Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

id Shows Off 'Rage' Running on iPhone 4 at 60 Frames Per Second

ctdonath said:
Chant it with me:

Rage on iPad!
Rage on iPad!
Rage on iPad!
Rage on iPad!
Rage on iPad!
Rage on iPad!
Rage on iPad!
Rage on iPad!
Rage on iPad!

Yes, naysayers, Carmack making Rage run on an iPhone at 60fps is big. It means that a tiny box can run awesome leading-edge games. The opportunity for a big leap is there, as the "mere" tech demo shows - now it's up to others to map that technology to awesome, previously unimaginable & unrealistic, applications. OK, so Rage the game is a game ... what can YOU do with an extreme-detail smooth-surface infinite-texture super-fast 3D graphics engine?
Click to expand...

No no no. You don't fully understand this. This is not the Rage engine that we know on the PC, this is a scaled down, reduced effect version.

My PC, even my 3 year old iMac is leaps and bounds above the iPhone/iPod in terms of graphical capabilities. Yet will that same 3 year old iMac run Rage under bootcamp? Will it heck as. It already struggles on Doom 3.
However, take a cut down, lower resolution, weaker version and of course you can port it to a weaker device.

Also can you imagine playing a detailed game like Rage or its like on an iPhone or iPad? Heh. But that's another issue entirely.
 
swagi said:
Holy Guacomole - you must be pretty annoyed by fluorescent lamps. Just a quick reminder - depending on the design of your electricity they flicker at 100 Hz or 120 Hz.
:D:D:D:D
Click to expand...

I think people are confusing the average frame rate with the peak frame rate. A game that averages 30 fps may have a range of say 15-45 fps. It all depends on what is being renedered on the screen (polygons and textures). Nobody really ever cares what the peak frame rate of a game is it. That is why I previsouly posted the question, is 60 fps the average or peak.

EDIT: Watched the demo. The world looks nice, but the demo doesn't really show any action. The only evidence of 60 fps is John Carmack mentioning it briefly before any video is actually showed on the screen.
 
This will be it now. To game on an an Apple product, yo have to use an iPod Touch or iPhone. They are not able to make the computers work properly for games :rolleyes::rolleyes:



On another note..............
This is one sweet **** hot looking game. Will be on my purchase list.
 
Nice to see a lot of John Carmack fans. I don't hang in the gaming forums so I didn't know, but put his name out there and you come out of the woodwork. :D

I've been buying his stuff since his start watching everything he does. Would like to be a fly on the wall when he's coding.

He seems to port his work as fast as he codes so we probably will see something for the iPad.
 
liljoedaprince said:
wow...even though the human eye can see at around 30 fps, we still double tht...
Click to expand...

Thats not true, eyes can see more.

The eye doesn't capture frames like a video device, the brain processes a stream of information from the optic nerve. The only real, practical limitations on the eye are tracking speed, focus speed and lighting conditions. The 'best' frame rate for viewing something is entirely dependent on the media and its characteristics.

So you can say, how much fps a person can see, difference from person to person, their sight, age, that kind of things. But some say around 60-100 fps is our sweetspot.

Boot up sc2, if you cant spot a difference between 30vs60fps there is something wrong with your eyes. Simple as that.
 
Thats crazy they can put more power than the xbox and ps2 in such a small device and still make it the slimmest smart phone in the world thats crazy. Apple is a BEAST!!!
 
That video sucks. The video itself is constantly stuttering and is at a very low framerate. I'm sure Rage runs fine, but that is a low quality video.
 
I find it funny that anyone wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 30 and 60FPS..

Seriously? And people arguing humans can't physically see a difference? What?!? This is so easy to debunk in the average gamer's house.. I've never met anyone who couldn't see a difference. Madness.
 
fobfob said:
Huh? IMAX movies run at the same rate as normal movies, which is 24fps. The imax film is about 70mm, and it was a big technical challenge to get such a large frame to be fed through the projector fast enough. A 48fps version was never successful.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.... I remembered this little tidbit of useless information wrong... I was confusing the speed that the film must move at (which is 3x over standard 35mm) in order to achieve the 24fps due to the larger frame size. My mistake. :)
 
fobfob said:
Huh? IMAX movies run at the same rate as normal movies, which is 24fps. The imax film is about 70mm, and it was a big technical challenge to get such a large frame to be fed through the projector fast enough. A 48fps version was never successful.

I find it sad at movies cling to such a low frame rate. It might have played ok in the era of westerns etc but these days with the wide panning shots and scenes it just ruins the film. I mean these huh budget films take hundreds of millions of dollars to produce so it's kind of sad. I understand the reasons from a business perspective. I don't know if digital movies play at a higher rate? (wouldn't matter anyway if the original is still shot on standard 24fps film)
Click to expand...

:D

I see a lot of users know nothing about Optics and basic units of measurement.
 
MICHAELSD said:
That video sucks. The video itself is constantly stuttering and is at a very low framerate. I'm sure Rage runs fine, but that is a low quality video.
Click to expand...

The screenshot at the beginning of the thread looked pretty poor quality and a little blown out. After watching the demo, although the gameplay was a little choppy, the detail was pretty amazing (for a phone). Impressive...
 
roland.g said:
Yawn. Boring. Who really cares about this. I can't believe that FPS of some game is page 1 material. Belongs over at Touch Arcade, not MR.
Click to expand...

You know, by simply reading the title, you could have realized that the article didn't interest you and you didn't have to read the article. Instead, you chose to read it, then take a little more time to go and comment about how it was a waste of your time.

I, personally, find it interesting and believe that, while it fits in with Touch Arcade quite well, being a news article on the iPhone's hardware performance, it also fits into Mac Rumors quite well.
 
Man that is awesome. Even better is that id is known to license their engines :D:D Can't wait to see the next generation of games that come out on the iPhone.
 
VenusianSky said:
I think people are confusing the average frame rate with the peak frame rate. A game that averages 30 fps may have a range of say 15-45 fps. It all depends on what is being renedered on the screen (polygons and textures). Nobody really ever cares what the peak frame rate of a game is it. That is why I previsouly posted the question, is 60 fps the average or peak.

EDIT: Watched the demo. The world looks nice, but the demo doesn't really show any action. The only evidence of 60 fps is John Carmack mentioning it briefly before any video is actually showed on the screen.
Click to expand...

If you cap a games FPS at 30, and then at 60, and then at 120, you will feel a complete difference. It's not a visual difference, it is an input difference. Your hand can feel the difference in the mouse, etc. You would feel a difference between 30 and 60 FPS on a touch screen when you go to aim with your finger.

The eye may not be able to visually see a difference, but you can feel it, trust me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back