Before the lag sets in say just after you first go to riverwood what is the FPS on the PS3. I locked my FPS at 30 on the PC version and it showed me that the PS3 does not run at 30...ever. What do you think it runs at, at best?

Were you using the same display panel for the PC and PS3 visual comparison?

Not saying it gets anywhere near the 30 it should run at but it can be smooth at times so I suppose it does.

I didn't use any monitoring software for the PS3 version I was just using my eyes Sorry yes I did use the same display 22'' 1080p monitor 60HZ, but I played them one after the other and I couldn't play the PS3 version because it felt jerky this was a few months ago. This leads me to believe it has never seen 30FPS in its life.

He asked if you used the same display not monitoring software.

I'm sure some online performance vids have showed it does run at 30fps when it's behaving, but frequently dips down when it's put under any sort of strain.

These should give some information on at what FPS the PS3 version runs at -

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-skyrim
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-ps3-skyrim-lag

As seen in the second link, they actually record 0 FPS at one point, something which has never happened before in any of Digital Foundry's game performance tests.

Yeah thanks for pointing that out I'm doing three tasks at once and completely failed

Yes I have seen such videos but it doesn't seem to ever stay at 30FPS for more than 3-5 seconds when the character is moving.

Check out the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXGL9FvfCv0. Even during the opening the PS3 struggles to stay at 30fps.

exactly, and the why is that your PC monitor will always give a better visual quality than the TV your PS3 is plugged into but if you had run your PC into the TV as well it would be a fairer comparison.

Yeah sorry about that haha on my part

With online vids you are always at the mercy of the maker, unless Sony include a check FPS app in a firmware update or you have access to a developer console, displaying actual FPS will be difficult.

25 FPS but can get below 20 in certain situations...i bet a 16mb save would get down into single digits sometimes

Interesting note: Skyrim on PS3 is battling Oregon Trail on Wii for the worst framerate. (it reads like hyperbole and sarcasm but it's totally true...and now I'm sad again)

I'd actually like to see a similar test with Oblivion as that rarely ever holds a smooth framerate for me. From slowdown when things gt hectic to frequent small pauses while it loads areas etc, it's always a bit jittery.

even if no lag, the framerate & gameplay has a sluggish feeling to it, DB sanctuaries, thieves guild hideout, caves & dungeons with lots of lighting & weather effects....once u get into 10mb & beyond u can kiss exploring outside skyrim on foot or horseback goodbye... the lag & sluggishness & freezing gets frustrating after awhile

Isnt the ps3 version running V-Sync? Clearly the 360 version isnt. I wouldnt mind a bit of tearing if it meant a smoother framerate. I mean, look at the comparison from lens of truth. Which would you prefer?

Yes it is. In fact, all Bethesda games on PS3 have been v-synced. This is down to actual hardware inside the PS3 that they use to do this, obviously so the downside of this is a lower framerate even before the amount of actual proper programming is factored in.

Bethesda should have given us an option to turn the v-sync on and off, like the PS3 version of BioShock 1 let us do.

Other developers like Naughty Dog are able to have both v-sync and a great framerate because of the amount of detailed programming that they put into their games.

I was tempted to record it on a camcorder then import it into a video editor to calculate the actual frame-rate.
Wonder if any of you have tried anything similar and compared them to similar games on your system?

- Dave

I haven't done so, but I'll take DigitalFoundry's and lensoftruths figures (via fps anolyzer) for reality and have certainly felt and seen the difference between Skyrim's performance and the performance of my other games, including those that do maintain a stable 30 fps with only minor, occasional fps dips if any at all. I've got quite the eye and feel for framerates and can guarantee you Skyrim is one of the most poorly-performing PS3 games I've played, in terms of framerate. Most of the time, Skyrim is fluctuating somewhere between 20 and 30 (never stays at 30... just manages to hit it for a second or on its pendulum course between ~25-30 in less demanding outdoor areas and never at all in places like the fall forest, many dungeons, and the foggy marshes near Solitude where it instead goes between the mid teens and ~25, if lucky), sometimes it dips into the mid teens, and it only ever stabilizes at 30 inside very small interiors such as houses, and even that not in all small interiors (for whatever reason, the typical general good store Riverwood or Winterhold style typically have fps issues).

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was questioning DigitalFoundry. I just meant that I'd like to see if it was just as slow on my system. I don't seem to be getting the lag that a lot of other users are getting after 230+ hours, level 41, and a 10MB save file. Besides, it'd be nice to do it on occasion to watch how much it slows based on the file size. Know what I mean?

I wonder how much of a difference it's making on my machine that I didn't start playing until after Christmas when I bought the game.

- Dave

I know what you mean and that's always been a tricky thing... the long-term memory complications and the like seem to be inconsistent in their severity or even appearance and I can't quite understand why (someone else may have an explanation). However, I don't think anyone's initial performance will deviate much from what's going on in DF's anolysis as they made their comparisons based on new characters. After that, however, we range from unplayable to mildly irritating in differing grievances.

Hang on a sec. Aren't FPS dictated by the output device used? Most TV's don't do over 30 frames per second do they? I always thought that TV's were locked at 25-30 FPS no matter what.

FPS limitations are placed by display devices, yes, but the usual standard for any TVs I'm familiar with (admittedly I'm only familiar with modern HDTVs) is 60 (Hz = fps capacity). I've never heard of any, at least not modern TVs, locked at 30 (though I do believe they exist) and any locked at 25 are just trash you should throw out or return to whatever archaic era in screen technology they came from. Rendering hardware and efficiency of its use/game code are the deciding factor in what can actually be rendered, the TVs just need the Hz capacity to accommodate it... much like screen resolution.

Many newer TVs (not mine) do better than 30, but if I remember right NTSC is 29.97 FPS. Mine is a 62-inch DLP (with a $200 bulb that burns out every 2-3 years). Big, bright screen though.

Regardless of what it is, playing at all game across the board should be in 60fps 1080p. I should be mandatory by next console generation.

Isn't it that 1/2 Hz = FPS; 25 FPS from 50Hz and 30 FPS from 60Hz? Although aparently 50Hz has better quality over 60. I thought it was all a signal based thing, you know PAL and NTSC.