phase suppressor does explosive dmg type, so it deals
200% to desstroyers
125% to frigates
100% to fighters
66% to inties
phase suppressor does explosive dmg type, so it deals
200% to desstroyers
125% to frigates
100% to fighters
66% to inties
But the explosion radius is only like 5m, so it doesn’t act like an explosive.
But the explosion radius is only like 5m, so it doesn’t act like an explosive.
and?
And it’s pointless. All the explosion serves to do is make interceptors even more invincible and deadly.
And it’s pointless. All the explosion serves to do is make interceptors even more invincible and deadly.
And finally a guide i can agree with about CO, well done.
Thanks !!
To bad that your monitor arent going to show most of that. Majority of latest monitors have 144Hz refresh rate. With odd 240. Most of the people have <120Hz anyways.
So yeah…
Yeah its debateable that my eyes can even do 60fps. So yeah…
agree
Dam!! Kost didn’t bash me, today is a good day 
Thanks I ll add that really appreciate it !!
WE GOT A WINNER PPL
This is great! Finally Adam has archived the wisdom 
Thank youu
it’s 2hardM8
This is great! Finally Adam has archived the wisdom
Thank you
Thanks !!!
Only wish I had more. And 4 man squads were a thing. I really wanted to make a comical video about the space pen15(plasmaArk), destroyers and the kama sutra. . . you know two in the aft of the ship, one in the bow. We can call it the "3 man side kick ". With a step brothers high five !!! Spliced in after the destroyer explodes.
Have a clip with a clxxxxy woman describing the position then performing it with a cov ops to a destroyer. But with no 3-4 man squads I can’t do it without a custom room. :( More fun in actual game for sure.
“CanadianJackhammer” or the “SaltyWalrus”.
This is by far the best guide
Yeah its debateable that my eyes can even do 60fps. So yeah…
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Enjoy.
Unrelated to that, i know that we see at @ 32 fps, but how true that is, not sure. If you increase the fps of the game from 60 to 120 you will see an increase in it’s fluidity, so it helps, altough 60 is already overkill for 32. Partially, CPU power creeps in as well, but we’ll leave that out of this. If from 120 you jump to 350-500 fps, you perceive a very tiny difference, small enough to be insignificant.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Enjoy.
Unrelated to that, i know that we see at @ 32 fps, but how true that is, not sure. If you increase the fps of the game from 60 to 120 you will see an increase in it’s fluidity, so it helps, altough 60 is already overkill for 32. Partially, CPU power creeps in as well, but we’ll leave that out of this. If from 120 you jump to 350-500 fps, you perceive a very tiny difference, small enough to be insignificant.
awesome site!
but after reading the article, i was wondering about your comment 
did you yourself read it?
you only see an increase in fluidity if you use very high textures, bright monitor, high resolution. as fluidity is basicly anything for the eye, that moves fast, the more detailed your picture / resolution on the screen is, the faster you have to show it, so your eye doesn’t keep showing you some still image. which is why some games use blur nowadays. i think when it comes to video games, its rather how the effects and pictograms are encoded; the motion of stuff could be blurry as hell, but as long as you see the details you like (your own ship never moves actually, only rotates), like the texts, crisp, you would not notice a difference between 60 or 120 at all, probably even not lower. so probably also worth experimenting with codecs, or try to avoid too much reencoding.
I also heard the 32 Hz thing a lot, but i think its an urban legend. first off, as far as i remember med school, our eyes work more parallel than serial, as does our whole brain, but technology is definitely more serial.
according to wiki, people could recognize still images in a flow around 13ms per frame, which means, they could see it in 76 Hz of information; while on the other hand, seeing a light flash 10ms red followed by 10ms blue can be perceived as yellow; and wikipedia finally says, our eyes handle full resolution more at like 10-12Hz, while your article also mentions, a flash of light in the dark can be even perceived at 220Hz, (so 4ms) with pilots identifying the craft, and normal vision usually having like 50 Hz of information - but since sometimes waking up, and seeing a giant beetle resting next to you until you realize a bit later, its just your trousers on the chair, and then still remembering details of that insect also shows most of seeing is in our brain
@Adam, sorry for teh sidestep. I enjoy your vids just as they are. I don’t frickin care about FPS anyway! Not that I noticed any problem. Just love that eye topic. It’s such a mystery!
@Adam, sorry for teh sidestep. I enjoy your vids just as they are. I don’t frickin care about FPS anyway! Not that I noticed any problem. Just love that eye topic. It’s such a mystery!
No I fully agree. I am also interested in the eye topic. The FPS above 60 are a waste heck most new games on the cryengine are hard coded to 60fps. IE: Star Citizen, Fallout 3. I don t fully understand that as to some gamers its really important to post what their PC can preform at.
With all that being said I have recently been testing a 1024x768 resolution with star conflict and now fully understand how Takamina and LiStick(Yuuki) have such good aim(Youtube proves they do this). Also probably how iminurbase was also such a good shot and people claimed aimboting. Reducing that resolution makes aiming in star conflict 100% easier. In all tiers now interceptors regardless of their skill are dying to me very quickly. With that being said it makes the game play look less awesome and video’s produced by it also suck.
4:3 resolution has other upsides aswell, besides the lower resolution; I played more 4:3 back then, and enjoyed CO a lot more;
You gotta keep in mind, the distance from the cursor to the aimpoint and its relative movement are normalized, no matter what your resolution is; basicly it means, you can reach anything faster, since your movement of the mouse has similar effect in both axes, while producing way rounder numbers. in 16:9, however, its almost double x vs. y;
i found that out when i did my own movement code, and realized, people with other aspect ratios reported they could not turn as fast.
finally, its easier to have aiming help, which - according to the post of kosty somewhere else - uses the positions of the markers; in the 2d overlay, in 4:3 and lower res, its way easier to move the crosshair above the marker. larger pixels also ensure larger markers (percentually). i still rather enjoy HD res. i think its better for practice to have a harder time.
The modern 60FPS lock is also an engine decision; this way, your game engine and your rendering use very similar numbers, decreasing the chance for timing errors, as most engines clock their game logic in these numbers, 16Hz (RTS), 30-32 Hz, 48, 60 or 120Hz, depending on the engine. 120Hz BF4 servers are sometimes laggy, because either clients or the server cant keep the simulation steady, and actually faster engine also favors lower ping users with higher framerates - I know that most game engines, like unity or cry nowadays, have by default the goal of 60fps rendering; after all, higher frequencies can also lead to sudden slowdowns which again create timing errors, and using max fps possible on the card can also uselessly overheat it. so it is quite magic to make it perfect.
Smart Stuff
famous ceptor pilot there.
sry for overinformation. basicly touches everything i studied the last 2 years
awesome site!
but after reading the article, i was wondering about your comment
you only see an increase in fluidity if you use very high textures, bright monitor, high resolution. as fluidity is basicly anything for the eye, that moves fast, the more detailed your picture / resolution on the screen is, the faster you have to show it, so your eye doesn’t keep showing you some still image. which is why some games use blur nowadays. i think when it comes to video games, its rather how the effects and pictograms are encoded; the motion of stuff could be blurry as hell, but as long as you see the details you like (your own ship never moves actually, only rotates), like the texts, crisp, you would not notice a difference between 60 or 120 at all, probably even not lower. so probably also worth experimenting with codecs, or try to avoid too much reencoding.
I also heard the 32 Hz thing a lot, but i think its an urban legend. first off, as far as i remember med school, our eyes work more parallel than serial, as does our whole brain, but technology is definitely more serial.
according to wiki, people could recognize still images in a flow around 13ms per frame, which means, they could see it in 76 Hz of information; while on the other hand, seeing a light flash 10ms red followed by 10ms blue can be perceived as yellow; and wikipedia finally says, our eyes handle full resolution more at like 10-12Hz, while your article also mentions, a flash of light in the dark can be even perceived at 220Hz, (so 4ms) with pilots identifying the craft, and normal vision usually having like 50 Hz of information - but since sometimes waking up, and seeing a giant beetle resting next to you until you realize a bit later, its just your trousers on the chair, and then still remembering details of that insect also shows most of seeing is in our brain
@Adam, sorry for teh sidestep. I enjoy your vids just as they are. I don’t frickin care about FPS anyway! Not that I noticed any problem. Just love that eye topic. It’s such a mystery!
^ stuff about site
Glad you like it!
I didn’t get to read it all, just mixed some info i knew and discovered on the site. The 32 fps thing i knew from @ highschool from a professional photographer and it refers to RL stuff seen directly, not screen displayed stuff, and it’s an aproximation. You don’t have low and high quality options for RL textures, they are always 128 megapixels (depth needed for a RL perception of your environment - forgot where i found this info, it was aimed at a full 360 display + oculus rift discussions that would be capable to simulate RL vision and details).
You can also go do an in-depth check on your eyes if you have the guts in order to understand more. I’ve recently done a check-up for my eyes, turns out i have a lazy right eye that has problems focusing far and doesn’t adapt to the distance or does it very slowly, while the left one sees fine both distances and adapts. So it’s the left eye doing most of my far away vision and i see fine without glasses, however you realize that the right eye is being ‘assisted’ to call it that way. Luckily, because my right eye doesn’t move to focus on things randomly, that means it won’t damage itself in order to REALLY need glasses (yay!).
Besides wearing glasses, a retired doctor who used to teach at a medicine university gave me a hint about a possibility to repair my eyes with no need for surgery or wearing glasses, but doesn’t work for just about everyone. Tested it last summer once and it seems to be doing the trick for me. Do you know those Tibetan monks practicing yoga / whatever? They have an exercise where they spend 30 minutes staring in the direction of the setting sun when it’s already orange (not directly). They move their eyes in an ellyptical shape around the sun (don’t ever look directly at it) consistently. I’ll try practicing it again now that spring is here (gotta be outside for maximum effect, glazing can affect the incoming sun rays). Regarding my own experience, i know i tried it just once for @10-15 minutes, and 1-2 weeks later i could focus my eyes a little better on some smaller details further away i couldn’t do before.
No I fully agree. I am also interested in the eye topic. The FPS above 60 are a waste heck most new games on the cryengine are hard coded to 60fps. IE: Star Citizen, Fallout 3. I don t fully understand that as to some gamers its really important to post what their PC can preform at.
With all that being said I have recently been testing a 1024x768 resolution with star conflict and now fully understand how Takamina and LiStick(Yuuki) have such good aim(Youtube proves they do this). Also probably how iminurbase was also such a good shot and people claimed aimboting. Reducing that resolution makes aiming in star conflict 100% easier. In all tiers now interceptors regardless of their skill are dying to me very quickly. With that being said it makes the game play look less awesome and video’s produced by it also suck.
4:3 resolution has other upsides aswell, besides the lower resolution; I played more 4:3 back then, and enjoyed CO a lot more;
You gotta keep in mind, the distance from the cursor to the aimpoint and its relative movement are normalized, no matter what your resolution is; basicly it means, you can reach anything faster, since your movement of the mouse has similar effect in both axes, while producing way rounder numbers. in 16:9, however, its almost double x vs. y;
i found that out when i did my own movement code, and realized, people with other aspect ratios reported they could not turn as fast.
finally, its easier to have aiming help, which - according to the post of kosty somewhere else - uses the positions of the markers; in the 2d overlay, in 4:3 and lower res, its way easier to move the crosshair above the marker. larger pixels also ensure larger markers (percentually). i still rather enjoy HD res.
The modern 60FPS lock is also an engine decision; this way, your game engine and your rendering use very similar numbers, decreasing the chance for timing errors, as most engines clock their game logic in these numbers, 16Hz (RTS), 30-32 Hz, 48, 60 or 120Hz, depending on the engine. 120Hz BF4 servers are sometimes laggy, because either clients or the server cant keep the simulation steady, and actually faster engine also favors lower ping users with higher framerates - I know that most game engines, like unity or cry nowadays, have by default the goal of 60fps rendering; after all, higher frequencies can also lead to sudden slowdowns which again create timing errors, and using max fps possible on the card can also uselessly overheat it. so it is quite magic to make it perfect.
^ stuff about aspect ratio
Yes, aspect ratio and resolution affect personal performance, just like you said (not just fps, but your own twitch reactions). Remember when i used to play Eagle-B 2 years back? I had a 16:10 monitor and a lower resolution and you remember my performance. Now i have a much higher resolution and 16:9 ratio and feel the difference. Also, this autumn i bought 3x 16:9 monitors and played SC on all 3, but had to give up. First of all, it lowered my VFOV tremendously. Indeed i was rotating up and down quickly because it was fast to move my mouse from top to bottom. But from left and right, i had to move the mouse across all 3 screens instead of just the middle one. I don’t know what the devs were thinking, but this game does not support triple monitors, altough it is listed on the widescreen gaming forums as supporting it ( http://www.wsgf.org/forums/ ). Sure, you can activate them, but your performance plummets the moment you do, plus you get that horrible fish-eye effect. I’ve tested triple monitors in Planetside 2, i can activate them no problem, but omfg the render distance for players and vehicles is turned down to zero or 50m (very close), so in that case, i also call PS2 not supporting triple screen setup (also fish-eye effect, but it makes more sense for that game because it’s a FPS compared to SC which is a 3PS).
Regarding resolution, yes, a lower resolution registers hits against enemy ships far far better, and you can see this in other games as well. I’m not reducing my res because i don’t want to play with paper ships, but i am well aware it would boost my aim an insane amount. It’s harder to explain, but imagine the hit detection also being affected by this.
Imagine you aim at a ship dead-center, but with a weapon that has some spread. I’ll explain in squares - imagine your weapon’s spread has a radius of 3 squares (5 diameter). Center square is center of your aim and the enemy ship is located there. When you shoot, your gun shoot’s randomly anywhere in the 5 diameter radius. I’ll pick the left square next to the center, let’s say the weapon shoots there. The one more left of that is the edge of the weapon’s spread. With max res, the game sees the ship in the middle, your shot to the left of it and the left most square empty. If you tone the res down enough (and remember the size of your screen is the same in inches), the crosshair remains almost the same, but the ship will become blurry and because of the bad details it will now cover the center square, plus all 4 around it (1 left, 1 top, 1 bottom, 1 right). So if your shot goes exactly in the same square as before (1 left from center), it would register a hit because that’s where the game now sees the ship also. Basically aiming became 5 times easier because it now covers 5 squares instead of one.
I hope you can understand what i just wrote xD
Glad you like it!
…
There is another article on that site, dealing with interlacing, which also sheds some light on motion and how tvs/cinemas display frames.
I would recommend you back to read that up, since cameras seem to be your thing.
Well, yeah, I did (have to) test my eyes in the lab in med university. Even stuff like receptor resolution, color resolution, etc. Turned out even tho I am short sighted, I got an extremely brilliant picture, one eye already with rare, the other with an exceptional resolution and perfect color differentiation; has also some downsides, as my practical shortsight is only a bit (I do not need glasses mostly), probably because of the resolution, but collapses if I have high contrast light ambience; Sucks since I would need to constantly put on and off glasses. When I get older, I will probably have to switch suddenly to high diuptrine glasses 
Still, the ~30Hz is more or less just a general “rule”, not really how it works; I think thats the thing all these articles try to explain. Why you notice changes above 30 Hz is less to the flicker-rate, or frame-rate, but has to do more with how the brain builds the picture, or what you actually are looking at. Basicly nobody can see 30 full pictures a second, at the same time, everybody sees way more, but you probably will notice missing frames if you go below a certain point, especially because it breaks the illusion of continous motion in the picture. it is also a continuous flow of information, unlike in computers, where you always build a whole “frame” and send it to the screen to be flickered a couple times. Hard to come to a conclusion tho, since we have “unknowns” all over the place how exactly it works down to the finest detail, certain area in cellular mechanics are even nowaday blanks, not to speak of the whole neural networking thing going on in the brain.
Focusing tricks I also do, because you train your tiny muscles involved in the eye a good trick for me was to get used to look away from the screen every now and then, while also changing my overall position, so they dont get tired too fast, which sounds simple, but actually, was desperately needed for me as coder, as i spend most of my time radiating my face with some screens. As direct sun light can overload or even (through a lense effect) burn into your eye, the trick more or less I guess basicly involves only a light source, it does not have to be the sun I suppose.
It is however always humbling, that thousands of years of tradition have led these monks to discover this.
…since cameras seem to be your thing. - they used to be, maybe in the future i’ll get back to them, have a good storage of older artistic shots
Focusing tricks I also do, because you train your tiny muscles involved in the eye
As direct sun light can overload or even (through a lense effect) burn into your eye, the trick more or less I guess basicly involves only a light source, it does not have to be the sun I suppose. - yes and no, you’re supposed to do it when the sun’s power is already low enough to not hurt your eyes - also, your skin doesn’t tan in contact with a light bulb