I don't know, people are convinced it's invaluable to have a game running at 60 FPS. The truth is the human eye is incapable of telling the difference no matter how much people want to talk it up like it's a big difference. Your brain can sort of tell because it has to fill in the gaps between the frames, but it looks the same. Anyone that says that they can tell a huge difference is nothing but a lying prick concerned with nothing but specs.
English
-
This is simply wrong, and I don't know where you get this information from. There has not been a lot of research on the subject that I'm aware of. The United States Air Force has done tests that determined that humans can detect speeds of at least up to 120 Hz. It also doesn't take much to see from the countless impressions online and elsewhere of newer TV sets' higher frame-rates, that a very great number of people (for better or worse) [i]can[/i] perceive a difference between the standard 24-30 frames-per-second and the higher rate these sets generate. From personal experience, I can certainly tell a difference between 60 and 30 frames-per-second. It's quite obvious to me, especially in first-person and third-person action games when the camera is panning. It can be a bit jarring to me in shooters when I'm turning quickly and the whole screen has to blur until I stop looking around. Tracking objects on the screen is only seamless to me at higher frame-rates.
-
[b] [/b]
-
They all look the same to me. /s ;)