News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The 64 Milliseconds Manifesto. Parent comment

Re:The 64 Milliseconds Manifesto by loup-vaillant on Tuesday September 24, 2019 @03:13PM (#21063551)
60 frames per second.

- 16ms: one frame

- 32ms: two frames

- 64ms: four frames

So it's really 1, 2, 4. Maybe we could have 1, 2, 3, but I'm guessing the "48ms Manifesto" wouldn't sound too great: they probably preferred to have a nice power of two.

And if I may, I think the manifesto is basically right. Something I have to wait several frames for before it reacts feels sluggish. When I type a character, I want it now, not 5 frames later. When I move the mouse, I want it in sync, not lagging behind my hand. Touch screens are even more exacting. They only feel perfect when latency falls under one millisecond. But that last one isn't achievable in practice on current stock hardware…

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The 64 Milliseconds Manifesto by userulluipeste on Tuesday September 24, 2019 @03:45PM (#21063824)
Well then... why 60 frames per second? This isn't obvious to me and I presume to others using today's tech too.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The 64 Milliseconds Manifesto by dvdkon on Tuesday September 24, 2019 @04:01PM (#21064009)
Because most displays today run at 60Hz. It's a nice metric, as it provides a useful coarseness for measuring response times.
[ Parent | on HN ]