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

30fps is superior to 60fps

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. 30fps is superior to 60fps

User Info: Polypherus

3 years ago#91

60fps looks good w/out motion blur

30fps is SO last Gen.

30fps looks choppy w.out motion blur

there are games that cant even maintain a stable 30fps especially movie based games

30fps for a cinematic is stupid whoever says that completely have no idea FPS doesnt have anything to do with a cinematic experience.

60fps is the real life speed. Whoever says otherwise is just contented on 30fps and will continue to be a stagnated fodder.

User Info: Phoenixeater

3 years ago#92
Noticed that TC never responded after all the replies?

User Info: F-Rott

3 years ago#93
This topic is so sensitive.

User Info: thatfool12Gs

3 years ago#94
Further proof the online community would prefer mindless talk in troll topics vs discussion in legit threads..
Asus Sabertooth z77 - Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz - Hyper 212 Evo - G. Skill Ripjaws X 16 GB Ram - EVGA GTX 680 - Xion 1000W PSU

User Info: PLAY3R_ON3

3 years ago#95
why people even reply to these topics is beyond me...
"Is not a Zombie is a ZOMBIEVA!" - Dr. Neil Watts "To the moon"

User Info: IHeartJessAlba

3 years ago#96
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.

If you're going to be that pedantic you should know that 3.42x10^29 hamsters would be more than double the mass of Saturn sitting in between Earth and the moon. Pretty sure you wouldn't have to worry about wobbly hamster legs when there isn't a planet and moon left to measure the distance between.

Plus, it was a question of hamster height as a UoM, not which structure would be the most sound, measured in total hamsters used to generate said structure. Your first number was much more accurate.

You're talking about an amount of hamsters that would exceed the matter density limit and create a black hole. They would physically no longer be hamsters, and dissolve into fundamental particles, which would form a black hole. I'm far too lazy to figure out how big it would be, but my gut says somewhere between a golf ball and the size of a candlepin bowling ball, which is roughly the size of a bocce ball for you non-New Englanders.

3.42x10^29 is a mind bogglingly large number. If you multiplied 100 trillion by 100 trillion, you would still be two decimal places short. And then, you'd have to multiply that number by 3.4 to get there.

And if you had $100 trillion in $1 bills, stacked on top of each other it would reach to the moon and back 14 times. And that's just 100 trillion pieces of paper. You're talking about a number that is roughly 600 times that size, and then squared.

That number is like owning 600 trillion banks, and each one of those banks has 600 trillion dollars in it, and then trying to figure out how much money you have. One billionth of that amount is still 3.4x10^20. Which is something like 342 quintillion, if my brain is functioning properly. And when it comes to math this big, no ones brain functions properly. Woof.
psn - wokeupinapanic

User Info: Nex-Gen63759

3 years ago#97

User Info: xanthan1

3 years ago#98
Except higher FPS allows for better gameplay, so your last point is a load of meaningless crap.

Also you can't tell the difference so your entire opinion is meaningless. Someone who can't tell the difference between 2 things is the worst person in existence to given an opinion on them. Whats next, you gonna have a guy who can't the difference between 2 different musical genres tell us which is better? They're about as qualified to tell as about something they know nothing about as you are.

User Info: codyorr

3 years ago#99
thatfool12Gs posted...
Further proof the online community would prefer mindless talk in troll topics vs discussion in legit threads..

Thank god.

User Info: jeneki

3 years ago#100
Reality itself only renders at 15 frames per second and 240i resolution, so I'm not sure why people keep making a big deal out of this.
Set down your Treasure, stretch your Tous, and leave your Cave. There's a big bright world of shmups out there.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. 30fps is superior to 60fps

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived