The big difference which still remains between games and film is that film plays back at a metronome-steady pace. (I'm going to leave added motion-blur effects out of this.) Rather than one blurred frame of a guy spin-kicking, you get two non-blurred frames. In a game that can double the frames per second of movies (60 fps on a 60Hz monitor), you actually get more visual information, which is noticeable. However, motion blur is present on plenty of the single frames in films. That is where all this higher-frame-rates-don't-matter stuff begins. 24 fps is enough to fool the human eye into thinking it is seeing fluid motion. Movies on film record a series of still images and play them back at a certain unvarying frame rate. It's amazing seeing 100HZ screens, it looks really smooth, and there are higher refresh rates nowadays. I'm not promoting the mindset of 60 FPS is enough, if that's what you're thinking. Of course, VSync doesn't help much with framerates lower than your screen's refresh rate, so disabling it might be good if your GPU can't manage it. In some games I made, turning VSync off will get you ridiculous framerates of about 400 FPS, but the game looked really lagged and clunky, because frames were being drawn inbetween the retraces, using the GPU at full speed for nothing. That way, the GPU will wait for the next vertical retrace from the monitor, and will show the backbuffer then, avoiding the tearing of the image.

If his monitor's refresh rate can live up to that(which it's rare, since most monitors at hi-res have low refresh rates), then it isn't a problem.īut, if his refresh rate is about 60 HZ or something less than his average framerate, he should turn VSync on. He says he's having an utopian framerate of 180 FPS. I don't know if I made my point well before, my explanations sometimes come out messy, but here's what I think.

Call of pripyat third person