Yeah, the PhysX cloth effects are very sweet. The cloth not only looks very wibbly wobbly. It waves around in the wind, and it tears apart if you throw something at it hard enough. It will sometimes tear itself apart if the weight of the cloth below it is too much for it to take.

That's the kind of physics I like, realistic, so much havoc to be caused by that.

I uploaded 3 videos to YouTube from my parents PC last night to show you how the game performs on a low-end PC without a PhysX card. Frame rate was averaging at about 15fps. Awful.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... rch=Search

Hmm, that's quite jittery, still looks pretty good. You must do it on your main PC when you can.

It only runs at about 30 frames per second on my other computer, too! Still very, very rough. Doesn't fluctuate at all though, regardless of how many hundreds/thousands of objects I throw around.

30fps is a good average, I would think.

For a fast paced FPS it is unacceptable.

Edit: In my opinion, since I believe that every frame really does count.

Yeah, and considering your opinion is over the top...

Well, there is a hugely noticeable difference between a game running at an average frame rate of 60 and a game running at an average frame rate of 100. Hell, it's even noticeable between 100 and 200 frames per second like I experienced after upgrading from my old computer (Radeon 9800 Pro --> Radeon X850XT-PE) so the theory that any average frame rate higher than 60fps is unnoticeable is indeed false.

I didn't think human vision could register a difference in fps above around 50-ish.

Seriously, you should try playing a game at 150fps compared to say 100fps, it really makes a difference.

I think Aaron is experiencing a case of deception...

Screens can't update that fast anyway!

It makes a huge difference, it feels many times more responsive.

Hmm, I have never experienced what you mean. I only see lag at an unacceptable level and then a playable game (smooth).

If you come over some time, I'll show you on Unreal Tournament 2004!

I've got UT04. I know it's running at a higher frame rate than most games. I don't see any difference.

Compare 100fps to 200fps and you'll see a big difference.

He may have a point. I've just read that apparantly we can see 200fps.

Also, with his monster screens, they can probably produce this speed.

However, I've never been too bothered about fps as long as it's around or above 30-50 ish.

Also remember that LCD panels don't have refresh rates, but response times.

I don't know too much about lcd displays.

Well, CRT's have refresh rates (a good refresh rate is 85Hz for example), and LCD panels have response times (a good response time is 4ms). The higher the refresh rate or the lower the response time, the less blur will be noticed, and there will obviously be more frames per second. A panel with 6ms response time refreshes on average 166 times every second (ie. 166Hz). Response times are now said to be lower than before, but only because LCD panel manufacturers measure response time on a grey-to-grey scale rather than a black-to-white scale. For a panel to change from grey-to-grey in 4ms, it might take it 10ms with black-to-white. That still makes on average 100Hz though.

So there's no difference between 100 and 200fps on most screens...

Yes. You need a good screen to appreciate it.

I still think the difference is too insignificant to matter.

This is a classic [i]don't knock it til you've tried it[/i] topic. It makes a very big difference to me. Maybe my eyes are more accustomed to it?