Give Project Aces the budget that Activision gives Call of Duty and maybe we'll have something different, but until then we've got to deal. (Not directed at you, but to anyone who thinks increasing Infinity's FPS is that simple.)



Which isn't that bad, honestly. Seeing Infinity in 60 FPS doesn't make it seem too much better... the difference is clear, but it just seems to be a little bit smoother. And after playing Ace Combat for years, it doesn't look right. It looks smoother, but it doesn't seem to fit.

It has nothing to do with budget here. Call of Duty, at least up until Advanced Warfare, has been running on the IW Engine, which is at its core an extensively modified version of the id Tech 3 engine, which powered Quake 3, 14 years ago. Last-gen consoles can run it at 60 FPS because it's just so simplistic, with the obvious graphical downgrade compared to its competitors. However, they've been learning over the years how to hide this behind good application of lighting effects and textures, and I dare say that with it's unique aesthetic, Black Ops 2 actually looked really good. Gotta give credit to CoD for focusing on maintaining 60 FPS.

However, I don't think this approach would work on Ace Combat. It's simply a much more graphically demanding game, and the downgrades it'd have to suffer to sustain 60 FPS would maybe not be so acceptable. Hell, particularly with things like steel carnage (which I must say, I'm a fan of), it would likely be an impossible task. Anyway, I don't feel Ace Combat is particularly affected by a lower framerate. It's obviously worse, but it doesn't have the same effect that you'd expect a fast-paced game such as this to have. The PS2 ACs run at 60 FPS, yet the latter ones are just as playable.

Also, do recall this was created using motion interpolation, a technique which is very rarely true to what the image would look like. If you ever watched a TV with motion interpolation, you'll know what I'm talking about. True 60 FPS AC would look better and smoother than that.