i can’t make bufferstrategy works in fullscreen on my computer
but i have include bufferstrategy, please try it
and compare the fps using bufferstrategy and not
i only want to know which one faster
oh yeah, one more thing
try to push the npc and collide with any object
it’s a bug, anyone know to solve that bug?
the site : http://www.geocities.com/metadion/
Both work for me, FPS is the same and corresponds to the value of the slider.
so my bufferstrategy code works ;D
humm… i think i have to replace my gfx card then :-/
anyway, is it work fine on 60 fps?
(both with and without bufferstrategy??)
write your hardware profile please?
is that sakura on the pause screen?
The first tests were all in 640 x 480 windowed.
using bufferstrategy set at 40 fps i get 30 and at 48 fps i get 50. i cant get more than 60 with this lcd panel, going for 60 gives me varying results between 55 and 60, depending on where i am and how many other blue haired dudes there are…
it drops to 47 in crowded areas when set at 60fps, seems to be barely any diference between your buffering and bufferstrategy
when set to 80 fps it is very jumpy, from 40 to 60… but i know my computer cant display more than 60 fps anyway cause that’s it’s max refresh rate.
i think you’ll never really need to design it to run above 60 fps anyway, as 60 fps is all that’s needed for the human eye to perceive smooth motion, but in the end it’s up to you.
anyway specs are:
Dell Inspiron Laptop
Pentium III 1 ghz (997 mhz actually - they ripped us off!)
256 mb ram most likely DDR
NVidia Geforce 2 Go (laptop card)
1400x1050 TFT
1400 x 1050 full screen has a terrible flicker effect during the intro then crashes or quits or whatever… doesnt go any futher.
best res i can get for full screen working is 1280x1024. It has the same problem in areas where the game map is smaller than the screen itself. also around 17 fps in the first area but comes good in smaller areas, worse in bigger ones.
also, in this mode there was no sound… until i quit. it’s playing now, after i closed the game. javaw is still running.
800x600 full screen crashed in bufferstrat, 1280x1024 crashed without it. 640x480 full screen works fine for both until the fps is set to 59, when it crashes, without fail, every time.
these are very confusing results. i think half the problem might just be this combination of hardware.
[quote]i think you’ll never really need to design it to run above 60 fps anyway, as 60 fps is all that’s needed for the human eye to perceive smooth motion, but in the end it’s up to you
[/quote]
I seem to remember reading that 30 fps was enough to fool the human eye. Then somewhere in the old forums, I saw a post(did not try to find it again) where 38 fps was the magic number to fool the eye.???
Any thoughts out there?
30,60,90,120 you can keep on going up and up, and you’ll still be able to see which is faster.
A fair target is 30fps, however, because the monitor refresh and the eye are not synchronized, the monitor has to refresh twice as fast as the eye to ensure you are actually seeing atleast 30fps.
Hence the magic number of 60fps 
but, as with many things. more is better, so its better to go for as many fps as is possible.
[quote]Then somewhere in the old forums, I saw a post(did not try to find it again) where 38 fps was the magic number to fool the eye
[/quote]
People throw a lot of numbers around with this stuff. The truth is that the eye can see only about 10 frames per second. (No, I’m not making this up.) Unfortunately for programmers, the brain has some pretty advanced pattern analysis software, so it can perceive frame rates far higher than that. This means that the trick is to make your frame rate at least 10 FPS, but make the movement as realistic as possible.
In order to have a playable game at 10 FPS, you’d have to move objects a tremendous number of pixels per frame. Guess what? You’re brain notices that it suddenly “jumps” from one spot to another and interprets it as jerky movement. If we up the frame rate to 30 FPS, we cut that distance in half. In fact, if we have a spaceship that should be able to move from the top to the bottom of a 320x200 screen within 2 seconds, that gives us 3 pixels per frame of movement. Not too bad and hard for the eye to detect. If we increase the resolution to 640x480, we’ve effectively doubled the distance thus making the game seem “slower”. So now we need 6 pixels per second to achieve the proper effect. And again, your brain sorts it out and figures that you’re moving too far, too fast. So what can we do? Increase the framerate to 60 FPS of course! Now we’re back to ~3 pixels per frame.
Is there any way around this vicious loop? Sort of. By using larger objects at higher res, you can make the eye believe that the object it sees can travel as fast as it is. Thus, you can have a game at 1024x768, but all you’re likely to gain is more detail. (Unless it’s a top-down map type of game where the speed of the characters isn’t critical.)
Does that help?
hummm…looks bad :-[
all i hear is crash crash and crash
is nothing different with and without Bufferstrategy?
so what’s the big deal to use that? ???
anyone have the same problem?
crash anytime anywhere??
so it’s must be a doom game
okay thanx to try that far-from-done game
anyway, it has two choicable language now
i upload the new one this evening
oh yeah, btw anyone know how to solve that ‘dummy’ collision in my game??
regards,
Btw…
for purpsoes of measuring your frame geenration rate you cna generally disable scan synchronization in your video driver.
Yo uwont really see &5 fps if your monitor is set to 60. in fact ou might see " video tear" as you get images chanegd mid-frame, but it wil lallow you to see wht your maximal frame genration speed is without the monitros refresh limits getting in the way.
Unfortunately, I can differentiate (reliably) between 75, 80, 85 and " more than 85" fps. I’ve claimed it a couple of times, and colleagues have arranged blind tests, and I typically get a very high accuracy (almost never get it wrong).
From talking to others, I’ve discovered that roughly 15% of people can easily tell the difference between 75 and 85, and about 2-5% of people can tell the difference between 75,80,85,90 fps (much harder to find people, so hard to estimate a reasonable percentage!).
All of which is quite depressing. However, I’ve never found anyone who could differentiate anything above 95 fps - so if you hit 100, I’d guess you’re completely safe.
If you want it to look really good, 85 fps will keep at least 85% of people convinced it’s perfectly smooth.
role,
Do you have an NVidia GeForce based graphics card? There was apparently a bug in some of the older versions of the driver that caused problems with Java 1.4. I ran into this problem myself. My application kept causing ddhelp to have an invalid page fault. I upgraded to the latest version of the NVidia drivers and the problem went away. Go to www.nvidia.com to get the latest driver.
Hope this might help.
[quote]Unfortunately, I can differentiate (reliably) between 75, 80, 85 and " more than 85" fps. …
[/quote]
But a fps rate that is higher than your monitor vertical frequency is impossible to notice, isn’t it? So one should be safe if one reach at least that frequency. Mine is operating at 75Hz for example, so I wouldn’t care about higher frame rates.
[quote]Posted by: BlueWizard Posted on: Today at 4:19am
role,
Do you have an NVidia GeForce based graphics card? There was apparently a bug in some of the older versions of the driver that caused problems with Java 1.4. I ran into this problem myself. My application kept causing ddhelp to have an invalid page fault. I upgraded to the latest version of the NVidia drivers and the problem went away. Go to www.nvidia.com to get the latest driver.
Hope this might help.
[/quote]
nope i don’t have it. but it sun’s bug not my game.
btw, it seems my fps rate good enough isn’t it?
i can get 80 fps at 640x480 resolution and fullscreen
i don’t know is bufferstrategy offer more or not.
but i’m satisfied enough without using it 
[quote]Unfortunately, I can differentiate (reliably) between 75, 80, 85 and " more than 85" fps. …
[/quote]
Sounds like you can differentiate between those monitor refresh rates, which is completely different from differentiateing between those framerates of an animation.
The original post saying that 10fps was all that you could see is also inaccurate. The actual framerate required depends on many factors. Like room lighting, image contrast, image brightness, etc…
There is a reason that Movies are 24fps and TV is interlaced fields at 50 or 60 fields per second (with a full frame rate of half that).
Also I have heard that some movie projectors flash the same frame more than once at a higher rate - I guess this simulates something similar to a higher refresh rate on your computer monitor, even though the animationframe rate might be lower? And of course differnt individuals will vary in their ability to differentiate various frame rates.
If you can get a frame rate of one half of the monitor’s refresh rate I would figure that is plenty good enough for any game.
I can do a little better with monitor refreshes - although now that you say it, I’m doubtful that I really could do 85/more than 85 on animations?
With refreshes, I improve largely by using peripheral vision, which is much more sensitive to motion (and hence flicker). Can’t detect smoothness with my peripheral vision well, though.
Also, a crap monitor can make everything fine - slow phosphor (as used on TV screens) blends motion (and, to a (lesser?) extent, flicker). Also, bleeding pixels (as typical on many TV’s) can have a similar blending effect.