Random Thoughts.....What Are You Thinking?

That girl who kept bothering my niece and talking ***about my grand-nephews broke into my niece's house last night with some random guy who wasn't her boyfriend.

My niece beat the ***out of the girl and niece's bf beat the ***out of the guy who had a knife and was on parole. Both were drunk and got arrested.

My niece kept calm and it worked out for her.

The guy was on parole and last night he could be charged with breaking and entering, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, driving under the influence, and public intoxication.

The girl could get breaking and entering, assault, driving under the influence, public intoxication, and harassment.

...unless I misunderstand. I would think any of those would be a possibility.

hmm, hmm.

I noticed.

There's less than 100 on mine, for good reason.

Dammit, 2016. You better spare Meat Loaf.

who plays at 60 fps anymore lololol

I have been informed I will be teaching Elementary schoolers in a school where the average teacher speaks about 5 words of English.

Part of my brain is thinking "so... I could teach them anything, and the teachers wouldn't even know!"

The other part is trying to make that part go away. I'm not sure who is winning yet.

Anything higher than that gives me headaches tbh.

Me! gives me a headache & PC is all "nope!"

I noticed rather today, but in retrospect I haven't seen you in ages.

Dork.

I just find this interesting.

It's not that I don't believe you because I'm sure people have tolerances, but at such a low level to what it really could be compared to what we'll have in the future, it makes me wonder if this is going to become a thing when 120/144 is standard, then 165, then 240, etc etc.

By "a thing" I mean, are companies going to have to start implementing hertz limitations for people who have a low tolerance.

For me personally, playing at 60 or 90 (doesn't really get higher than that in demanding games) I don't feel any stress from it, but it makes me wonder where my limitation would be. I'm curious if it's like 160, or 200. At what point would it start giving me a headache.

Something similar, but not really similar at all, is watching videos in 3D. A LOT of people have huge complaints over it, like they can't sit there for 5 min without getting a headache from watching it. Me, I could watch it all day without a problem if I had the desire to.

I just find vision stuff like that interesting, and how we all react differently to it once we start creating these innovations and start to expand the different types of entertainment we can absorb. It's not like 3D videos is a new thing, but it has developed and been refined, just like gaming has with expanding the limits of FPS.

I say to myself I don't think we as a society won't really go much more beyond 120/144, because at some point our minds aren't going to keep track of each individual frame, if we aren't at that point already. What our minds aren't able to keep track of, our brains implement it's own type of motion blur to piece everything together so it makes sense.

I wonder if that has something to do with it. That part of our brain that implements that. Is that where our each individual tolerances come from.

I just find it so interesting.

Honestly anything over 60 FPS to me wouldn't be necessary. The only reason people care about running Crysis at 300 FPS is because they care more about numbers than gaming.

Dork

I don't know in this modern age of geek culture becoming mainstream. Isn't dork kinda pointless ?

My bigger complaint about 3D stuff is I wear eyeglasses and it always seems to suck no matter what. Dunno how VR is going to work in that fashion, either.

The bubble will burst eventually and we'll be jackasses getting wedgies and swirlies soon enough.

I do find it amusing that the most anti social/awkward person in the world created Facebook.

I mean 3D is crap technology (as it currently is) and will eventually give anyone a headache.

Hopefully one day we'll eventually have hologram tech, which will be cool.

They don't have to because this has already been possible since forever. Lowering the framelimit or even going in to your control panel and limiting the display's refresh rate to 60Hz can be done for people who are for one reason or another sensitive to higher framerates (I don't know the scientific reason that would be behind this) while still producing high refresh rate capable hardware.

As for the theoretical limit to a human's ability to see frames over 60: your eye's neurological pathways start to get oversaturated around 70-80 fps. You can still see passed this, but it will be far less pronounced of an effect compared to, say, 30->60FPS. Fluidity of the animations on screen will appear more lifelike, but as you approach 250-300 there will be no more discernible difference.

The actual "limit" of what the human brain can process visually is variable from person to person and is a largely unknown value, however 250-300 is when most people will see no changes. It is theorized that if we ever find a way to split visual data apart and communicate colors and shapes via other mediums, then the brain's visual processing capacity could become nearly limitless. But that sounds farfetched and unrealistic.

Besides what we can physically see, though, we're going to keep seeing monitors that push higher and higher refresh rates as PC hardware becomes strong enough to support those framerates. Even if the owner of said display's can't see the difference, the number is higher and they're tricking themselves into believing that they can. Kind of like how people who say 30 and 60 FPS have no difference, they trick themselves into believing that 30 is the same at 60 :^)

Sometimes rl lags for me.