This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

30fps is superior to 60fps

#61Delta_F14Posted 7/16/2014 12:55:39 PM
I for one, enjoy an exquisite, silky smooth 12 fps. Really brings out the cinematics in gaming.
---
Vault Dweller > All other Video game characters
#62GoraishiPosted 7/16/2014 12:56:48 PM
jokujokujoku posted...
wildog2006 posted...
This topic is now about how many hamsters would need to be stacked on top of each other in order to reach the moon.


It depends. It depends on what kind of hamster, and where in the orbit the moon is. I'll assume the moon is at its average distance (238,857 miles). And I'll guess at an approximate height of the average hamster at about 1.5 inches (some sources say 6 inches, but that's clearly length, not height). That being the case, it would take 10089319680 hamsters (approximately) stacked one on top of the other in order to reach the moon.

Now clearly such a stack would not be stable. A more stable formation would one hamster standing on the backs of four hamsters beneath it. So the top layer would have one hamster, the next would have 4, the next 9, etc. If we use this model, the number of hamsters required would be 3.42X10^29.

This number can vary drastically depending on the specific distance the moon is at, and the specific height of the hamsters. And obviously this doesn't take into account the troubles of weightlessness so far up, or just how you're going to get so many hamsters to stand still, or how the weight would positively crush the hamsters on the bottom. And at that point, it's probably better to just pile up a bunch of dead hamsters, but that's rather an unpleasant thought.

So, yeah. My estimate is 3.42X10^29 hamsters.


Wow... best post I've read in a long time.
#63cloudropisPosted 7/16/2014 1:03:46 PM
It doesn't matter because human eye can only see 30 frames in a lifetime, maybe 60 if you take a nap.
#64Link_AJPosted 7/16/2014 1:09:01 PM
troll topic, move along people
---
3DS FC: AJ - 0387-8767-1340
#65Death_BornPosted 7/16/2014 1:11:34 PM
A more realistic FPS looks fake, seems legit.
#66CELTEKKPosted 7/16/2014 1:23:09 PM
Wow. Successful bait topic, indeed.
---
i long to see their faces...
regardless of the decay
#67BassVenturaPosted 7/16/2014 1:32:44 PM
Why not 31fps or even 32fps?
---
GGPO is awesome!!!
#68RixgearPosted 7/16/2014 1:37:45 PM
The TC is not wrong though. Certain games are locked at 30fps to retain certain effects and art that would be lost in 60fps. For example Shadow of the Colossus and Okami both would look signifantly worst at 60 frames, but at 30 it retains its cinematic experience
---
Proud owner of all consoles. Nintendo ID- Ragebit, Steam- Rixgear
PSN- OneLibra, Gamertag- Ragebit, 3DSFC- 2793-0608-4349
#69patro555Posted 7/16/2014 1:43:25 PM
If you can't tell the difference than how are you making arguments one is better?
#70TeraPatrick2008Posted 7/16/2014 1:43:37 PM
15fps is even better, the other hardcore kids love it the most