I think it looks worse. Part of "cinematic" experience is the traditional 24fps of films. Many TVs have a setting (motion interpolation - which seems to be ON by default nowadays) that creates a "soap opera effect", and I personally hate it. Some friends like it though, so everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Looks like several movies were released in high frame rate, but I remember The Hobbit (2012)'s 48fps actually caused some movie-goers to vomit.

I agree that it doesn't look all that different to me. It doesn't totally destroy anything the way high frame rate destroys live action though. I could see the technique being put to more judicious and deliberate use by studios, but also see that it's largely unnecessary. Keep high frame rates for gaming, and maybe sports (so I hear, I don't really watch sports).

While definitely aeronautically impressive, what makes this a real visual treat is the frame rate alignment with the propeller making it look like it's not spinning at all (when it absolutely is). Awesome on many levels.

I'm a game graphics coder, going way back to PS2 and Dreamcast. This video overstates things a bit... Somehow, with a little bit of programming, memory is unlimited, bus transfer speeds are infinite, drawing 10,000 triangles onto a single pixel is worthwhile and doesn't result in swim, etc.

The real version of this video would have said that they have new procedural LOD and batching technology that minimizes the content creator's work to get into game at a good frame rate.

Your video, Captain Disillusion - Frame Rate, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Wow, that is some intergalactic quality frame rate.

Holy shit, the frame rate!

My god... the frame rate!

There's a weird ripple effect going on in the top left corner of the window when it passes. Can anyone explain what that is? I'm guessing something to do with frame-rate of the camera vs speed of the passing train? Or would you see it with the naked eye?

Wow, those pixels and that frame rate.

Wow, could use an improvement in the frame rate.

The improvements overall in 2.6 is pretty good (much better frame rate among them), and Star Marine is fun enough. It actually is playable, though until 3.0, there isn't much to do in the Persistent Universe.

People give Star Citizen lots of flack for long development time and the like, but most developers/publishers wouldn't even announce they were working on the game until it was where Star Citizen is now. Most games are in development for a few years before they start showing off stuff, then give a year or two more on a game of this scope. The only other thing I can think of is CD Project Red's Cyberpunk 2077, which was announced before development really started in earnest (though they had a good team working on it when it was announced in 2013)... and that title won't be out until late 2017 or more likely 2018 (I'm not expecting more than a release window announcement in 2017 saying some quarter in 2018). Now to be fair, people aren't spending thousands on Cyberpunk ahead of release as they are with Star Citizen, though I think most people stopped at $60 tops, and there are valid issues/concerns with funding the way Star Citizen is funded, but I'll give it a chance. I'll dip back in after each major update... 3.0 or so is where it starts getting interesting, and it's nice seeing a developer be more open about what's going on while it's being worked on.

Come the end of 2017 or mid 2018, if we don't have Squadron 42 and most of the Protestant Universe, then I'll start having doubts. I'd expect it to be wrapped up and in maintenance mode with adding things like Elite Dangerous does by that point... and walking around in ED will likely take another expensive DLC.

If you have the specs necessary to run it, you can download it and play it for yourself here. Warning: it's huge (over 7GB)

This project was an experiment to see how much geometry and textures we could push in UE4 on modern PC hardware, and as a result, it is fairly system intensive. We recommend 16GB of RAM and at least an Nvidia GTX760 or AMD equivalent as the minimum requirements.

For more fluid frame-rate, and/or screen resolutions above 1920x1080 we recommend at least an Nvidia GTX970, or AMD equivalent or higher (2GB of VRAM for Low texture settings / 3GB for Medium texture settings / 4GB for High texture settings / 6GB or higher for EPIC texture settings)

Also, Terrain displacement is a very system heavy feature. Please note that enabling this feature on a GPU slower than an Nvidia GTX980 Ti may cause a significant drop in frame-rate.

My understanding is that the voltage being sent to the LED headlights is passed through a Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) driver that creates a pulsing effect so that the LED receives a consistent average voltage over time and allows for the control of the LED's perceived brightness. If there is a mismatch between the PWM frequency and the frame rate of the camera, you will see pulsing or flickering. You see the same kind of effect sometimes when a camera records a helicopter and the rotors appear to be stationary like here.

At least I'm pretty sure that's what's going on.

Amazing frame rate on that video.