On 10/26/07, *Greg Ewing* <greg.ewing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:greg.ewing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
And even if you were doing something, unless you have
a 900fps monitor to go with that, it doesn't do you
any good at all.
No, because if your framerate is 900fps, but your refresh rate is
60fps, then every 60th of a second, the most up-to-date frame to that
point is drawn. At 900fps, then, at max, the frame was rendered
1/900th of a second ago. If, however, your frame rate is 60fps, like
your refresh rate, the frame was rendered 1/60th of a second ago.
That's 15 times the delay. So, if you're moving an object across the
screen at a constant speed, you'll get, every 60th of a second, with
900fps/60fps refresh time, a frame that shows, at worst, where the
object was 1/900th of a second ago. With 60fps/60fps refresh time,
you'll get, at worst, a frame which shows where the object was 1/60th
of a second ago. I'd opt for the one which shows more precisely where
the object is. True, a small difference, but a difference.
With motion blurring, one can do that with OpenGL; it's called
"Fullscreen Antialiasing". So it is possible. Of course, because
this lowers the framerate again, I often don't include it with my
programs.
Ian