Doom Eternal can hit 1k FPS courtesy of the id Tech 7 engine | Hacker News Reader

Doom Eternal can hit 1k FPS courtesy of the id Tech 7 engine

techspot.com

16 pointscdcro17 comments

I'm guessing they're capping at 1k, because that's the resolution of the millisecond timer?

I occasionally still run 3dMark03 to compare my modern PC's raw performance to one of the first rigs I built (150k now vs. 3.1k then), and getting more than 1k fps seems possible?

I was just wondering why there's a cap at all when hardware is factored out. Your guess makes sense. If true, this seems like a puff piece that doesn't really mean much technically.

"Windows 10 can hit 16.8 million terabytes of RAM courtesy of the 64-bit architecture"

There are certain kinds of internal timers in games that end up locked to a base tickrate; e.g. physics behaviors. While it's possible to allow adjustment of those rates in many cases, it comes at the price of lowering reproducability and behavioral stability.

As well, it's possible to make everything smooth by adding a buffer and interpolating, but then you've added a buffer, so you have latency.

So games that specify a hard cap are usually aiming for a low-latency experience where the highest framerate is the base tickrate for the gameplay, and lower framerates are sampling from within that data.

I think a lot of game engines really aren't that robust. Bethesda's engine is notorious for breaking the laws of physics when your FPS is above 60

One fun example from dark souls 2 on pc: If your FPS was set to 60 (from the consoles ~30fps) your weapons would degrade twice as fast apparently due to weapon durability loss being counted per frame that your weapon was in contact with a wall, floor, corpse, etc.

That’s cool and all and just in time for the huge halo cards from AMD and Nvidia and whatever gaming card is coming from Raja and Intel but I am just so stoked to play the game. I am very leery about them slowing down the player but introducing this power strafing move and all the parkour stuff but it should be amazing overall given all the footage I’ve seen.

This is incredible.

It's impressive enough to draw a single, static, flat shaded unlit triangle at 1k fps. It wasn't that long ago that this wasn't possible.

I can't imagine how much yak shaving went into this. There are so many little things that would have to get changed. Is there a write-up to read or a talk to watch?

I think you're misunderstanding the headline.

The article states that it is merely the engine that is capable of hitting 1,000 fps, but their test systems have only hit 400 fps. In other words, the game simply has some future proofing.

This is relevant because there are games that can exceed the supported framerates of their engines. As mentioned in another comment, if Skyrim runs at over 60 fps, then the physics engine breaks down.

Anybody knows what's the frame rate of reality?

Infinite. Reality is discrete so it's continuous.

How can we know for sure?

Uhhhh... doesn't discreteness actually mean that it's not continuous?

About 1.86e43 fps, based on the Planck unit of time.

Does this also mean, that that's the smallest unit of time?

I've heard something like that from a non-physics person ten years ago, later then asked a person who actually studied Physics about it, and he claimed it was bullshit?

Pulling from Wikipedia, the interpretation is probably "our current models don't make meaningful predictions at shorter intervals" as opposed to "the framerate of reality".

Specifically, the Planck Length is described as:

It is the smallest distance about which current, experimentally corroborated, models of physics can make meaningful statements.[2] At such small distances, the conventional laws of macro-physics no longer apply, and even relativistic physics requires special treatment.

Here's the article and citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length#cite_note-3

And a Planck time unit is the time it takes light to travel that distance.

So in essence, distances are basically discrete units thanks to the Planck Length? (Doesn't this have the profound implication that the Coastline Paradox[0] becomes theoretically solveable?)

Naturally, this doesn't necessarily imply that time, too, has to be discretely divisable, so I think I can understand how the person who studied physics sees it...

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox

EDIT: On the Coastline Paradox, it's stated on the Wikipedia page (I had just thought, and linked, without reading):

> "As the length of a fractal curve always diverges to infinity, if one were to measure a coastline with infinite or near-infinite resolution, the length of the infinitely short kinks in the coastline would add up to infinity.[3] However, this figure relies on the assumption that space can be subdivided into infinitesimal sections. The truth value of this assumption—which underlies Euclidean geometry and serves as a useful model in everyday measurement—is a matter of philosophical speculation, and may or may not reflect the changing realities of "space" and "distance" on the atomic level (approximately the scale of a nanometer). For instance, the Planck length, many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom, is proposed as the smallest measurable unit possible in the universe."

EDIT2: > "smallest measurable unit possible" ...oh no... we still have to go deeper!

1.86e43 fps is a lot of frames...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com