35 replies to this topic

[Aegis]

I understand what you are saying, but its still the average FPS of your game record.

[bcarts08]

how do you get to the page with the fps numbers

[[-BA-] Piscinex]

Ever try it in skirmish?  I have tried using fraps, and my FPS stayed the same the whole game.

Fraps does not work with Red Alert 2.

Your point about FPS is ill-conceived. Yes to some degree it is affected by people with slower computers, but that doesn't stop users with faster computers exhibiting faster FPS overall and it can still be used to give a general idea of performance. You're confusing its literal use in other games (such as first-person shooters) where it directly shows the client's performance. You're right that the QM logs don't actually show this information, but that's stating the obvious because it gives the speed of a game between multiple players.

Edited by [-BA-] Piscinex, 11 February 2006 - 01:08 AM.

[DAZ]

Fraps does not work with Red Alert 2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Didn't use it on RA2.

Your point about FPS is ill-conceived.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt it.

Yes to some degree it is affected by people with slower computers, but that doesn't stop users with faster computers exhibiting faster FPS overall and it can still be used to give a general idea of performance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not always the case.

You're confusing its literal use in other games (such as first-person shooters) where it directly shows the client's performance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can't "confuse" something. And actually, no. I'm not "confusing" the literal use in other games. I'm only setting an example. I never implied that Call of Duty or other FPS Games is Red Alert 2 or Yuri's Revenge.

You're right that the QM logs don't actually show this information, but that's stating the obvious because it gives the speed of a game between multiple players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's one of the things I am trying to say.

Average FPS of "multiple players" is not YOUR average FPS.

[[-BA-] Piscinex]

Didn't use it on RA2.

Are you sure?

Ever try it in skirmish?  I have tried using fraps, and my FPS stayed the same the whole game.

Not always the case.

It is as far as I'm aware: there is a semi-direct correlation between FPS (as shown in the QM logs) and "true" FPS, i.e. the genuine performance of the computer.

You can't "confuse" something.

http://www.answers.com/confuse&r=67

And actually, no.  I'm not "confusing" the literal use in other games.  I'm only setting an example.  I never implied that Call of Duty or other FPS Games is Red Alert 2 or Yuri's Revenge.

That's my point, it's an invalid example. Call of Duty's performance is not relevant to how RA2 manages FPS, low framerates and how that functions in its network model. You must, logically, be confused otherwise you would not have used such a poorly-chosen example.

That's one of the things I am trying to say. 

Average FPS of "multiple players" is not YOUR average FPS.

But nobody is saying it's theirs in that it gives an unequivocal performance indicator. Playing other people gives it a chaotic bias but it still gives an idea of how fast your computer is running: high-end uses will have high FPS with occasional low spikes, low-end users will have uniformly poor FPS.

[DAZ]

Are you sure?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes.

It is as far as I'm aware: there is a semi-direct correlation between FPS (as shown in the QM logs) and "true" FPS, i.e. the genuine performance of the computer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you forget about connection speed?

http://www.answers.com/confuse&r=67

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A person cannot confuse something. Only itself can be confusing.

That's my point, it's an invalid example. Call of Duty's performance is not relevant to how RA2 manages FPS, low framerates and how that functions in its network model. You must, logically, be confused otherwise you would not have used such a poorly-chosen example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said Call of Duty's performance is relevant, so that makes your point invalid, although your point is accurate.

And, no, I'm not logically confused. Say you play with someone who has 1 FPS for 10 games, and your "normal" fps is 40. That would mean the average FPS would be 1. Does that mean your average FPS is 1? No. It only means the average of both players. That's what almost everyone is overlooking. Your only true average FPS falls in your OWN FPS speed, not of multiple players.

[[-BA-] Piscinex]

Yes.

I see. So when you stated:
"Ever try it in skirmish? I have tried using fraps, and my FPS stayed the same the whole game."

This unequivocally indicates:
- That you used FRAPS.
- You used FRAPS as a tool for estimating FPS.

It also strongly implies it was used during RA2:
- Because you used the word "skirmish" (an RA2-specific term).
- Because there is no other way of determining FPS in an offline RA2 game.

Conclusion: you lied about using FRAPS in RA2 to make your argument sound stronger. When the lie was exposed you pointlessly denied it whilst the evidence to the contrary was still there for all to see. Smart.

Did you forget about connection speed?

That would come under the performance of the computer in this context. Again: people with faster computers (and/or faster connections) exhibit faster FPS overall. Yes it's not a direct performance indicator, but then who says it is? It's still a valid tool.

A person cannot confuse something.  Only itself can be confusing.

To confuse is a verb. If you're saying a person cannot be the subject of a verb I suggest you attempt to gain some semblance of understanding of the English language.

I never said Call of Duty's performance is relevant, so that makes your point invalid, although your point is accurate.

I would have assumed that you giving Call of Duty as an example implied that you felt it was relevant. If you're admitting that you gave an example which you knew to be utterly irrelevant than that's hardly saving face, is it? If anything it makes you an idiot, rather than just confused.

And, no, I'm not logically confused.  Say you play with someone who has 1 FPS for 10 games, and your "normal" fps is 40.  That would mean the average FPS would be 1.  Does that mean your average FPS is 1?  No.  It only means the average of both players.  That's what almost everyone is overlooking.  Your only true average FPS falls in your OWN FPS speed, not of multiple players.

Nobody is overlooking this, in fact they're just aware of it precisely because it's so obvious. Hence nobody takes the average FPS of people who have played only 5 games and all against a known lagger (or laggers). Only large samples are taken, and in that situation the FPS of high-performing users makes their data skewed to the higher end (or, in other words, their limiting factor is much higher in terms of FPS than a "lagger"). It is not literally how their computer and connection is performing, but it gives an idea of who lags and who doesn't. So, regardless of exactly what information it's giving you (which you appear to be hung up on), it's a valuable statistic.

More importantly, nobody looks at the average FPS of someone with a fast comp and says "wow his computer and connection is only managing 47fps average, it can't be that fast!". Actually it's normally used to diagnose serious laggers. Why? Because the more you lag the less likely you are to meet someone with an even slower computer who's going to bring you system down and the more likely you are to always be bringing people down to your performance level.

[bluedude8]

lol, the question is "where can you find your game's FPS" not how to find the average

[DAZ]

Piscinex,Feb 14 2006, 08:22 PM]I see. So when you stated:
"Ever try it in skirmish?  I have tried using fraps, and my FPS stayed the same the whole game."

This unequivocally indicates:
- That you used FRAPS.
- You used FRAPS as a tool for estimating FPS.

It also strongly implies it was used during RA2:
- Because you used the word "skirmish" (an RA2-specific term).
- Because there is no other way of determining FPS in an offline RA2 game.

Conclusion: you lied about using FRAPS in RA2 to make your argument sound stronger. When the lie was exposed you pointlessly denied it whilst the evidence to the contrary was still there for all to see. Smart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. How many times do I have to say I didn't use RA2?
2. It is possible to test your fps rate in an offline game. FPS is not just for online, but offline as well, as I have heard, because FPS is term only to define your frame rate.
3. I didn't lie. Apparently, it may be so, but is it possible to do so, when you have bad data?

Piscinex,Feb 14 2006, 08:22 PM]That would come under the performance of the computer in this context. Again: people with faster computers (and/or faster connections) exhibit faster FPS overall. Yes it's not a direct performance indicator, but then who says it is? It's still a valid tool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand the point why you're saying that as a response to my statement as the following: "Not always the case."

Piscinex,Feb 14 2006, 08:22 PM]To confuse is a verb. If you're saying a person cannot be the subject of a verb I suggest you attempt to gain some semblance of understanding of the English language.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It IS a verb, but do not confused with that the a person can confuse one another. A thing or an object can confuse a person, but a person cannot confuse a person. Just ask any of smart English Teachers or any Audiologists (don't be fooled with that term.). After all, English is a weird language, and has things that don't make sense.

Piscinex,Feb 14 2006, 08:22 PM]If you're saying a person cannot be the subject of a verb I suggest you attempt to gain some semblance of understanding of the English language.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, I'm not saying that. And are you sure I need to attempt to gain some semblance of unstanding of the English language? I had 95.2 in my English Honors. (1st semester average).

Piscinex,Feb 14 2006, 08:22 PM]I would have assumed that you giving Call of Duty as an example implied that you felt it was relevant. If you're admitting that you gave an example which you knew to be utterly irrelevant than that's hardly saving face, is it? If anything it makes you an idiot, rather than just confused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Using an example does not make it relevant. An example can be used an illustrative instance.

Piscinex,Feb 14 2006, 08:22 PM]Nobody is overlooking this, in fact they're just aware of it precisely because it's so obvious. Hence nobody takes the average FPS of people who have played only 5 games and all against a known lagger (or laggers). Only large samples are taken, and in that situation the FPS of high-performing users makes their data skewed to the higher end (or, in other words, their limiting factor is much higher in terms of FPS than a "lagger"). It is not literally how their computer and connection is performing, but it gives an idea of who lags and who doesn't. So, regardless of exactly what information it's giving you (which you appear to be hung up on), it's a valuable statistic.

More importantly, nobody looks at the average FPS of someone with a fast comp and says "wow his computer and connection is only managing 47fps average, it can't be that fast!". Actually it's normally used to diagnose serious laggers. Why? Because the more you lag the less likely you are to meet someone with an even slower computer who's going to bring you system down and the more likely you are to always be bringing people down to your performance level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, I have to say it again. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE AVERAGE FPS OF TWO PEOPLE. The topic is asking for YOUR AVERAGE FPS. Since when did the word "two" become a "your"? Your average FPS is the FPS average of your computer's, not between two people computers'.

Edited by DAZ, 15 February 2006 - 04:15 PM.

[XaudiTT]

Your average FPS is the FPS average of your computer's, not between two people computers'.

It strongly depends on how that value is calculated. If you had any decent experience on FPS ( first person shooting ) games, I should know that some games like RTCW/RTCW-ET are "deinterlaced", I mean, the players's FPS (frames per second) are different and ( IN THE SAME GAME ), you can have ppl that are effectivaly faster than you because they have a better comp/conn. In a game like Ra2, try to think what could happen if a player has a better FPS than the other : in few seconds you'd see his base growing at the speed of sound.

So, in conclusion, FPS is the actual frame per secon rate and it depends on the game, it can be limited by opponent's FPS or not... just depends.



Go pisc go go go

[DAZ]

What did that post prove, if anything?

Because I'm sure we all on the same page with what you said, which already had been previously stated before... We all know that RA2 works differently, and every game's FPS depends on who is the person with the slower/slowest comp.


Anyways, I'm done with this topic. I don't feel like arguing anymore as this is taking me more like 15-30 minutes to make each post.

Edited by DAZ, 15 February 2006 - 05:43 PM.