i heard that a game (e.g. quake) plays much better the higher the framerate is. why is that so ? aren''t 24 fps enough,because the human eye doesnt see more than 24 images/second ?

yes but it does''t look as plush as if the framerate were 80 or so. also it''s definately not as smooth.

JoeMont001@aol.com www.polarisoft.n3.net

screen updates aside (though i was reading an article the other day that mentioned a figure of nearer 120fps)
the game will feel sluggish at 24fps. cause not only r the grafix being drawn at 24fps but the input as well as everything else is being sampled at 24fps , which is 41ms which sounds quick (a false start in running is 100ms) but in actual game play u easily notice the difference

http://members.xoom.com/myBollux

I won''t argue with anyone here is wrong because I have no idea. Another possibility though is that the average is 30, but depending on circumstances you may be dropping to 10 or 12. Statistically averages are pretty useless without variances. The average income for everyone in the U.S. is some value. That doesn''t give you a very good idea of what Bill Gates income is though If your frame rate is really high then under the worst of circumstances your frame rate is most likely still very good.

Personally I could care less. As long as the average is around 30fps I''m happy playing a game. My main interest is marvelling at the programming, artwork and design. Turning off a bunch of options to get a high framerate seems counterproductive to me. Perhaps the game is more responsive at 120fps second, but if you turned off every graphic option and ran at the lowest resolution you are missing a lot of the game as far as I''m concerned. If responsiveness was my concern I wouldn''t be half tanked while I''m playing it Anyone that runs a game at 640 by 480 with a 21 inch monitor so it plays better has a screw loose if you ask me.