8 ms·

Carmack: Next-gen games will still target 30 fps

43 points by Pr0 14y ago

bradhe 14y ago
And it makes perfect sense for them to do so! They are optimizing for gameplay.
- Negitivefrags 14y ago
  I think you have that backwards. If they were optimizing for gameplay they would sacrifice graphical fidelity until they hit 60fps. Targeting 30fps means they want to sacrifice gameplay for graphical effects.
  - teamonkey 14y ago
    Not just graphical effects: more NPCs and gameplay entities on screen, better AI, better physics, etc. In terms of trade-offs, 60fps is pretty much always the first thing to be sacrificed unless it's REALLY important, like in a twitch shooter or racing game. The truth is that for most games 30fps is not a deal-breaker for the majority of people. If even a significant minority of players cared, the intensely focus-test-led games industry would follow.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  That seems to be exactly what they are not optimizing for. Lowering your standards to 30Hz lets you crank graphical fanciness and engine features, but at the expense of gameplay. There is a reason Quake players used to turn their graphics down to mud, even though they could play with better graphics at a lower fps.
  - bradhe 14y ago
    Targeting a lower frame rate also allows you to create a world that is mor interactive, a la the quote in the article, by including more game objects and other elements. Graphical quality is still important...hence the lower frame rate.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Those may make the game more enjoyable, and 30Hz may be the correct decision for that reason, but if those things come at the expense of fps they come at the expense of playability. It is undeniably a trade-off, which way you think is worth it is a subjective matter of course.
goldenchrome 14y ago
Thirty frames per second is depressing. I don't know how some people can stand it. I get annoyed when I notice the frames drop below forty five.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I suspect it matters less on consoles where you are trying to move/look around by pushing a tiny little joystick with your thumb. With a mouse though it is absolutely crippling. Even minecraft is painful at 30Hz with a mouse.
  - HelloMcFly 14y ago
    "Crippling" seems a bit hyperbolic. I'd reckon most PC gamers probably don't even notice, though once you start noticing it's hard to "unsee" it, but that doesn't make the game unplayable.
    - Torn 14y ago
      If any of you have Dark Souls on PC, with a decent graphics card, use the 'dsfix' mod to toggle between 30fps (the default) and an unlocked 60fps mode. It's night and day - suddenly the game becomes that much more fluid, and when toggling between the two, 30fps feels amazingly 'shuttered'.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      It to me is crippling to the point that I will stop playing the game. I used to play quake 3, particularly defrag, at 125Hz. 60Hz in normal games is fine to me but anything less feels like a nightmare where your legs turned into concrete and you can't turn your neck. It very honestly is an unpleasant experience to me.
  - jetti 14y ago
    I would play Diablo 3 on my laptop and desktop and would get around 10 to 20 FPS if I was lucky. So all this talk of 30 FPS is making me jealous!
viseztrance 14y ago
Insomniac Games (the developers of Ratchet and Clank, and the Resistance series) wrote a blog post some time ago about their decision to focus on using a lower framerate (all their previous games were 60 fps). http://www.insomniacgames.com/how-much-does-framerate-matter/ http://www.insomniacgames.com/how-much-does-framerate-matter... The summary is that prettier games get better reviews and sell off more copies.
- SyneRyder 14y ago
  This is also interesting in light of the backlash against The Hobbit, where people are objecting to the 48fps film rate (most movies are 24fps): http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-accidentally-invented-impressionist-filmmaking http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-acc... and the recent Doing Game Gravity Right post on HN, which shows that some games are still using physics equations that don't properly account for sub 60fps framerates: http://www.niksula.hut.fi/~hkankaan/Homepages/gravity.html http://www.niksula.hut.fi/~hkankaan/Homepages/gravity.html
  - mwilcox 14y ago
    There's a clear distinction between games and film here and that's the interactive element. Games react to player input and a lower framerate results in a pretty poor experience for players (especially in fast paced games like first person shooters). Add to this the fact that games have only recently been adding motion blur, a much higher framerate than film's rate of 24 is important for maintaining a fluid image. As someone who primarily plays first person shooters (TF2 and Quake Live), anything less than 60FPS looks awful to me, I play on a 120hz LCD.
- lloeki 14y ago
  Turn 10, of Forza Motorsport fame, refuses to compromise render rate in the series. Forza 2 to 4 (no idea for the 1st one, which ran on the original Xbox) are running at a steady 60fps (physics loops at 360ips), even in split screen (at the cost of a few effects, notably cockpit mirror reflections). Technically this really matters when getting the braking point at 400kph down Old Mulsanne. In terms of enjoyment, sure there's only reduced antialiasing, but driving down Bernese Alps close to the guard rail in Forza 4, especially with Kinect head tracking (not enough cash nor room for a triple-head+seat setup), is incredibly immersive. Forza Horizon though, developed by an all-star team[0] distinct from Turn 10, chose to drop to 30fps, notably for full AA, effects such as motion blur, and features like continuous day/night cycle and realistic car headlights (old bulbs look deliciously warm, and the chromatic effect on the crisp edge of xenon headlights is awesome). As realistic and gorgeous as Forza Horizon is, at speed it feels buttery smooth but not exactly crisp as Forza 4 is. It's like you'd take a low-resolution image and try to make it look nicer by using a blur filter, only this applies to time instead of space, and thus movement. [0]: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-forza-horizon http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-...
IheartApplesDix 14y ago
This makes me sad and angry. Carmack of all people should be pushing for more performance, but I guess he outgrew that after iD lost most of the market.
- krakensden 14y ago
  You didn't actually read the article, did you. Christ: Games developed for the next-generation of consoles will still target a performance of 30 frames per second, claims id Software co-founder John Carmack. Taking to Twitter, the industry veteran said he could “pretty much guarantee” developers would target the standard, rather than aiming for anything as high as 60 fps. ID Software games such as Rage and the Call of Duty series both hit up to 60 fps, but many titles in the current generation fall short such as the likes of Battlefield 3, which runs at 30 fps on consoles. “Unfortunately, I can pretty much guarantee that a lot of next gen games will still target 30 fps,” said Carmack.
  - IheartApplesDix 14y ago
    ... Carmack, is that you?
- dualogy 14y ago
  Higher FPS and higher performance aren't necessarily identical. Give me a say year-2016 machine and I could target 300 FPS with what currently reaches 30 FPS, but no-one except some GPU geek would notice. Or I could use all that added performance, do many more interesting things at a much higher scale than today, at once -- physics, fluids, crowds and all other kinds of sims -- by still targeting "only" 30 FPS.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
jiggy2011 14y ago
30fps? I remember the mid - late 90s "3d accelerator" boom and the games that came out of that. Unless you dumped serious $ into your PC you were lucky to get 15fps.
- josefresco 14y ago
  Bought a Dell for just under $2K in 1999 (remember prices were much different then) with some serious gaming power for an off the shelf PC. 30 FPS was generally a minimum for this rig when playing games like Q3, UT and HL. If that's costly to you, the TNT2 and other cards were cheaper than my voodoo3 3000 AGP and still delivered good results.
zokier 14y ago
Frankly I would be happy if next-gen games would actually achieve steady 30 fps. Doubly so if the games would achieve that with some reasonable resolution. That would already be a massive improvement to the current state of affairs, where games dip to 20 fps or so with sub-hd resolutions.
- Torn 14y ago
  Agreed - I can settle for 30fps if the game maintains that. Dark Souls on PS3 and 360 did dip down to 15/12 sometimes depending on the environments. 30fps to 60fps is night and day though -- running Dark Souls on a gaming PC with the 'dsfix' mod to toggle between 30 and 60 is astonishing how much more smooth and fluid the game is.
- return0 14y ago
  I am not a gamer, but aren't high FPS tiring to the eyes because of the lack of natural motion blur which gives the sense of unnatural movement? Isn't that more important than increasing FPS?
  - dalore 14y ago
    Increasing the FPS of a game isn't going to change the refresh rate of the monitor. It makes the game smoother because there are more game loops, so more calculations on a smaller time delta.
  - josephlord 14y ago
    No tired eyes, real world is infinite frame rate. You will get better 'natural' (psycho visual) motion blur as you approach that infinite frame rate. The required artificial blur to hide the lack of smooth motion will be reduced although can always be increased for artistic effect if desired. Of course LCD displays will be locked to particular refresh rates on a TV probably 24Hz, 50Hz or 60Hz (although it may then apply motion compensated interpolation to take them up to 96-120Hz or even 192-240Hz but these are often turned off in 'Game' mode to reduce latency and provide less lag between input and result). * Infinte frame rate is effectively whatever your mind can't distinguish from infinite.
dscrd 14y ago
I concur. I played through Skyrim originally on PS3, then got a powerful PC and tried it on there. I thought the game looked uglier. Now I realize that it might be that the FPS is too high.
- morsch 14y ago
  You're not concurring. A jittery framerate is bad, but JC isn't saying that a consistently higher framerate will look worse. He's saying that developers will try to push as much content and single-frame fidelity in there as possible while staying above 30 fps. The whole argument really only applies to consoles.
- Torn 14y ago
  Game looking uglier? I don't think that'll be completely related to 60fps, I'm sure that's more down to low-resolution textures (that look bad on your HD monitor) and things looking janky. Skyrim with mods to upgrade textures and shaders and things looks freaking amazing.* *And I'm not actually a fan of Skyrim, I dislike Bethesda sandbox games where nothing you do has an impact, but I digress...
- jerf 14y ago
  If you pull up a Nintendo 64 emulator or a Playstation 1 emulator and run it at 1080P, it will look far worse than you remember it, because where the low resolution of the old CRT screens used to cover over a lot of flaws, the high fidelity will stick them in your face. Likewise with a lot of console/PC hybrids. What looks pretty decent on your TV at what is actually 720P or even 640P upscaled and blurry is revealed to be somewhat lower detail than you thought on a crisp 2560x1440 screen. On the other hand, if you get something meant to be played there... wow.
lucian1900 14y ago
The problem are the consoles. Both the PS3 and the Xbox360 are absolutely ancient. Let's not even talk about the Wii. I think I might prefer something like a Steambox, where upgrades would be more frequent. I generally prefer PC gaming, but I like being able to play from the couch with a controller.
- Shorel 14y ago
  Anyone can play in the PC from the couch with the right controller. Even old games, just use Logitech controller mapper to convert the gamepad input to simulated mouse + keyboard. Honesty that old complaint is very tired now.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Most people do not like to have a PC in their living room. PC gaming can be done from a couch but the entire form factor / experience traditionally has not been optimized for that. Thankfully it appears as though Valve is working on changing that, but there is a lot of work left to be done.
  - lucian1900 14y ago
    Not really. The setup is complicated and fragile, the hardware is bulky and annoying. Some games can't really work with mouse mapped to analogs. Not everything can be done with just a controller (OS updates, etc.) It's not great, but a Linux machine with Steam on it could be.
    - Shorel 14y ago
      You are only giving your opinions. I on the other hand, have done it. As expected, I use the computer more for movies than games (girlfriend demands). The gamepad is actually a very good Media Center controller. The only real issue is passwords. But you don't have to enter them all the time. My point is: having to get up and use a keyboard from time to time doesn't kill the experience of gaming in a computer and a big TV. I want the Steam box because of the possibility of better games and a general MS distrust, not because the actual experience is something totally unmanageable, as some people here try to assume.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
lispython 14y ago
Carmack's comment: For the record, just in case it wasn't clear, we continue to target 60fps, and 120fps will be an option on PC. 120fps stereo VR, even. Eventually we will get displays with gaze tracked foveal insets, which will be rendered as a separate view. 120fpsstereofoveal=480vps https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/281409030369472512 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/281409030369472512
snarfy 14y ago
>“We always do 30 frames per second on consoles, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible to fit in vehicles, effects, scale and all players.” I'm with Carmack on this one. I'd rather have a good game with a solid 60fps than 20+ vehicles and hundreds of effects. That's all filler anyway. A solid 60fps game is a much more immersive experience than the choppy 20-30fps most developers achieve.
mistercow 14y ago
Then what the next generation consoles need is low-latency motion interpolation hardware.

43 points by Pr0 14y ago

bradhe 14y ago

And it makes perfect sense for them to do so! They are optimizing for gameplay.

Negitivefrags 14y ago
I think you have that backwards. If they were optimizing for gameplay they would sacrifice graphical fidelity until they hit 60fps. Targeting 30fps means they want to sacrifice gameplay for graphical effects.
- teamonkey 14y ago
  Not just graphical effects: more NPCs and gameplay entities on screen, better AI, better physics, etc. In terms of trade-offs, 60fps is pretty much always the first thing to be sacrificed unless it's REALLY important, like in a twitch shooter or racing game. The truth is that for most games 30fps is not a deal-breaker for the majority of people. If even a significant minority of players cared, the intensely focus-test-led games industry would follow.
jlgreco 14y ago
That seems to be exactly what they are not optimizing for. Lowering your standards to 30Hz lets you crank graphical fanciness and engine features, but at the expense of gameplay. There is a reason Quake players used to turn their graphics down to mud, even though they could play with better graphics at a lower fps.
- bradhe 14y ago
  Targeting a lower frame rate also allows you to create a world that is mor interactive, a la the quote in the article, by including more game objects and other elements. Graphical quality is still important...hence the lower frame rate.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Those may make the game more enjoyable, and 30Hz may be the correct decision for that reason, but if those things come at the expense of fps they come at the expense of playability. It is undeniably a trade-off, which way you think is worth it is a subjective matter of course.

goldenchrome 14y ago

Thirty frames per second is depressing. I don't know how some people can stand it. I get annoyed when I notice the frames drop below forty five.

jlgreco 14y ago
I suspect it matters less on consoles where you are trying to move/look around by pushing a tiny little joystick with your thumb. With a mouse though it is absolutely crippling. Even minecraft is painful at 30Hz with a mouse.
- HelloMcFly 14y ago
  "Crippling" seems a bit hyperbolic. I'd reckon most PC gamers probably don't even notice, though once you start noticing it's hard to "unsee" it, but that doesn't make the game unplayable.
  - Torn 14y ago
    If any of you have Dark Souls on PC, with a decent graphics card, use the 'dsfix' mod to toggle between 30fps (the default) and an unlocked 60fps mode. It's night and day - suddenly the game becomes that much more fluid, and when toggling between the two, 30fps feels amazingly 'shuttered'.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    It to me is crippling to the point that I will stop playing the game. I used to play quake 3, particularly defrag, at 125Hz. 60Hz in normal games is fine to me but anything less feels like a nightmare where your legs turned into concrete and you can't turn your neck. It very honestly is an unpleasant experience to me.
- jetti 14y ago
  I would play Diablo 3 on my laptop and desktop and would get around 10 to 20 FPS if I was lucky. So all this talk of 30 FPS is making me jealous!

viseztrance 14y ago

Insomniac Games (the developers of Ratchet and Clank, and the Resistance series) wrote a blog post some time ago about their decision to focus on using a lower framerate (all their previous games were 60 fps). http://www.insomniacgames.com/how-much-does-framerate-matter/ http://www.insomniacgames.com/how-much-does-framerate-matter... The summary is that prettier games get better reviews and sell off more copies.

SyneRyder 14y ago
This is also interesting in light of the backlash against The Hobbit, where people are objecting to the 48fps film rate (most movies are 24fps): http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-accidentally-invented-impressionist-filmmaking http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-acc... and the recent Doing Game Gravity Right post on HN, which shows that some games are still using physics equations that don't properly account for sub 60fps framerates: http://www.niksula.hut.fi/~hkankaan/Homepages/gravity.html http://www.niksula.hut.fi/~hkankaan/Homepages/gravity.html
- mwilcox 14y ago
  There's a clear distinction between games and film here and that's the interactive element. Games react to player input and a lower framerate results in a pretty poor experience for players (especially in fast paced games like first person shooters). Add to this the fact that games have only recently been adding motion blur, a much higher framerate than film's rate of 24 is important for maintaining a fluid image. As someone who primarily plays first person shooters (TF2 and Quake Live), anything less than 60FPS looks awful to me, I play on a 120hz LCD.
lloeki 14y ago
Turn 10, of Forza Motorsport fame, refuses to compromise render rate in the series. Forza 2 to 4 (no idea for the 1st one, which ran on the original Xbox) are running at a steady 60fps (physics loops at 360ips), even in split screen (at the cost of a few effects, notably cockpit mirror reflections). Technically this really matters when getting the braking point at 400kph down Old Mulsanne. In terms of enjoyment, sure there's only reduced antialiasing, but driving down Bernese Alps close to the guard rail in Forza 4, especially with Kinect head tracking (not enough cash nor room for a triple-head+seat setup), is incredibly immersive. Forza Horizon though, developed by an all-star team[0] distinct from Turn 10, chose to drop to 30fps, notably for full AA, effects such as motion blur, and features like continuous day/night cycle and realistic car headlights (old bulbs look deliciously warm, and the chromatic effect on the crisp edge of xenon headlights is awesome). As realistic and gorgeous as Forza Horizon is, at speed it feels buttery smooth but not exactly crisp as Forza 4 is. It's like you'd take a low-resolution image and try to make it look nicer by using a blur filter, only this applies to time instead of space, and thus movement. [0]: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-forza-horizon http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-...

IheartApplesDix 14y ago

This makes me sad and angry. Carmack of all people should be pushing for more performance, but I guess he outgrew that after iD lost most of the market.

krakensden 14y ago
You didn't actually read the article, did you. Christ: Games developed for the next-generation of consoles will still target a performance of 30 frames per second, claims id Software co-founder John Carmack. Taking to Twitter, the industry veteran said he could “pretty much guarantee” developers would target the standard, rather than aiming for anything as high as 60 fps. ID Software games such as Rage and the Call of Duty series both hit up to 60 fps, but many titles in the current generation fall short such as the likes of Battlefield 3, which runs at 30 fps on consoles. “Unfortunately, I can pretty much guarantee that a lot of next gen games will still target 30 fps,” said Carmack.
- IheartApplesDix 14y ago
  ... Carmack, is that you?
dualogy 14y ago
Higher FPS and higher performance aren't necessarily identical. Give me a say year-2016 machine and I could target 300 FPS with what currently reaches 30 FPS, but no-one except some GPU geek would notice. Or I could use all that added performance, do many more interesting things at a much higher scale than today, at once -- physics, fluids, crowds and all other kinds of sims -- by still targeting "only" 30 FPS.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

jiggy2011 14y ago

30fps? I remember the mid - late 90s "3d accelerator" boom and the games that came out of that. Unless you dumped serious $ into your PC you were lucky to get 15fps.

josefresco 14y ago
Bought a Dell for just under $2K in 1999 (remember prices were much different then) with some serious gaming power for an off the shelf PC. 30 FPS was generally a minimum for this rig when playing games like Q3, UT and HL. If that's costly to you, the TNT2 and other cards were cheaper than my voodoo3 3000 AGP and still delivered good results.

zokier 14y ago

Frankly I would be happy if next-gen games would actually achieve steady 30 fps. Doubly so if the games would achieve that with some reasonable resolution. That would already be a massive improvement to the current state of affairs, where games dip to 20 fps or so with sub-hd resolutions.

Torn 14y ago
Agreed - I can settle for 30fps if the game maintains that. Dark Souls on PS3 and 360 did dip down to 15/12 sometimes depending on the environments. 30fps to 60fps is night and day though -- running Dark Souls on a gaming PC with the 'dsfix' mod to toggle between 30 and 60 is astonishing how much more smooth and fluid the game is.
return0 14y ago
I am not a gamer, but aren't high FPS tiring to the eyes because of the lack of natural motion blur which gives the sense of unnatural movement? Isn't that more important than increasing FPS?
- dalore 14y ago
  Increasing the FPS of a game isn't going to change the refresh rate of the monitor. It makes the game smoother because there are more game loops, so more calculations on a smaller time delta.
- josephlord 14y ago
  No tired eyes, real world is infinite frame rate. You will get better 'natural' (psycho visual) motion blur as you approach that infinite frame rate. The required artificial blur to hide the lack of smooth motion will be reduced although can always be increased for artistic effect if desired. Of course LCD displays will be locked to particular refresh rates on a TV probably 24Hz, 50Hz or 60Hz (although it may then apply motion compensated interpolation to take them up to 96-120Hz or even 192-240Hz but these are often turned off in 'Game' mode to reduce latency and provide less lag between input and result). * Infinte frame rate is effectively whatever your mind can't distinguish from infinite.

dscrd 14y ago

I concur. I played through Skyrim originally on PS3, then got a powerful PC and tried it on there. I thought the game looked uglier. Now I realize that it might be that the FPS is too high.

morsch 14y ago
You're not concurring. A jittery framerate is bad, but JC isn't saying that a consistently higher framerate will look worse. He's saying that developers will try to push as much content and single-frame fidelity in there as possible while staying above 30 fps. The whole argument really only applies to consoles.
Torn 14y ago
Game looking uglier? I don't think that'll be completely related to 60fps, I'm sure that's more down to low-resolution textures (that look bad on your HD monitor) and things looking janky. Skyrim with mods to upgrade textures and shaders and things looks freaking amazing.* *And I'm not actually a fan of Skyrim, I dislike Bethesda sandbox games where nothing you do has an impact, but I digress...
jerf 14y ago
If you pull up a Nintendo 64 emulator or a Playstation 1 emulator and run it at 1080P, it will look far worse than you remember it, because where the low resolution of the old CRT screens used to cover over a lot of flaws, the high fidelity will stick them in your face. Likewise with a lot of console/PC hybrids. What looks pretty decent on your TV at what is actually 720P or even 640P upscaled and blurry is revealed to be somewhat lower detail than you thought on a crisp 2560x1440 screen. On the other hand, if you get something meant to be played there... wow.

lucian1900 14y ago

The problem are the consoles. Both the PS3 and the Xbox360 are absolutely ancient. Let's not even talk about the Wii. I think I might prefer something like a Steambox, where upgrades would be more frequent. I generally prefer PC gaming, but I like being able to play from the couch with a controller.

Shorel 14y ago
Anyone can play in the PC from the couch with the right controller. Even old games, just use Logitech controller mapper to convert the gamepad input to simulated mouse + keyboard. Honesty that old complaint is very tired now.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Most people do not like to have a PC in their living room. PC gaming can be done from a couch but the entire form factor / experience traditionally has not been optimized for that. Thankfully it appears as though Valve is working on changing that, but there is a lot of work left to be done.
- lucian1900 14y ago
  Not really. The setup is complicated and fragile, the hardware is bulky and annoying. Some games can't really work with mouse mapped to analogs. Not everything can be done with just a controller (OS updates, etc.) It's not great, but a Linux machine with Steam on it could be.
  - Shorel 14y ago
    You are only giving your opinions. I on the other hand, have done it. As expected, I use the computer more for movies than games (girlfriend demands). The gamepad is actually a very good Media Center controller. The only real issue is passwords. But you don't have to enter them all the time. My point is: having to get up and use a keyboard from time to time doesn't kill the experience of gaming in a computer and a big TV. I want the Steam box because of the possibility of better games and a general MS distrust, not because the actual experience is something totally unmanageable, as some people here try to assume.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

lispython 14y ago

Carmack's comment: For the record, just in case it wasn't clear, we continue to target 60fps, and 120fps will be an option on PC. 120fps stereo VR, even. Eventually we will get displays with gaze tracked foveal insets, which will be rendered as a separate view. 120fpsstereofoveal=480vps https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/281409030369472512 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/281409030369472512

snarfy 14y ago

>“We always do 30 frames per second on consoles, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible to fit in vehicles, effects, scale and all players.” I'm with Carmack on this one. I'd rather have a good game with a solid 60fps than 20+ vehicles and hundreds of effects. That's all filler anyway. A solid 60fps game is a much more immersive experience than the choppy 20-30fps most developers achieve.

mistercow 14y ago

Then what the next generation consoles need is low-latency motion interpolation hardware.