i agree! it was a very strange decision. Time Trial is easier on the CPU yet Single Race was capped at 60 FPS (with A.I. on the track it would be more CPU intensive). in the case of Zone, it might have gotten a 30 FPS cap due to a GPU bottleneck rather than a CPU bottleneck (since they are beautifully rendered) but i'm not sure. it may have been capable of the full 60 FPS.
the question isn't why they used a 30 FPS cap, the question is why they used it for some modes and not for others. Single Race is more intensive than Time Trial yet the former got the 60 FPS cap and the latter got the 30 FPS.
devs cap games at 20, 30, and 60 as a multiple of the refresh rate of the screen. so if the refresh rate is 60 (which is true for the vast majority of screens in use today) 30 FPS would mean you get a new frame for every other refresh of your screen. it looks smoother than running at a frame rate that is not a multiple of your refresh rate (say 33 FPS or 28 FPS). if you can maintain a solid 48 FPS it might be better to cap it at 60 rather than 30. this decision also depends on how frames are rendered in the game engine. some games work well with a 30 FPS cap while others don't. genre is also a consideration. in the case of racing games, a fluctuating frame rate is a big no no. but it is a lot more acceptable in a third person shooter. and big FPS drops can be acceptable in a strategy game.
a 30 FPS cap that never falters may have been a good idea for WipEout Pure for modes that cannot maintain a consistent 60 FPS. but the mode with likely the most FPS fluctuations was the only mode that kept the 60 FPS cap. very strange.
i looked into improving the A.I. for Pure but it's not as straight forward as it is for Pulse. i'll probably look at the files again in the future. it should be possible.





Reply With Quote