Truth about "91" fps in the new call of duty

[quzR]

Ok so this happens every year (since they removed the console from cod, what was that, mw2?, I stopped playing the new ones) and capped the game at "91" fps.

Everyone starts complaining and the same thing come up every time, "Oh why is it 91 fps its such an arbitrary number, why not pick a more used frame rate such as 60, 120 or 144". 

In fact 91 is actually not arbitrary at all and the other ones actually are (please note i'm not saying 91 is good i'm simply explaining why they use it).

 

To explain we need to go back to the basics, the engine (please also note, they never "change" the engine, it has always been a modified version of the "id Tech 3" or "quake" engine and every time that they say its a "new engine"

they really mean they added new stuff source:here). The id Tech 3 engine is quite old now however for most of the underlying parts of the CoD games they will keep the code the same, meaning "bugs" from engine will always be there (why would they re-write the code if its already been written). As the fps part of the game is a integral in the engine then the "bugs" from way back in the day will still be here.

 

The id Tech 3 engine's fps part works with integer (real whole numbers) values that are derived from 1000/x, this means that the engine will ONLY run at "fps's" which are integers from 1000/x (x being any integer below 1000 i.e. 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc....). If "x" is a number which would make 1000/x not an integer the division still happens but the number is rounded up to the nearest FPS that DOES allow the division to be an integer. These numbers being 500, 333, 250, 200, 125, 91, 83, etc... . This is why 91 is not a random number which IW made up, its how the engine works!

 

FYI, IW actually set the FPS to be 85 (i actually don't know where they make this value up from, it makes no sense) however as the engine rounds to the next which is 91.

It may be due to the fact some framerates cause bugs in the engine, at: 

125 = jump further

250 = jump higher

333 = lots of bugs, some fall damage decrease, you jump A LOT higher/further

 

 

Here are some screenshots of the proof of rounding, FPS is in the bottom right hand corner of the screen, in the top left is what I set the FPS to be.

You can see 240, 60 and 85 round up but the 250 just stays 250. (shows capping to 60 would make it 62/63 anyway, also 120 would round to 125 and 144 would round to 166)

 

 

Source: General knowledge of how cod4 works (played for ages (Promod = best game ever))

Source: Quake engine 

Source: Cod4 modding wiki

 

 

 

Edit: Pressed Post to early, hadn't finished writing it.

Edit: spelling

Edit: Added some more explaining

[TheKDub]

though on consoles ill bet its still 30

[Jerakl]

though on consoles ill bet its still 30

lel

 

 

The day that they redo the engine is the day CoD could be good again. I still ike AW though.

[TheRetiredSlave]

though on consoles ill bet its still 30

 

Actually the CoD series has pretty much always targeted 60 FPS on the consoles (I think).. Unlike others, they actually know that framerate matters.

(still not a fan of CoD, and I'm definitely not buying their games)

[TheKDub]

Actually the CoD series has pretty much always targeted 60 FPS on the consoles (I think).. Unlike others, they actually know that framerate matters.

(still not a fan of CoD, and I'm definitely not buying their games)

then at reduced resolution instead? :3

[PerfectTemplar]

Singleplayer is uncapped fps. So it's possible to uncap the fps in the engine.

[quzR]

Singleplayer is uncapped fps. So it's possible to uncap the fps in the engine.

1000/1 = 1000

Here is your "uncapped"

[PerfectTemplar]

1000/1 = 1000

Here is your "uncapped"

I think it's safe to call it uncapped. Unless you can manage to get it to 1000 fps.

 

Technically it's not uncapped but cmon, clearly the 91 fps was there decision to make and a number they pulled out of their arse.

 

I recall Black ops 2 not having those issues relating to movement at 125 fps+ in multiplayer. And yeah, they're using the same engine, that doesn't mean issues can't be fixed.

[quzR]

I think it's safe to call it uncapped. Unless you can manage to get it to 1000 fps.

 

Technically it's not uncapped but cmon, clearly the 91 fps was there decision to make and a number they pulled out of their arse.

The whole point of this post was to say that they didn't "decide" to use 91, they "chose" 85.

I'm not agreeing with what they do, just saying what has happened.

 

I can't take seeing anther confused person.

[Swndlr]

very helpful to know actually. glad someone made this thread tbh though if there are known glitches that occur when the frame rate is capped at higher rates, then they should jump onto it and fix the bugs, so bench markers can find out how far the game will push their systems.

[ComradeHX]

So basically CoD4 becomes AW if you set fps to 333?

[quzR]

So basically CoD4 becomes AW if you set fps to 333?

no? I was using cod4 SS because there is a console to show my point.

[ComradeHX]

no? I was using cod4 SS because there is a console to show my point.

The joke.

You.

[MrTomnus]

then at reduced resolution instead? :3

No, actually Call of Duty has always been the one game that's ran at 1080p 60fps on a console when there's one person playing on a system. In splitcreen multiplayer the framerate goes down to 30 - that's the only exception. It's simply because the engine is actually pretty well written so that makes it quite easy to run.