides the illusion of smooth movement. Or maybe you changed the definition of "acceptable."

But 30fps should not be a target, particularly for an A game title.

[khartsh]

The assertion that 30 fps is considered acceptable is nonsense, it is about as low as you can display moving images and get away with creating the illusion of smooth movement. WHEN your design takes advantage of image latency and its ability to fool the brain, NOTHING more.

Actually, 24fps is about as low as you can display moving images with creating the illusion of smooth movement. That is why the film industry has been using it for decades. Only until recently have they really started dabbling with 48fps.

And 30 fps is still acceptable. It's not nonsense. And you specified why: because it still provides the illusion of smooth movement. Or maybe you changed the definition of "acceptable."

But 30fps should not be a target, particularly for an A game title.

This is 100% false. The ONLY reason American movie standards is 23.97fps is because that is the exposure rate of 35mm movie film.

NTSC TV standards have been 60FPS interlaced since 1941. Today still we have 60hz TV, 1000/1001 split with audio to make up for broadcast lag.

Thomas Edison did experiments on people and determined that 46hz was the needed visual stimulation to prevent eye fatigue and seizures in epileptic patients.

The movie you see at a movie theater is 72 frames per second with three shutter blades (3 of the same image 72 FPS or 24 changed frames per second)

The Human brain can see and people can express discomfort if in the middle of a 60FPS video one frame is pure black or pure white... this is known as the 16ms eye test. 16ms of pure black in a 1 second long white image is enough for people to say "whoa, what was that"

Smooth movement can be obtained as low as 12fps as the human brain tricks you into filling in the blanks, but prolonged exposure to low frame rates causes migraines.

Don't try and spin that 30 is acceptable when I turn on my TV and I get 60 or play the Xbox and I get a de-interlaced 60/2 signal straight to my eyes.

60FPS is still target #1 because most refresh rate monitors are based on 59/60fps... in the future with 1440 monitors and 4k visual displays we will be looking for 96 or 120 fps.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Actually TV signals are not broadcast at 60Hz/50Hz due to bandwidth limitations it is always broadcast interlaced (effective 30/25Hz... actually not exactly that but I will not get into the details) that is (one of the reasons why) why my 1080p TV shows the PS3 as 1080p and the TV channels at 1080i.

As for people developing migraines with low FPS, that is not a guarantee but only a possibility - some will and others wont (I do not for instance).

WRT frame rates, it is not quite the same as Edison's experiment which was almost certainly related to the flickering of lights with AC electricity since a low game frame rate does not cause flicker per-se but rather stepped motion.

The exact frame rate is less important in some ways than ensuring it is regular, since frame rates with wild and frequent variations are likely to exhibit a definite visible stutter.

[Jharii]

60FPS is still target #1 because most refresh rate monitors are based on 59/60fps... in the future with 1440 monitors and 4k visual displays we will be looking for 96 or 120 fps.

You are confusing "target" with "acceptable." Like I have said a couple of times now, they SHOULD be targeting higher rates. That does not equate to 30 fps being unacceptable. The vast majority of games are perfectly playable 30fps. As a matter of fact, in 30+ years of computer gaming, I have not seen any games unplayable at 30fps.

YOU may consider it unacceptable, and that is fine, but 30fps is widely considered acceptable. Of course we would most certainly prefer to have higher, but not having them is not unacceptable.

[Captain Lemmiwinks]

60FPS is still target #1 because most refresh rate monitors are based on 59/60fps... in the future with 1440 monitors and 4k visual displays we will be looking for 96 or 120 fps.

You are confusing "target" with "acceptable." Like I have said a couple of times now, they SHOULD be targeting higher rates. That does not equate to 30 fps being unacceptable. The vast majority of games are perfectly playable 30fps. As a matter of fact, in 30+ years of computer gaming, I have not seen any games unplayable at 30fps.

YOU may consider it unacceptable, and that is fine, but 30fps is widely considered acceptable. Of course we would most certainly prefer to have higher, but not having them is not unacceptable.

5 to 10 years ago....yes acceptable

these days of 8 cores and 2 to 4gb cards....unacceptable

[ICO_hr]

YOU may consider it unacceptable, and that is fine, but 30fps is widely considered acceptable. Of course we would most certainly prefer to have higher, but not having them is not unacceptable.

On PC 25-30 frames is accepted to be the bare minimum for the minimum system requirements.I you cover the recommended system requirements and the game still runs at 25-30 most of the time, this is unacceptable.