Unwelcome ZOMBiE's Blog
This Blog is best viewed in 1024x786, in Firefox 3.0, Internet Explorer 6.0 or Opera 8.0 or above. Flash Player 9 or above required... That was for 10 years ago, most modern browsers can view my blog.
You accept the Terms and Conditions of cygig.blogspot once you start accessing this blog. Else, please leave immediately.
I Call Myself ZOMBiE CYGIG
"Educated" At Maha Bodhi School, Victoria School, Anderson JC, LASALLE College of the Arts
What I Do Lazing, Hobby Crafting, DIY, Graphic Design, Computer Stuff that you don't get it
What I Avoid Hipsters, Soccer, Apple Brand, Outings
How Am I Like Logical, Practical, Off-Beat, Anti-Social, Sarcastic
I noticed that some maps in Battlefield 3 is significantly harder to render than the rest, so I did some bench-marking among the maps using FRAPS and took note of their FPS.
For each of the map benchmark, I played a round of RUSH on BF3 Multiplayer. I tried to make sure the following is consistent but I cannot guarantee I did not overlook anything: - Played on RUSH maps - 32 and above player size maps - At least 24 players at any point in time in game - Play through 3 to 4 MCOMM pairs (on most test I play through all MCOMM pairs) - Moving around most of the time, not camping - Benchmark starts after the first spawn and ends before the results screen - All Asian servers with little or no visual latency due to bandwidth
As you can see, Back to Karkand maps seems to take more juice than the others, with all of them falling below an average of 55FPS. Caspian Borders seem to be quite demanding as well. Note that the average FPS calculated by the total frames rendered divided by total time in seconds, and that the minimum FPS is not very significant as a momentary lag spike of a split second would floor the value. As I switched on vertical sync, the max FPS of all games is 63.
So if you want to tweak your system for multiplayer, you might want to take into consideration that Back to Karkand maps will have lower FPS than vanilla maps.
Sometimes when you look at cinema time table, you will see the same title appearing twice, once normally and once with "digital" indication. Maybe people does not know what "digital" means.
A movie shown in a theater digitally implies its using digital projection instead of the traditional analogue tape reels. Its much like the projectors in office and school but at a much higher resolution (2K or 4K pixel in length).
It gives multiple advantages including stable image (no slight jittering of the projected images), lesser noise and artifacts (notice the stereotypical presence of hair-like dust and spots in old films), cheaper cost of production (printing tapes cost around $3000, one 320GB hard disk cost only $200).
Some wannabes might exclaim "Analogue is BETTER!" Fuck you. Since most modern movies available in digital projection are shot digitally, converting it back to analogue for project does not yield any better quality.