Please explain like I'm 5 why 100 fps is desirable.

[Littlephrenic]

I do not understand the appeal.
Why is approximately 30 (NTSC) or 25 (PAL/SECAM) fps not sufficient? Are you turning every second of game play into slow mo footage?
It isn't even like with audio where increasing the sampling rate from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz does increase the amount of information being captured that can actually be heard, although even then 96 is overkill in a lot of cases and the increase between 96 and 192 is probably overkill in almost every situation.
Increasing the frame rate past like 60 fps isn't perceptible to the eye. It just seems that it would be better to concentrate on the resolution, bit depth, color values, contrast, or other metrics that actually are able to be seen with the human eye.
How is this being rendered out? Does it help smooth over lag times? Why does it matter for a city sim game?

[uFloat]

its not needed people just like to find something wrong to cry about

[martinolund]

As long as we can scroll around and zoom in/out without any stutter or screen tearing and it does not look like a blurry mess, I don't care what the FPS is...

[S3rva1]

Considering the human eye can really only process at 60 frames per second. 100 is unnecessary.

[dannyman]

100 fps is as necessary as a giant spoiler, big-ass rims, and an exhaust pipe shaped like a coffee can to make someone with more money than friends feel special, and thank you for the chuckle.

[ViraCorp]

Because 100 is more than 30!!! Do you want someone to give you $100 or $30??

lol, just playing, I am getting 45-60 and was fine with it when I was only getting like 25-30.

[universecreep]

Because I said so!

Sorry, that's how I usually answered the "why" questions from my 5 year old.

On a serious note, I completely agree with the OP - what's the point of 100 fps when you can only perceive 30 fps at the most.

[Dezzy]

Simple, it looks better in motion.

Also, people need to stop with "human eye can't see more than 60 fps." when it's not true. Playing at 120+ fps is much smoother than 60.

[Monarchco]

Originally posted by Littlephrenic:

I do not understand the appeal.
Why is approximately 30 (NTSC) or 25 (PAL/SECAM) fps not sufficient? Are you turning every second of game play into slow mo footage?
It isn't even like with audio where increasing the sampling rate from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz does increase the amount of information being captured that can actually be heard, although even then 96 is overkill in a lot of cases and the increase between 96 and 192 is probably overkill in almost every situation.
Increasing the frame rate past like 60 fps isn't perceptible to the eye. It just seems that it would be better to concentrate on the resolution, bit depth, color values, contrast, or other metrics that actually are able to be seen with the human eye.
How is this being rendered out? Does it help smooth over lag times? Why does it matter for a city sim game?

This just isn't true.

It's been well documented that humans can detect refresh rates upward of 200hz.

Also, the only time 30 or 25 is acceptable, is when real motion blurring is used. Something not possible in video games outside of pre-rendered cutscenes.

[SumGumption]

100 fps is not necessary. No.

But, when you are on a highway with the speed limit set at 60 mph, you don't want to be on a tricycle. It slows everyone down to a crawl and you are stuck going nowhere till a cop comes along and saves you.



The game is constantly progressing and processing whether you are or not. We paid for better graphics, better rendering and game management. We don't seem to have any of that. I typically only play at 60 fps because that is all my monitor can handle. My graphics card is much higher. But I don't play shooter games. Anything less than 60 fps/1080p on a decent monitor is garbage even if it's just YouTube. If it's on a Switch or any smaller hand held, it's not a problem at all.

Most of us paid $50 for this $20 garbage. Many paid nearly $90. So I guess it all depends on who paid for your game verses who paid for ours.

[/AUSTRIA\Bomberman]

again the "school told me" thing.....

i keep telling people so often: if its a steady 30 FPS thats true but u can never have steady 30 fps if u CALCULATE it in real time.
if there is even a small framedrop it looks laggy to the eye and if u have like 100 fps the eye has 70fps to kinda "compensate" for the lag.

conclusion: the more FPS (if u calculate IRL) the unlikely it is that the eye even notices the framedrop.

[K.I.L.E.R]

the human eye can only see 1 frame per second

[/AUSTRIA\Bomberman]

Originally posted by Kruno Saho:

the human eye can only see 1 frame per second

u are a smoothbrain than

[ViraCorp]

Originally posted by /AUSTRIA\Bomberman:

Originally posted by Kruno Saho:

the human eye can only see 1 frame per second

u are a smoothbrain than

Eyes don’t even see in FPS

[SumGumption]

Originally posted by Kruno Saho:

the human eye can only see 1 frame per second

That's awesome for a crossword puzzle.

[Xamurai]

Originally posted by uFloat:

its not needed people just like to find something wrong to cry about

Not really it plays alot smoother. granted for a city builder you don't need 144fps .
But the main reason if you have only 30-40-50 now. By the time your city become huge your frames will be halved or worse and start to stutter.