hey guys, i've tried everything and i cant seem to fix this, i have no idea why its happening so maybe you can help me with it.

ever since i got my new PC my FPS has been massively high. its unnatural. i can run HL2 at 1280x1024 with all settings maxed out, 8xAA and 16xAF, at 150fps!

those kind of speeds must be bad for my health. what should i do?

im running:
AMD 4600+
2GB DDR2 800 RAM
8800GTS 320mb

fps_max 9

I recommend playing cs_fallingliquid with those settings and HDR effects enabled.
Any software you can run simultaneously will also help dropping that number. I recommend re-encoding a very big AVI file or using Windows search and looking for all files that include the letter "s"

Penguinboy = whore.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4725/3dmarkya6.jpg

onoz!

Oh yeah? Well I am also running an 8800GTS with 640mb. I did what you did at 450 fps!

(e-peen)

Haaaaaaaaaaaay! This isn't a problem! You must be joking, aren't you? You got me for a moment, there, you sly devil you!

no you didnt mitcho because theres literally no difference between the two GTS's at low resolutions such as 1280x1024, the higher memory is only useful at very high resolutions such as 1600x1200 or greater. my monitor cant support more than 1280 so i got the 320 one at no sacrifice to fps.

Penguin boy, your a dick.

I will never understand the famous world of benchmarking. Does it really matter if you get 90 or 200 FPS? I know I'll never pay for hardware that will have effects invisible to the human eye... :
50-60 Hz (like consoles are shown through TV) looks as smooth as your eye will be able to distinguish, unless you have a very big CRT monitor in which case 80 Hz or so is better.

What Luke said.

You smug bastard.

lol ur just jealous

oh and kasperg its not for games now, but in the future

i've always had a mid-range PC and cant play any newer games well, so i got sick of it.

I get the same FPS, though i've now limited it to 60. No need to go beyond that.

You're just an ass.

guys i just meant it as a joke. if you find offense in that, its very sad for you, but i dont really care.

it just shows the current state of TWHL, where a harmless joke turns, like every other thread, into a flamefest.

Oh please. We aren't the ones that are offended.

I'm not personally offended at all, but I do think making this thread was rather lame, and I do think it makes you something of an ass. It may not have been your intention, but it comes off feeling like you just wanted to show off your super-leet new hardware, and make everyone else feel inadequate, rather than just being a little joke. I'm pretty sure you'd get the same reaction if you started a thread like this anywhere, it isn't just a TWHL thing.

What's really bugging me though, is that you're surprised by our reaction. I mean, really, how were you expecting us to respond? Did you think we would bow down at your feat, upon seeing that you now owned such a powerful computer? Did you even expect us to chuckle a little bit at the practically humorless sarcasm? It ain't gonna happen. Nobody took it as a tasteful joke, and, I'm sorry, but blaming that on the community isn't gonna get you anywhere.

Hope you don't take this as a flame like you did for everyone else's responses, because I haven't seen too much besides controlled negativity toward your "joke" thread.

P.S.

Nice computer, glad I could help you find a case.

i forgot that alot of people here dont upgrade their computers often (half-life doesnt really need it) so in ur eyes my pc could seem "super-leet" and it might look like i was trying to rub it in ur faces. but i wasnt. anyway you're making a big deal out of nothing.

Ass.

Ouch, people - lighten up!

Also... seriously, you might wanna cap your frames lower to reduce the stress to your GPU - since it has the capacity to run faster it will try to will will result in more heat, louder fans running, etc, etc....

You might as well cap at about 60 fps.

Also, in todays terms, HL2 isn't exactly advanced - try running Oblivion or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on it and that will show its true potential.

...Another thing which I have found strange is that I get much lower fps in HL than HL2.... weird?!?!?

Half-Life has an automatic framerate cap of something like 72, I think it is. The highest it allows you to go is 99 FPS, so it's not actually running worse than newer games, the engine is just incapable of going as high as modern games allow.

And you know, I never found that thing about 60 FPS being the fastest framerate we could see to be true. It might not make any impact on things at all, but I can definitely tell the difference between 60 and 100 FPS when I'm playing. Not that it matters. Hell, I even PREFER 60/72 FPS, as going too high gives me a headache for some reason.

HL goes up to about 300fps if you enable developer mode

console -> "developer 1"

and yeah i havent tested STALKER yet (i have it installed) but Rainbow six: vegas runs at about 40fps on 1280.

is there a way to universally cap all framerates WITHOUT using vertical sync?

300fps... movies have 24 fps... and they still look smooth, there isn't any use of drawing more then 30 per seconds, the eye wont really notice, just like it doesn't in movies. I think that if those computers drew only 30 they could have made the graphics much nicer and levels more complex. :

I can definitely tell the difference between 60 and 100 FPS when I'm playing

Strange...

there isn't any use of drawing more then 30 per seconds, the eye wont really notice, just like it doesn't in movies

You are wrong there, Elon. There is a huge difference between film frame rates and home video recordings. Can't you tell the difference when you're watching TV to know if what you are seeing is a war film or real news footage?
My tft screen has a crap response time and I can only get 40 fps on it. When I connect mi ATi to the TV, the difference is really noticeable.

no, you're wrong.

american TV and NTSC in general is 24fps, PAL is 29 or something. it doesnt change.

EDIT: those numbers could be slightly off...wiki it

i know that NTSC is like 23.97fps or something.

PB, I think you are talking about film framerates, which are indeed different in PAL and NTSC.
But the real screen refresh rates are 50 Hz for PAL and 60 Hz for NTSC. You can perfectly see a video with higher framerates if your input device (a camcorder, a TV signal, a computer gfx card) can or could output at those rates.

The NTSC system yields a nearly flicker-free image at its approximately 59.94 hertz (nominally 60 Hz/100.1%) refresh frequency. The refresh compares favorably to the 50 Hz refresh rate of the PAL and SECAM video formats used in Europe

ah okay.

PAL is 25 FPS.

All kinds of animation use 25 fps and filmed movies.

Kasperg if your TV or computer show movies with slight lag thats because it shows less then 24 fps or it justs stops alot of times.

You can perfectly see a video with higher framerates if your input device

No you can't, you can't watch video with higher framerates then 24/25. Thats because phsically impossible, there aren't any more frames on the film or in the camera's memory to fill the gaps that will be created.
If you want to ask my brother, he studies animation, and already made a few short films, he makes only 25 fps for his films, and so all other animators, 3D, classic and stop motion. How will the TV/computer add more frames? Add blank frames? Copy a few frames?
And besides many cartoons use each frame twice, one after another, so basicly cartoons only have 12.5 fps. And they still look smooth.

Conclusion, it's impossible to have in a TV more frames, basicly because they don't exist, the computer can create more frames because it creates them on the spot.

plug ur favourite console into a tv and there you have 60fps stuff on the tv. tv from ur antenna is 25 or so fps tho.

Elon, we were talking about computer games, not animation. I already know what the framerates are for films and cartoons. But your TV screen can output 50 or 60 fps, just like Penguinboy just said. If you plug in a camcorder to your TV so it shows what the camera is recording LIVE, framerate will be 30, not the 25 that gets recorded on the tape or disc.

Kasperg if your TV or computer show movies with slight lag thats because it shows less then 24 fps or it justs stops alot of times.

The fact is, it doesn't. My computer games look much more smooth on my pal TV (50 Hz) than on my TFT screen (40 Hz)

Conclusion, it's impossible to have in a TV more frames, basicly because they don't exist, the computer can create more frames because it creates them on the spot.

Exactly. Your computer can create more frames and your TV can show them up to 50 or 60 fps.

Edit:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3457/hzyq5.jpg

Still, you don't convince me that if a movie runs on 24 fps smoothly a PC game can't. After all a second is a second, if it's smooth in one place it should be in another, if it's not then it means it isn't 24fps but slower.

I can't convince you because I don't think it's that way!
A film does NOT run as smoothly as a PC game or as smooth as normal footage shown at 30 fps (like the news on tv). Films have less framerate and I certainly can tell the difference between 24, 30 and 60 fps.
Do you see a game run smoothly at 24 fps? I think it's actually on the bad side of framerate numbers...

60 > 24, Elon.
Stop arguing about something, that's just simple mathematics ffs.

Well, you must try pretty hard to see it's not smooth, most people will disagree with you. The human eye can't see things that change so quickly, but it might be possible that your eye cells started collecting info more quickly. Though it might be also possible that you made yourself believe it. No offence. It's a quite common case happens to nearly everybody. Sometimes they believe something is better or that even there is something in places where there is nothing, then they start thinking it's true.
You might made your self think it's true. I myself manage to make myself believe things are true, so true I start to see them. When I turn off the lights I can start thinking about shapes and imagine a man in front of me. Suddenly He doesn't seem like a figure of my imagination and I even sometime feel the touch of his hand or sound, like foot steps. But never clear words or sounds of course, I can't influence my brain that much.

So, if I show you the same video at 30 fps and 24 fps, you won't be able to tell the difference?
I'm leaving right now but if I can remember, I'll give a link of the same video at different framerates.

It would have a to be steady 24fps though... no dips, which are frequent when gaming, even when capping a lot below a systems capability.

You can check the frame-rate if you have a tv card in your comp - just run FRAPS and it will show up on the TV! ...found out by accident!

I too think that it might be slightly possible to see the difference between 60 and 100 fps, but I think its for different reasons, ie, how the game runs - unlike TV.... not sure though :

An other thing I've noticed (that is probably not related to FPS, but I'll say it anyway) is smoothness in motion. What I mean is, if you stand in a simple 6-poly box room and move around, the world around you moves at a constant rate. If you walk around some of the open areas of Episode One, however, the game is processing more, and as a result, will slightly luch forward every second or so to keep in step. It's barely noticable, but is definitely there. It becomes more pronounced when playing CS:S with several bots. It can, some times, make the game very hard to 'look' at when playing, probably because it isn't constant like a continual 20 FPS, which the eye would get used to.

It may seem like a side effect of the FPS thing because low performance = both the two problems. It's just something I've noticed.

It's not how it runs, is how to eye sees. There is no diffrence between 24fps in one place or another. It means 24 frames are rendered per second. I cannot see the diffrence between 24 and 30 and so are most people, unless they try really hard, and that might mean that they made them selves believe there is a diffrence because they searched so much for it.

Another example: I once saw a man that was completely diffrent from some guy I've seen before, yet I was certain he was the same man. After a short time I started finding things that looked similar. Later I saw the second person and understood both had nothing incommon what so ever. I made myself believe they look alike.

And this is why I want a Xbox 360 instead of a gaming PC. You don't have to sink $1,500+ for a cutting edge computer that's neccesary to smoothly play the latest games. Even if you do have a cutting edge computer, you have to maintain it (your performance drops anyways), there's weird glitches and developers still provide for low end users. That's one year of newest games, max settings. Then you have to deal with low fps and ugly settings again.

you think its any different on an xbox? you cant upgrade an xbox...

Why the fuck would I upgrade a Xbox? The games run fine and look better and better as time goes on. I don't have performance decreasing bugs/ glitches on the scale of PCs.

Yeah but PC has more variety and you can make games last longer by modding them.

Take the HL game for the PS2 for example. Once you finish the small game you have nothing else to do with it. But on the PC you can make your own levels to enjoy or play others etc.

I honestly don't think PC's can get that much better with 'Next-Gen' coming...At least not for a good while.

Elon, you may have some problem seeing the difference between those framerates, but you will never convince us that we can't. You keep on talking about it like we have to squint and strain our eyes to see it, but it's not hard at all for me. Ever thought that maybe you're in the minority here, and everyone else can see it, while you don't?

Anyway, something else that I thought might be interesting to add, is that in movies, a certain amount of motion blurring is applied to smoothen it out, and compensate for the low framerate. Many TV shows/programs don't have this, and neither do games, which is why the difference between framerates is so much more noticeable on these platforms. This between-frame blurring is also part of what gives it that "cinematic feel".

Suit your self, I still say that there isn't much diffrence. Even if there is 40 is ok, but why 90. Besides most people I know think the same.

some people want to play games other than half-life, so if they get very high fps on half-life do you want them to use a 10 year old computer instead so it struggles with it? to "why 90", its because the computer can handle it.

Once thing that has boggled me the need for a constant 100 fps in CS. If you need 40 more frames that aren't even drawn, that's just odd.

What's that supposed to mean, 40 frames that aren't even being drawn?

Most monitors are set on 60 fps. Do you use a 100fps monitor?

Are you kidding? Any monitor that's set at 60 Hz is going to make my eyes hurt! It would also have to be pretty old if that was the highest it could support. It has to be at least 75 hz before it's acceptable for me, and I dare say, most other people.

However, none of this even matters, because I have an LCD monitor, and their refresh rates aren't measured in Hz, obviously.

mines at 60 Hz.....lul
i need a nice widescreen LCD one -_-