Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1468151)

Graal is running at 20 fps and tries to keep that framerate as best as possible, if one frame is taking slightly more time it will wait less time until the next frame. The engine supports unlimited frame rate, that mode is used for Graal3D, but for normal Graal it will not be good because animations and scripts are made for 20 fps, server-side scripts are 10 fps, and if it's running at unlimited fps the animations and scripts can act out of sync - 21 fps means the animation is stopping at some frame which looks jumpy.

Originally Posted by -Ramirez- (Post 1468222)

I don't know why you even needed to post this when it's so obvious to begin with, but maybe now they'll believe it.

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva (Post 1468226)

Graal can quite obviously run under 20fps. What exactly is the problem? All Stefan has explained is Graal can run higher than 20fps.

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1468151)

The next Graal version will be more optimized, it's using DirectX9 on Windows, is fully C++ (current version is still some Pascal/Delphi), and is made to run fast enough on iPhone (optimized particle engine, removed some unneeded code, scripting engine is having less overhead) so it should be faster for normal playing as well.

Originally Posted by -Ramirez- (Post 1468250)

The problem is you not grasping concepts. You acted as if it's a big mystery as to why a program could possibly run at less than the speed needed for normal operation. This shows a lack of understanding of basic computer concepts. I've already explained all this anyway.

Yes, he said Graal CAN go over 20 FPS, but is currently not designed to do that in non-3D (aka what we all use, you know). So let me put this more directly: this information isn't relevant to what you failed to understand.

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva (Post 1468491)

Please, explain how Graal can never go under 20fps, and why a way to show FPS is not needed, and I'll leave it alone.

Originally Posted by -Ramirez- (Post 1468514)

I have not said any such thing. YOU were the one that were showing surprise by the fact that a program could run under optimal, solely because you misunderstood what Stefan originally said. Is that clear to you yet? If not, I give up, because you truly have problems understanding what's said.

Originally Posted by -Ramirez- (Post 1468514)

I have not said any such thing. YOU were the one that were showing surprise by the fact that a program could run under optimal, solely because you misunderstood what Stefan originally said. Is that clear to you yet? If not, I give up, because you truly have problems understanding what's said.

Originally Posted by -Ramirez- (Post 1468514)

I have not said any such thing. YOU were the one that were showing surprise by the fact that a program could run under optimal, solely because you misunderstood what Stefan originally said. Is that clear to you yet? If not, I give up, because you truly have problems understanding what's said.

Originally Posted by xXziroXx (Post 1468685)

And Dusty, ever considered that Stefan might have meant that it optimally always run at 20 fps when he said what he did?