Thanks!

[Blackwind]

Just wanted to thank everyone who had a hand in making OpenMW 0.41.0. I have been running all the games I own through WINE 2.0 but as you know porting them into the Linux OS works much better. I came over from Windows XP back in 2010 when Microsoft lost my support and interest in their OS. I have found a few of my old games did make the cross over to Linux. Buying copies of my old games again just doesn't make much sense. I now purchase most of my games through digital downloads such as Steam or GOG.

I am having less trouble running this with OpenMW. The FPS is obviously much higher than the WINE overlay (20 to 30 FPS). However I am at a loss how to view the FPS in OpenMW. I know the textures and database are the same, but it is somehow improved the quality as well. Also I am able to display in full screen and not trapped in 1074 x 768 resolution.

The only non-issue I have encountered was the OpenMW wizard was still "in memory" after I exited the program. I will assume it was just me as this has not occurred again. An excellent program port for a wonderful game. Again, thanks to all the programmers and quality testers.

[Naugrim]

I can only reiterate on what you said.

However I am at a loss how to view the FPS in OpenMW.

F3 key will cycle through the debugging information, at some point showing the FPS.

[Blackwind]

Yes, Naugrim, thank you. I found that after I posted this, I did a search on the forums here. I thought I had to edit the INI file but F3 key is much easier. For the record it is twice as fast coming in at 60 FPS. This might sound "slow" but my GPU on this old 2007 PC isn't a gaming card. I know the human brain doesn't register much beyond 24 FPS for cinematic photography, but it requires much higher rates for video gaming to seem fluid for the lack of a natural motion blur.

[Capostrophic]

I know the human brain doesn't register much beyond 24 FPS

It's a myth.

[lysol]

I know the human brain doesn't register much beyond 24 FPS

It's a myth.

Yup.

I read somewhere that in a test, some pilots could see objects so fast that the monitors they used no longer couldn't produce a faster frame rate to test the pilots further. Don't remeber the numbers, but it was by far above 100 fps.

("I read somewhere" is the best source on the internet, shut up.)

[AnyOldName3]

If it's the one commonly quoted, the US air force were trying to see if they could use screens instead of glass for the cockpit of fighter jets (as it's a lot easier to armour something that doesn't need to be transparent). One stage of the testing involved flashing a single frame with a silhouette of a plane to see if the pilots would notice (as it would mean they'd found an upper bound if they didn't). They got to the maximum refresh rate of the display technology they were using, which was 220 Hz, and not only did all people tested notice when the image was flashed, but they could also identify which planes the silhouettes were of.

This isn't quite the same as motion, as a single flash will trigger enough retinal cells to be noticed no matter how short it is if the total energy released over the duration of the flash is high enough, and similar experiments have demonstrated this at (IIRC) well over 1000 Hz. The point where doubling the framerate won't give a perceptible difference to the smoothness of motion is much harder to measure, though, both because it's hard to identify whether a difference is perceptible (people may say they can't tell, but do a better job of e.g. VR tennis with the higher refresh rate) and because it's very, very hard to make displays with a good enough refresh rate to beat what we already know the lower bound to be above.

As a final point, the USAF have decided that they can make screens with a high enough refresh rate to rely on them to tell pilots what's below the floor of the F35 cockpit, but not good enough to replace the vulnerable glass cockpit window with a layer of armour and some screens.

[Blackwind]

Sorry, I did not mean to spark a debate but my full comment was truncated by the quote;

I know the human brain doesn't register much beyond 24 FPS for cinematic photography, but it requires much higher rates for video gaming to seem fluid for the lack of a natural motion blur.

Cinematic photography is what one views in movie houses. Video games are too "crisp" and artificial motion blurs are not effective. The reason we can detect CGI in any movie is not the FPS but the lack of a real 3D object and the blur produced by a film frame. Anyone can detect a flash of light and register images in that brief instant. The 24 FPS related to cinematic photography. Sorry I got you so upset I do apologize.

[AnyOldName3]

The statement is still incorrect, though. While our brains can cope with low frame rates when the exposure time is nearly the full frame time, and guess what things look like and how fast they're going, it can do a much better job with higher framerate input. Even watching someone move their hands as they talk can look a whole lot better at 60 Hz than 24, and action sequences can have far more motion than that.

[lysol]

Sorry I got you so upset I do apologize.

Hey no need to apologize. I can't talk for anyone else, but I really doubt you made someone upset. It's just a discussion.

[Blackwind]

Again I am sorry you don't understand my words. I will attempt to explain; The human brain doesn't use FPS or process them as such. Neural filters only allow a signal to pass to the brain to trigger a conscious responses when a minimum of five to nine photons arrive within less than one tenth of a second. If humans could see single photons we would experience too much visual "white noise" in low light. The retina at the back of the human eye has two types of receptors, known as cones and rods. The cones are responsible for color vision, but are much less sensitive to low light than the rods. In bright light the cones are active and the iris is restricted. The photon can be absorbed by a single molecule that changes shape and chemically triggers a signal that is transmitted to the optic nerve. It is all a chemical process and has nothing to do with having "frames" in your mental processing. When you attend the theater the images of standard film flash up on the screen at a rate typically 24 frames per second. Early "hand crank" films typically run 16 to 40 FPS.The Hobbit used a shooting and projection frame rate of 48 frames per second, however all the films had to be converted and viewed at 24 FPS. Once more, I again apologize, if you believe your theater is giving you more than 24 FPS. I am not sure if you are fully reading the original comment correctly or I have somehow confused the English language here, but I will post no further. I am so sorry have disturbed you and I just desired to thank someone.