Dark Souls Mod Allows 60FPS

[Saulkar]

Kudos for the modders but when it comes to how fast the human eye can perceive, it usually peters out around 240(average)-310FPS(fighter pilot). I myself can tell the difference without difficulty between 120-240HZ.

Note: We do not actually see in FPS, it is just for me the most convenient thing to say.

 

[hazabaza1]

A somewhat related question: 60fps is the highest fps the human eye can actually perceive right?

I don't think there's a real "set limit". Real life don't happen in frames, dawg cat.
But from personal experience once it gets above 60 I find it doesn't matter quite as much as the leap from 30-60 does.

OT: Cool, I guess. Maybe next time From can spend some time on it and hire someone who knows what they're fucking doing.

Does your monitor output more than 60 Hz? Because if not then it can only show 60 fps even if the game tells you it can run higher and that may be why you dont see a difference. Most monitors are 60Hz I think.

Oh yeah, 60Hz. Hmm.
Even so, I doubt there'll be that much difference once you pass 60.

 

[cerebus23]

God i recall the days of quake 2 and the guys insisting they had to play at 640 by 480 or w/e min res was and turn all he gfx options down to low to get fps in the 100s range, think most of the top players did something like that for a good long while and insited that the extra fps made a world of difference compared to the 40 50 fps or w/e the average was for the average pc.

60 and 120 mhz monitors, would be locked out at 60 and 120? not sure how the 120s work really other than they needed for 3d so dunno their full non 3d refresh.

some game can look good even at 20 some fps, crysis somes to mind where 23 plus fps can look fluid, other games mid 20s generally where they will get choppy for me personally.

 

[Itsthefuzz]

Jolly cooperation? Is that a Helloween4545 reference I see?

No, Solaire (The golden guy in the picture) says that in the game.

So it's a Dark Souls reference in an article about Dark Souls.

 

[Prof.Beany]

This would be great if the game would actually use more than one of my cores and didnt constantly drop to 15fps because apparently the vanilla game only has two modes of operation 30fps and 15fps with nothing in between.

But hey, 120 hours later and it still hasnt been enough to make me stop playing.

 

[Weaver]

So I just tried this WIHOUT the xlive.dll and it still logged me into GFWL and gave me 60 FPS.
I'd love for a configurable version for 120fps.

EDIT: never mind, just crashed.

 

[unoleian]

A somewhat related question: 60fps is the highest fps the human eye can actually perceive right?

A human is not a rigidly programmed computer and our eyes don't have shutters; there is no number and, if there was, it would be different from person to person.

While it would vary from person-to-person, it probably wouldn't be too hard to establish a basic range. I imagine that range is just about somewhere near whatever frequency many LED car tail-lights operate at. Seems like just about everyone I know experiences a strong afterimage strobing effect from those, so if the human eye has a refresh rate as it were, it's somewhere close to there, perhaps as an average.

Has anyone ever studied that? Now I must go look...

 

[vezon]

I don't know when people will understand that humans can perceive over 100Hz, some people even over 200Hz, and second there is a HUGE, I mean really really HUGE difference between a movie playing at 24fps and a game playing at 24fps.
In a game a frame is actually a moment, when in a movie a frame is actually a time frame.
Our eyes perceive lights constantly, so u will see the entire movement of an object, our brain will separate the information into frames, sometimes less 10/s other times more than 100/s. And here is the problem in games the motion doesnt exist between frames, u will see the object at point A and point B, but in movies yes,at least in some proportion.
And as u heard even in movies they are working on 50-60fps (new Avatar)

 

[Dandark]

I was expecting a "big" difference between 30 and 60 FPS in that link. Instead, all I saw was a slight difference. Funny that.
That being said, losing online features for a marginally smoother experience? Not worth it at all.

See this.

To run the mod - which is available here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxrPy0TiNjU&feature=player_embedded ] - you'll need Durante's original mod. Keep in mind that the YouTube video of the mod in action is limited to 30FPS, so you'll need to grab the downloadable version of the video to see the full effect.

You won't see a difference on the youtube video, you would have to actually download the mod to see the difference.

OT: It's nice to see that the PC modding community are being as awesome as usual and completely improving the game. Im glad the the general reception of the port was better than what I thought it would be, hopefully this can be remembered as a developer listening to it's fans, I know im going to be thinking of From software as a good studio now.

 

[The Lugz]

A somewhat related question: 60fps is the highest fps the human eye can actually perceive right?

no
everyone is different and it basically comes down to the contrast of what your looking at
and your body chemistry

you can 'perceive' frame-rates as high as 200 ( as in tell that it's faster than before ) but you would be hard pressed to see any specific image interleaved between other frames beyond about 60
ie, if you had a game running at 20 fps and a picture of the pope was displayed as a frame you'd most likely see it and wonder who was messing with your game
if it was displayed in a 90 fps video stream for example you'd probably miss the 'picture' and see a blurr or a stutter and not think anything more of it

so it really depends on what definition you're going for, if you want to 'see and take in' every frame specifically then 20-30 really is probably the max,
higher speeds will simply deliver information to your brain faster
( which has obvious gains for gamers )

there's a flipside too, if you go too fast you'll be missing more information than you see so your wasting resources bothering with it
personally, i hate playing any game below 60 fps i find it intolerable i spent a long time and lots of money on my pc to make it sync at 60 fps in most games
allot of people would consider this a waste, but for me it's essential

for most of the pc gaming population 44+ fps is considered to be fine for gaming
and below 30 sub optimal and degrading to the gameplay
some people complain right upto 120, which is the highest mainstream tech can deliver right now
faster displays exist, but they aren't widely available due to there being little demand and prices being sky high

 

[antipunt]

Honestly, this is freaking awesome BUT IS THERE A FIX FOR THE ATI CARDS YET?! D:

I get massive slowdown because the game doesn't use the video card and it goes to sleep (common reported issue). To make it work better I actually FORCE the game into super-high-res mode (using the mod) AND turn up AA up to full in the ATI catalyst manager. and it's STILL somewhat choppy (inconsistent)

Hmm...maybe this will help <_< (hopes). This is the first time I've had a problem with a game running poorly because it uses too -little- system resources

 

[unoleian]

While it would vary from person-to-person, it probably wouldn't be too hard to establish a basic range. I imagine that range is just about somewhere near whatever frequency many LED car tail-lights operate at. Seems like just about everyone I know experiences a strong afterimage strobing effect from those, so if the human eye has a refresh rate as it were, it's somewhere close to there, perhaps as an average.

Has anyone ever studied that? Now I must go look...

LEDs don't refresh, actually. Unless you get into the frequencies of light itself, in which case that is measured in terahertz. THz. As in, trillions of times per second.

Anyway, there are so many factors that could determine whether a given individual could perceive a given frequency that it's preposterous to try and set an absolute "the human eye can see X". That's the only thing I have a problem with.
But if there is something I can say with absolute certainty is that there sure as fuck is a very appreciable difference between a screen displaying 30fps and 60fps and if anyone tells me I should be happy with 30fps (for gaming), I will absolute-punch their stupid faces.

They do refresh and they must, at a frequency or a resonant frequency near our eyes. I will maintain that because natural light and incandescent light generate solid afterimages like __________ when you scan your eyes over them while tailight LEDs strobe rather clearly like ........ when you do the same. You'll also notice that specified a VERY particular style of LED, so best place would be to start there.

Also worth mentioning that LEDs are electrical energy converted to light energy so they are not operating at the frequency of light but at whatever frequency the electricity running them is at.

edit-- so my curiosity made me dig a little and I came up with this-- http://www.maximintegrated.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/4316 which explains some of the electrical matter behind the phenomenon I'm talking about, and for certain the very particular energy delivery method for automobile LEDs does operate on a pulsing system. Whether it's possible to derive an average from an experiment using similar pulses to test eyes, a baseline average could be established.

Wonder if it would end up around 200Hz....