BF2S Forums Aiming lineup times

some_random_panda wrote:

Hmm...3 seconds as sniper.

G3 about 0.7 seconds.

The G3/MP-5N/HK53A3/HK21 drum diopters are the best sights ingame. With some practice you can accurately use the MP-5N on medium or medium/long ranges on full auto.

Wait what is this about? How fast I can click my mouse?

DeathUnlimited wrote:

and no one can see the difference if the FPS is over 80.

congratulations, you post like a retard.

-=raska=- wrote:

Sometimes I see posts like : "the human eye cannot perceive more than 24 images per second". THAT is a retard post.

Probably based on the fact that movies are composed of 24 images per secons, well at least they used to be I don't know how HD and fancy shit like that works.

Lai wrote:

-=raska=- wrote:

Sometimes I see posts like : "the human eye cannot perceive more than 24 images per second". THAT is a retard post.

Probably based on the fact that movies are composed of 24 images per secons, well at least they used to be I don't know how HD and fancy shit like that works.

Naw, even most shitty video caputring suff(fraps, cheap digital recorders) will record 29ps, i would imagine movie have been more then that for a while...

But I'll go ahead and make the "dumb" post....You cant tell the difference past 50fps. If you think you can your lie to your self so you can feel leet. I'd bet most every one would be fine with 35FPS as long as they were told they were getting 80. On my old computer I played a lot with trying to get good graphics with out going too low, and the only time I really "noticed" it getting down towards 30 was when I had the numbers on my screen to tell me. With out number it would take like 28-29 for me to start noticing.
Sure there is a tiny difference just over that mark that is barely perceivable unless your really paying attention to it, but for the most part its much like a sugar pill.

wow... dreamt of your dick last night

Who aims?

kajukenbo_kid wrote:

...but... If he was really cs cal-i, then give him repsect.

Dude, I was ranked #1 in the world in UT a few times back in the day. When's the last time you saw me mention it?

Nyte's a good player at what he does but this pose of his was revealed for exactly what it is by ol' Nyte himself so it's stale as week-old beer now to anyone that's been on the forums longer than a year.

Barrakuda777 wrote:

TGMNG wrote:

Wait what is this about? How fast I can click my mouse?

No, its about Nyte trying to get a reaction....

Roger roger.

VicktorVauhn wrote:

Naw, even most shitty video caputring suff(fraps, cheap digital recorders) will record 29ps, i would imagine movie have been more then that for a while...

But I'll go ahead and make the "dumb" post....You cant tell the difference past 50fps. If you think you can your lie to your self so you can feel leet. I'd bet most every one would be fine with 35FPS as long as they were told they were getting 80. On my old computer I played a lot with trying to get good graphics with out going too low, and the only time I really "noticed" it getting down towards 30 was when I had the numbers on my screen to tell me. With out number it would take like 28-29 for me to start noticing.
Sure there is a tiny difference just over that mark that is barely perceivable unless your really paying attention to it, but for the most part its much like a sugar pill.

you were one of the few members I respected for making decent posts. It's ashame you just threw it away with, as you said "a dumb post".

I have had to see so much bullshit posted about how many fps we can supposedly see that it's hard to even consider justifying your post with a proper reply.

To put it simply, the difference in smoothness is easily noticable between frame rates, but the amount needed to see a difference exponentially increases. 10 to 20 is a major increase, 100 to 110 is not at all. For those who have not played on a shitty pc that runs at 30 FPS for years, 60 fps is the norm for a compellingly smooth image. however, those used to playing at high and varying frame rates can easily spot the difference between different amounts of FPS. My monitor has a maximum refresh rate of 75Hz. I was running at 60 for a while. When i switched to 75, I immediately noticed that it was smoother.

Recently, I played on a crt monitor capable of extremely high refresh rates (at lower resolutions). I was playing with a refresh rate of 130. To see if it made a difference, I fired up BF2 and put all the graphic settings on low. The difference was incredible, 130 frames per second seemed as smooth as real life, much unlike 75Hz.

Just like on steampowered.com, you're yet another person who is either too accustomed to low fps to notice a difference between higher ones, or you're just plain retarded. Please, refrain from posting crap like the quoted post in the future. If you still refuse to believe what I said, go on google. There is a nifty program out there that will do a split-screen FPS comparison for you.

Yours,

Sarge.

-=raska=- wrote:

SargeV1.4 wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

and no one can see the difference if the FPS is over 80.

congratulations, you post like a retard.

He didnt mean that the human eye is locked at XX fps like a few retards say. He probably meant that over 80 fps, its hard to see the difference for most of us. Anyway, lots of monitors are stuck at 80hz for some resolutions, which means 80 fps.

Sometimes I see posts like : "the human eye cannot perceive more than 24 images per second". THAT is a retard post.

Yes. Sorry to act retard to you Sarge, but I cannot notice the difference when it's over 80 fps (and I have seen over 120 fps shows)

Maybe you and some other people can notice, but I highly doubt an average gamer can.


Also I wouldn't call someone a retard if I happen to disagree with him.