DICE: Battlefield 3 frame rate issue blown “out of proportion”

“The PC version of Battlefield 3 will support full HD resolution and manage 60 fps – as will the console versions of rival call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.”

You seem to suggest COD will support 1080p on consoles which I very much doubt when BLOPS ran at less than 720p on both, the 360 being 1040×608 while PS3 was closer to 960×544.

I don’t get why people get so worked up over resolutions and fps. 95% of games on consoles (not including arcade or downloadable, I’m talking your AAA) will run at 720p and 30 fps. I guess the question that people should ask complainers is, what would they do different with 60 fps vs 30? How would their game be any better? Most people don’t even know what pixels and frames per second are, but they’ll still complain. “Those guys’ numbers are higher!” *complain, complain*

^ 60fps framerate is MUCH smoother on the eyes when screen is in motion.

^ You barely notice it if it’s capped @ 30 and you’re more than 1 meter from the TV, you notice it even less if you don’t have a shit TV.

Me having the Bravia TV that has that HD smoothing (renders videos/games to be at 60 fps)…I won’t have to worry much. Before, I played Ultimate Ninja Storm 2…those who know…there would be times where, if it became too chaotic, the game would run at 5-10 fps. After I got this tv, there were no more frame rate problems (same with MAG who prides in the “30 fps with 256 players on one battlefield”). Not saying that you should get a really expensive tv just for BF3, but if you already do…you should not be too worried about low frame rates. Lag would be the bigger issue…*ahem ahem* COD.

@5 Hey what model do you have for Bravia line. And little detail how it work. I am bout to buy me new tv. and looking at Sony bravia.

“The PC version of Battlefield 3 will support full HD resolution and manage 60 fps”

DON’T DO THIS!!!!!! DON’T pour gasoline into the flames please. There are already way to much stupid people who can’t understand how things work geez…

PC can go way over 1080 and 60fps. This isn’t new. Why do even you guys doing this?

ps: also it can run at let’s say: 800×600 with 13 fps on bad configurations…

Yeah, what #7 said. To imply that MW3 will support full HD is plain dishonest, as they’ve [conveniently] never mentioned what resolution those 60 FPS will be pumped out at. At least DICE is being upfront about what they’re doing… It’s the shit-stirring media that has made this into a whole big thing for fanboys to fight over.

^ Has Acti actually said MW3 will do “full HD”, or suggested it?

i assume you mean on consoles, right? Because i see no reason as to why MW3 on PC wouldnt be able to run in HD at 60FPS…

@9 Of course it isn’t going to run at Full HD.Every COD that is out its not even 720p.

Yeah agreed. Console CoD and ‘Full HD’ aren’t exactly known bedfellows

Don’t care what res it runs at, still looks great.

“Me having the Bravia TV that has that HD smoothing (renders videos/games to be at 60 fps)…I won’t have to worry much. ”

Retardation in it’s full glory. Your HD smoothing is just an automatic pallete. Bravia is not a PC or some sort of MAC to smooth or some sort of acceleration something up to the 60 frames per second.
Everything depends only on the system aka Playstation 3 which can’t manage to do 60 frames per second.

I hope your next commnt will be like this: My PS3 can do 1080p using upscale… I’m cool!

also, Call Of duty on the PC won’t have 1080p. It’s just an image upscale.

My monitor is currently can enable 2560×1600 resolution and any Call Of Duty on it looks like a complete shit because frame buffer is down right pathetic and even AA is not helping the image because the engineering is the crappiest out there.

Max resolution for Call Of duty is 720p on the PC. Also, who really thinks that game shows 60 fps per second again, know shit. CoD engine is capable of 25 fps AT MAX.
But because frame buffer and etc. in full motion and the game is not heavy on the hardware it will show you 57-58fps. Why? Because CoD engine is very old and the image is stable. But if the image is running ok, that does not mean that it is 60 frames per second.

Just try playing DOOM 1-2 on your PC. You think that it is 60 frames per second just because it runs smooth enough? Ahahaha.

@14

Bro, I’m just saying, if you get so worked up resolutions not being 1080p and framerates not being 60fps, maybe you should find a new hobby.

@15, Bro, i said million times to you. I like the best image possible for my games.
If you don’t care, go play a Wii or older systems.

I run COD at 1080p with about 80fps, whats you chatting about now.

it’s not 1080p.

I can run COD even with 2560×1600 (my monitor supports it), but that does not mean that Call Of Duty supports resolution higher then 720p. It’s called: Image upscale.

With my 580 GTX and i7 sandy bridge it runs for 100fps+ but that does not mean that the CoD engine shows me 100fps+. My videocard and CPU see it as 100fps+ but that is NOT a real 100 fps.

Just because Call Of duty is not heavy for your videocard that does not mean that your game is running 60 or 80 fps per second because Proprietary ID TECH 3 engine supports only 25 frames per second at MAX.

you think that if you are going to run old games like DOOM 1-2 on your PC|XBOX 360 it will show you 124012412 fps?
NO. Engine can’t support something higher then 15-25 fps… No one even knew at that time that technology can support so many frames per second in videogames. There were not even monitors that could support something higher then 30 frames per second.

Today, we can make engine and games in 120 fps. But please, can someone show me a TV that can support 120 frames per second? I will buy it HANDS Down.

#18

Here you go ^^ http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/pc-peripherals/monitors/digital-tv-monitor/LT27A750EX/EN/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail&tab=specification

@18 But when I had slow PC I remember how you see difference in COD when when jump from 40-60 and so…But also that is not just ID TECH 3 its now very very heavily midified engine now and its hard to believe that they can put some frame buffer to simulate 60 frames on THAT OLD ENGINE ? I know Crysis 1 did it with high motion blur or something so even if fraps tell me its 20 frames it will like 30 and so on….

@18

I like my games to look nice, but I don’t freak out if something isn’t able to run 1080p @ 60fps. I would play my Wii a lot more if it had better games and a better control system.
If it looks nice, and plays well, that’s all I care about.

Hope you’ve ordered that TV.

WHAT I KNOW IS THAT I PLAYED FINAL FANTASY XIII @ 1080P AND IT HAD 3 CHARACTERS + 4 – 5 ENEMIES + SPECIAL EFFECTS AND SUMMONS …. WORK YOUR ASS OUT DICE !!

MGS4 was up-scaled @ 1080p true, but Final Fantasy XIII wasn’t, it only takes your naked eye to realize this nothing more !!

@ erthass. You have no idea what the “cod engine” is. You might know what engine it’s based on,(although I believe you know shit). There have been somany changes to that engine, updates and optimizations. It is no longer idtech 3. Also,you have no idea what’s going on with mw3 and it’s engine so stfu. I’m about to start gaming on PC so I can kick all you PC elitists asses in your precious Fps. Someoneas idiotic as erth-ass-us can’t be any good. Seriously. My PC is a beast but I hate gaming on it (work).

@22

Final Fantasy XIII natively displays at 720p resolution and then is upscaled to 1080p.

Unless of course, you’re running it through some sort of uber PS3 emulator for the PC that we haven’t heard about

@6 I’m actually not sure. My brother got it. But it does support 3D as well as a full 1080p res. Price was also around $3,000. Probably cheaper now.

@13 uMad bruh? Quit complaining. You always got something to say. You must always have the last say in things and make it seem that you know more than you actually know. Grow up dude.

And btw, in some cases. If your hardware lacks thereof, the monitor/tv will take over part of the graphical proceesing. In case you didn’t know. Before when I had a crappy laptop, I’d connect my laptop to my tv via VGA cable. My games ran with more frame rates. And that was actually with a crappy tv.

@25 Did you actually mesure the frames ? Because that sound lot of bull.Maybe because you get far from TV then you have ilusion that is more frames.

@stretch215,

“You have no idea what the “cod engine” is.”

yes i have, asshole (also, i know what will be in MW3. You can read there):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IW_engine

Everything else what you said you can stick to your ass or give me your STEAM account name and lets have duel.

@noherczeg, i’m not super sure that it is capable of 120 frames per second. It should cost a lot. Probably much more then my 27 inch DELL.

@AJacks92,
“If your hardware lacks thereof, the monitor/tv will take over part of the graphical proceesing”

and pigs fly too.

@27 Respond to me

You see that… outside, look now…

Oink!

@27

“But please, can someone show me a TV that can support 120 frames per second? I will buy it HANDS Down.”

Panel Frame Rate 120hz

So you’re going to buy it then?

“give me your STEAM account name and lets have duel” – the “let’s take this outside” for nerds.

http://www.johnlewis.com/231301837/Product.aspx?source=46387

it’s £650 that 27″ 3D samsung – 120hz

@28, yeah sure.

“But when I had slow PC I remember how you see difference in COD when when jump from 40-60 ”

But thats because of your hardware. Again,

Engine =|= Videocard

is not the same thing. what your hardware is capable of and engine are two different things.

for example: FROSTBYTE engine 2.0 supports only 60 frames per second… You can have 4 580 GTX… or 590… you won’t get higher then that EVER.
your videocard and the system can show over 9000 frames per second, but thats a measure only on your system, not on your eyes.

“”"What you see and what your system shows are two different things!”"”

The guy is a tool, and is talking out of their rear end.. I have no idea where he got this crazy ass crap from, lol. Unless the engine is locked to a certain amount of frames per second you can indeed run those old games at a much higher framerates today than they did in the past. I presume it’s his way of saying that doesn’t mean they will look any better or something, which is kind of true.

@31

I think he might’ve been talking shit when he said he would buy it HANDS Down.

@fin, “Panel Frame Rate 120hz

So you’re going to buy it then?

”

AWESOME MAN. Do you know what is 120 HZ and 120 FRAMES PER SECOND?

Jesus Christ… And these people buy TV sets…

@32 I agree that is case with 99% games last game that use 120 frames is DMC4 on PC(it special mode or something).But problem on this topic is that you claim that Cod not give you 60 frames but if that is true,why other games are not using that method of yours ?

I think I understand now, the hardware can input a gazillion frames, but the engine is only designed to run at a set frames, when you see 120fps its showing what the card is outputting, doesn’t mean the engine is. Got ya!

@33, you already made a fool of yourself yesteray. Move on and go away playing Halo games with kids.

@Lounds, ” think I understand now, the hardware can input a gazillion frames, but the engine is only designed to run at a set frames, when you see 120fps its showing what the card is outputting, doesn’t mean the engine is. Got ya!
”

Yes! Finally someone got it.

@35

I yeah I do man, it’s ok if you don’t, I can explain it.

120 FPS is frames per second. This is how many frames are generated for display by the video card of the output device – a PC or console, usually. When it exceeds the refresh of a screen, you get no tangible benefit, as the number of frames than can be displayed is obviously limited to how fast the screen can display them.

120 HZ is a measure of how frequently a screen can be updated, per second. Generally monitors are around 60hz, sometimes 75 – same for TVs.

So, if you put two and two together (I appreciate this is difficult for you ), a screen capable of X hz can display X frames per second.

See, a 120hz-capable display can support 120fps, so the tv that was linked to fulfils your criteria you specified here “But please, can someone show me a TV that can support 120 frames per second? I will buy it HANDS Down.”
If you’re now saying you won’t buy it, I can only assume you were lying earlier, and that hurts

Also, what you’re saying about engines is bullshit. The thing may be saying 999 fps, if you have a monitor capable of displaying 999fps, that’ll be the framerate.
Unless there’s a hard fps limit put in (often to vsync/reduce tearing), then it’ll never go past that limit.
If you ever see an fps counter with insane numbers, the image would display at that framerate given the proper display.

This is not a problem, the one out of 500 people who are likely to complain because of the console versions’ frame rate & resolutions are those who have a capable PC rig & just like bitching for the hell of it, only some sort of ignorant elitist would do this.

(side note: STFU about it Erthazus! Go play on your rig & be happy about it, instead of bitching because others choose to play on something less capable).

Us normal people won’t notice or plain don’t give a crap, if a game looks good, that’s just icing on the cake. But seriously, get over yourself, just because others don’t share the same opinion, doesn’t make them retarded.

@38: “Yes! Finally someone got it.” And its not you.

Erthazus, how to load a mesh from a file? I’m an aspiring young man seeking advice.

That’s why I said you’re nuts though, see. Considering every single thing you know you got from people posting here or some other place, (whom you flame later on) and the rest is made up crazy ass stuff..

Excuse me, buddy but unless it’s capped (meaning there should be a line of code doing that) you can run games like Doom at uncomparable framerates today. Doom was capped at 30 iirc, later modified versions removed that.

Also ID tech 3 run Call of duty,medal of Honor,Wolfenstein,Quake 3… no way they are capped at 30 frames

@39, “120 HZ is a measure of how frequently a screen can be updated, per second. Generally monitors are around 60hz, sometimes 75 – same for TVs.”

Thats not the same thing. Thats absolutely different thing. “120 Hz” LCD displays have been produced for the purpose of having smoother, more fluid motion, depending upon the source material, and any subsequent processing done to the (!) signal.

there are going to be TV’s soon with 600 HZ for your information, but it’s for a different purpose.

“Also, what you’re saying about engines is bullshit”

pigs fly too. Because as i said if your monitor can support “that” framerate then yeah… You can get it.

but engine is very important when you build a game. DOOM 1-2 for example if i’m not mistaken can’t do better then 25 FPS and it’s not locked or anything. (You can lock to a certain amount of fps thats for sure like we see on console games. )

Call Of Duty:Black Ops engine supports only 25 frames per second at max and PC version is the best there is. No matter how your videocard shows it’s going to be 20-25 at best.

also, lets stop speaking about HZ and frame rate because this is a very long discussion and i mean HUGE discussion.

Tool. it was either 30 or 35,

And it’s hardcoded too. People do that all the time. You either put a cap or it can run at whatever your system can handle.

How to sort an array? I need help.

‘ also, lets stop speaking about HZ and frame rate because this is a very long discussion and i mean HUGE discussion.’
Nah, let’s not talk out of the ass.

@44

Ok, this is kinda strange for me. I assumed you were saying things about hz, fps and engines just to wind people up, but after reading that comment, I see you actually believe what you’re saying.

Hz is how many times a display is updated per second. If you’re sending a signal at 100fps, and the TV displays at 60hz, it’ll display at 60fps.

No, you idiot. The framerate is locked at 25fps because that’s the framelimit they put in the engine. Not all engines have a framelimit, the vast majority of recent ones would not.
If they didn’t put that limit in, it would go crazy. Don’t believe me? Check out GTA 1, there’s a key (one of the F keys – F8 maybe?) that disables the frame limiter. It’ll shoot up to a few hundred fps with it turned off. Not a limitation of the engine, it’s a bool set to true or false.

No, again, you moron, Black Ops will display at whatever fps the hardware allows.

“also, lets stop speaking about HZ and frame rate because this is a very long discussion and i mean HUGE discussion.”

That’s interesting, you’ve never said that before. Is it because you’ve just realised you’re wrong?

Fin, he’s either crazy or underaged. In the latter case I apologize.

I need a plane to catch, see you fine sirs.

End of the day Graphics =/= Gameplay. As long as the game is smooth and clean on consoles im happy, sure the game may look amazing but thats not the main reason to buy it, if I could buy it on pc i would. I just hope it plays well as ive only had xperience with BC2 which was only Decent online at best. FPS this year are shaping up quite nicely so far though.

@46: Realized that he’s wrong? That would be a first.

When everyone watches a movie at the cinema, it’s 24fps, I don’t heard anyone complaining about that.