
Doom Eternal can hit 1k FPS courtesy of the id Tech 7 engine - cdcro
https://www.techspot.com/news/84216-doom-eternal-can-hit-1000-fps-courtesy-tech.html
======
klingonopera
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?

~~~
_bxg1
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"

~~~
Rebelgecko
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

~~~
s_m_t
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.

------
gigatexal
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.

------
nwallin
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?

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
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.

------
makz
Anybody knows what's the frame rate of reality?

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

~~~
klingonopera
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?

~~~
munchbunny
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](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.

~~~
klingonopera
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](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!

