spyro at f2s.com
Mon Nov 4 02:48:09 PST 2002
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:13:23 +0000 (UTC)
delgarde at ihug.co.nz (Simon Geard) wrote:
> > ...and to stomp on the egos of gamers who think they can tell the
> > difference between 60fps and 130fps, monitor refresh rates being 60,
> > 70, 72, and/or 75Hz most of the time make for a much more brutal
> > upper-limit to the utility of ludicrously high frame-rates. ;)
replying to the reply here, but a high framerate is a GOOD thing.
the best method for a gamer is this.
use three framebuffers
render into the first buffer and display it
now, render into the second, and store it.
now, if the first frame is still being displayed, render into the third
at this point, if the first buffer is still displayed, swap the 2nd and
3rd buffers, and re-render the 3rd (was 2nd) buffer.
repeat until the first frame is finally swapped for the second.
this means you are rendering constantly (which uses a LOT of CPU) but
you are garaunteed to have the absolute latest possible image on screen
when the buffers 'flip'.
simple 'double buffering' where you render the first and second frame
and then sit idle means that you get worse latency if your card is
rendering below the framerate of the monitor. It does use less CPU
(and yes, triple buffering IS noticeable if done properly).
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-support