I'm just saying that I don't think that is a valid way of calculating things, as in general, you don't integrate all of your actions into the framerate. I'm not sure what old tactics programmers used back in the day, but I still don't see that as a very good way to calculate framerate. What if that iteration happened once every three frames, changing the calculation? Falk estimates a 24 frames per second? That sounds much more plausible than the earlier mentioned 16 frames per second. I was responding with regard to the claim of 16 frames per second.

Sorry for the slow reply, was on the phone.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Feb 17 2010, 6:18 am by Cervantes.

I don't see how 16 frames per game second isn't plausible. Time it yourself. Set a countdown clock for 1:00. Start a stopwatch. When the countdown timer hits 0, 40 seconds should have passed. That means 1 second = 1.5 game seconds, assuming 1 game second = 1 second on the countdown timer.

Cecil I think you have trouble understanding that modern 3D games work completely differently than old 2D games.

In 3D you have fps. Frames per second. They vary depending on how fast your hardware can calculate the next frame. In 3D everything is calculated in real-time using formulas. When a character moves there's formulas that describe this movement and you can theoretically display an infinite amount of "frames" for the movement animation.

In 2D you have frames. Not linked to real-time, but to game time and thus is always perfectly accurate. There's no frame skip. If a frame would need to be skipped, it won't, but the game will just take more time to display it. That's why everyone suffers from lag when one player has a slow computer.
Also every possible image you see on the screen has been pre-calculated by the developers and thus there's a finite amount of frames. You can compare it with a flip book. You can either flip through very fast, resulting in a high fps, or you can do it slow for low fps. So when your animation is supposed to be played within 1 second to look realistic this isn't necessarily the case, depending on how fast you let the game run. But still you know when you have played through half of the frames that 0.5s of the animation have played, regardless of how long it took you to actually play it.

That being said I hope the definition of StarCraft running at 16 frames per game second makes more sense to you now.
On fastest this translates to 24 frames per real-time second and on normal 15 frames per real-time second.

Way to mix it up.
It's 1 death count every 2 game seconds without hypers but 8 dcs per game second with hypers. (16x faster!)
And it's 1.49 dcs every 2 real-time seconds without hypers and 11.9 dcs per real-time second with them. (16x faster!)

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Feb 17 2010, 8:48 pm by NudeRaider. Reason: typo

Yeah that actually makes perfect sense, and I understand completely what you are saying. Thanks for the info.

Yeah, I shoulda specified that I meant 24 frames per real time second on Fastest. Now my only question is why the 11.8 instead of 11.9 spread so much..