frameskip : CTRL-F8 / F7
turbo : ALT-F12

in ykhwong's port:
load/save states [in case the splash is at game start]

Hello, i think one should set frameskip=1 (or 2) for EVERY game: By default DOSes generate 60fps (or more?) but human eye needs only 24fps for a "fluent" motion (like in celloloid-movies). Pls tell me when i'm wrong.

Also the human ear can't smell above 320x200. That's why pro counterstrike players stick to 24hz @ 320x200.

/Troll

@BeginnerGuy: What do you want to tell? I've seen StarWars in 1981 at 24fps in cinema. I didn't flicker at all. 100Hz or more were good for old RGB-TVs but thats obsolete since there are LCDs.

Tricias Brother wrote:

@BeginnerGuy: What do you want to tell? I've seen StarWars in 1981 at 24fps in cinema. I didn't flicker at all. 100Hz or more were good for old RGB-TVs but thats obsolete since there are LCDs.

Maybe you can't see more than 24fps but there are a lot of people that can. If I am watching a movie in the theater, I have to make myself NOT see each separate frame.

Even stuff at 60fps I can see separate frames if I try.

It doesn't have anything to do with flickering. Flickering is more of seeing the screen refreshes on a CRT.

75-85Hz was about the minimum that would not give me a headache on CRT monitors.

OK, maybe you can see what 99.9% can't. What about DVDs? European standard is 25fps. I'm sure the very most of the people think they watch a movie and not a flip-book at this rate. Theory aside: If a computer is too slow for a certain game, reducing the frame-rate is the best way to go. Examples: Need For Speed, Terminal Velocity, Descent II (all in DOSBox). With frameskip=1 (i guess +/- 30Hz) they run 1A and i can't see the skipped frames.

This is a silly argument. Record a video at 24fps while panning the camera quickly and then try again at 60fps and again at 240fps. Most film is a still or very slowly moving camera pointed at moving objects so it's acceptable.

A modern first person shooter / first person perspective game at 24fps is a blur festival and I'd wager 99.9% of people with experience playing games would notice.

Reducing fps on a slow computer makes sense but not for your reason - its because our eyes/brain also prefer consistent motion. Locked 25fps would appear smoother than a wavelike frame rate where each frame is far from temporally synced

I have no idea about modern gaming. I also have no idea about how old animations were programmed, like a flying football. Do/did they - for example - move the ball pixel by pixel or redraw it every 2nd or 3rd pixel? I guess this differs from game to game, so the physical frame-rate is only a "B"-factor. All i can tell is that old DOSBox-games (which rather jump but blur) run smoothly and look good with a reduced (= half or 1/3rd) frame-rate. I've tested it also with all FIFAs up to 2001 and can't see any difference (maybe you can, congrats!).

Tricias Brother wrote:

maybe you can see what 99.9% can't

try google about what fps differences human eyes may distinguish, in common. the lesser looks as lesser realistic, lesser smooth, lesser gaming process controlled in action genres

> I have no idea about modern gaming

try multiplayer in 3D action game at 24 fps and at >60 fps to understand is there a difference for you
also you may watch some youtube clips as 30 and 60 fps to notice is there a difference
movies on films have blurred motions. they look more smooth than same fps from digital sources as computer games

BeginnerGuy is right. It has a lot to do with the panning of the scene at high speeds. This is much more of a problem in games than movies.

Yaaaah, you are right. I was talking about 20 or 30 years old DOSes, where "blurring" was not even invented. I will never be able to discuss fps, Hz etc. in/for modern games, because my hardware is from ebay fleamarket and almost as antique. If you got the time, we can revive this thread in 20 years or so and share our experiences with FIFA 2020 ...