[REQUEST] Developer to set FPS

Maybe it's just that my game isn't set up for DT correctly. I've gone through, and there are a few things which I've skipped over because I felt they weren't needed... it's just the timer and the frame rate independent physics that don't seem to match.

[Ashley]

Just thinking I could experiment with a non-adaptive half-vsync rate mode that's only supported with high-resolution timers in the next beta. Perhaps it could be split in to off / mobile only / all devices, so you can leave it uncapped on desktop... but IMO it'd still be annoying to have a really powerful phone like the Nexus 5 (which can outperform some of the desktop machines in our office!) and have the game capped at 30 FPS to ensure a better experience on weaker devices... if I had a phone like that I'd want it to be on 60 FPS!

@Ashley,

This is an excellent move, thank you VERY much!

[Ashley]

Aren't you worried about people with expensive, high-end phones getting an unnecessarily degraded experience?

[Arima]

If this appears as a feature, it would be nice to have manual control over it via events. That way, we could do something like leave the framerate uncapped at first, analyze the frame rate as the player finishes the first level (the JavaScript would likely have finished compiling by then), then based on that data set the frame rate for the next level, or have a manual setting in the options that the player could select.

Btw, is it a possibility that a trigger could be implemented that fires when the JavaScript has finished compiling? Often when I do performance tests I'm left to wonder if a framerate problem is because of that or something else ("Has it finished compiling yet? Uh... Maybe?").

What @Arima said.

When everyone owns a Nexus 5 then I might be less inclined use this feature. My target audience, when not using desktops, will most likely use handsets with �average� processing power. The option to switch the frame-rate in-game if demanded by the user or by a carefully written algorithm would be awesome and would give the player the best possible experience for their hardware.

Well if it's controllable via events, then you could add graphical options to enable/disable it.

That way the end user can have control over it, like most big PC games.
The developer can include it along with options to reduce particles and such as well.


I just think the option for it to be there for the dev is important as smooth gameplay is just as important as good gameplay. Lower graphical settings also increases potential userbase.

That and it's not always good to force a device to have a constant full load to process.Thndr2013-11-10 20:14:57

in my experience people who are willing to pay for a game are usually people who own state of the art phones.just look at the percentage of people buying software in ios and in android.(where android phones vary anywhere from 90E to 800E).personally if i wanted to sell a game i would follow the road of rayman. awesome graphics. even if the game play is not perfect on your game, eye candy always attracts attention in a crowded market. and unless you have a killer idea of a game that requires minimum resources and it will be playable everywhere ,i have to agree with @ashley . i would love to see him spend his limited time to create a way for us to export to the new xbone and ps4 .i want to have a quadrillion objects with physics running at 60fps instead of having to worry if ludei will wake up happy tomorrow and give me another 2fps ,so my game will be playable! i want my overclocked hd7890 to smell like burning transistors from over stressing with c2 :)

@Roccinio
the problem with your theory is that many PS360 games run at 30fps, not only that there are PS4 One games that will continue to run at 30fps.

it's not about running down on power. No matter HOW much power becomes more at the disposal; saving 30FPS to increase eye candy, improving physics results will have far higher graphical value that just rendering.

While some people are proponenting to run less for syncing developement. t's also possible to use the all that juicy render time to just do BETTER rendering.

Take movies like Beowolf in full 3D render. Those werent rendered and run at real time. To achieve all those effects the computer takes more time. So if we slot 30fps towards more light flare, shaders, bumpmapping, normal mapping lighting, shadows. the game graphics will BURST alive. But beacause we are controlleing are FPS. the FPS is not jumping up and down to break the flow of the game or game play.

There are very good reasons to run at lower FPS than just to make sure weaker hardware can run the game.

i agree to disagree with you my friend.although you make a valid point you are only seeing it from one side.let me explain.the reason a game company caps a game at 30fps has to do with hardware limitations vs the result they want to present to the consumer(graphics ,a.i etc).what most people in here fail to realize is that we(construct users) are not creating the next forza or assasins creed game where we have to squeeze every last transistor in there to even achieve the 30fps.we are creating 2d games that can barely scratch an i7 with a decent gpu even if we put 1000 animated objects in there.THAT is the difference that @ashley is trying to tell us for so long.html5 has so many shortcomings since it is not low level specific code that they are resolved with brute force.him being a visionary he adopted something far ahead of his time with a calculated risk of pc's and especially mobile getting stronger by the month.soon the discussion here will be for historians to analyse.and that is the reason i am asking him to support the next gen.mobiles as to this moment are no go for construct users.why? because we cant make money out of them(ad support,fps issues,have to rely on 3rd party software).consoles and pc on the other hand offer specific hardware and input controls so it is very easy to be consistent in what you offer your customer.Ashley being a bushiness man (as i am ,and we both have to make a living)will never admit out loud that html5 right now is not a viable solution for mobile gaming if you want to target mid to low spec devices.but if you read between the lines in his posts you can see that he is implying that (and i respect him for that).bottom line. don't confuse 500 men teams with 20 years of low level programming experience working for 2 years on a game trying to achieve 30 or 60 fps for your pleasure with us.anything we make on c2 will run 60fps on everything from a ps3 and up.