I have set the frame rate, for FS 2002 Pro, at 30 fPs. However, I just read that the ideal setting is around 18 or 20 fps. Does anyone know what is the recommended setting in FS 2002 Pro for the frame rates?Thanks.Stanner

A lot of us have had success with 15. I'm sure there are a variety of settings being used. Sometime back someone on here suggested 15 and we've found it to be pretty stable at that number.

I guess it makes absolutely no sense to recommend something here, because the "right" setting is absolutely depending on the hardware power you have. The slower your system is the lower you should have the frame rate limiter set.Basically the frame rate limiter works like this:High setting= Low picture quality high frame ratesLow settings= Good picture quality , low frame ratesE.g. the lower your frame rate limiter is set, the more time your PC will have for texture updating and stuff.For anyone who likes to know, mine is set to 22.But I have an Athlon XP2100+ and GF4Ti4600. Slower systems need lower settings.Alex

Put it this way; cinematic film runs at 24fps, and US-TV at 25fps (which is why films run shorter on TV !). At these levels, "frames" cannot be seen, therefore you could reasonably argue that this will define an "upper limit". Overhead lighting is, variously, between 50-60Hz depending where on the planet you live, which is a region to be avoided, as, whilst you won't "see" the resonant flicker, your brain will, and prolonged use will result in tiredness and eye strain.Below this 24-25fps region, it really is a matter of trial and error. Below around 16-18fps you may well start to detect signs of flicker, and if it drops below 10-12fps this starts to interfere with the "reality" of the experience - but unavoidable at times eg. when flying a complex plane such as the Flight1 C421C over a detailed airport with plenty of AI activity.My system is set to 20fps. In the normal run of things this is fairly stable and I tend to get frame rates of 18-20fps with my 1.7GHz Athlon /GeForce2 64Mb / 512MB DDR RAM system, except as mentioned above.Ultimately, I don't think you'll see much difference at all with the frame lock set in the 18-22fps region, but you are the only one who can check on your system.

Regardless of what others do, I set mine at 35, down from the previous 40. The "eyes"(at least mine) can easily detect fps differences into the upper 30's. An example of this is when I run Microsoft's CFS2 or the X-Plane demo on my setup, which may run into the 50's. The higher fps are very evident in certain situations. Although sometimes my fps will drag down into the teens, I don't detect a whopping scenery difference by setting the fps at 35. In fact, I fail to see any differences. Most sliders are set at high, except water reflections.L.AdamsonAthlon 1900XPGeforce3Ti500512 DDRram

I'm curious - are you running the sim on a large monitor ? This may explain how you can see changes at the higher frame rates. In this case by "large" I mean greater than 17".Cheers,

That is an elegant way to mingle FS2002 and sexuality..shall we give him a prize???

Refresh Rate has absolutely nothing to do with Simulation Rate.My monitor refreshes at 85 Hz running at 1600x1400 ... my sim rate runs at 18. Bigger monitors do not impact computer performance in any way, shape, or form.1024x768 is exactly the same speed on a 22" monitor as it is on a 14" monitor.Refresh rates cause eye strain ... Simulation rates cause heart aches and empty wallets.Ray

hello,I have mine set at 30 with a AMD 2100+ XP and a GF3 TI500. Film and TV cant be compared since TV never stutters and holds a constant fps. Perhaps it even has less detail. (A Progressive scan DVD player and TV on the other hand have plenty of detail.) Film is blurred to make it seem like its running faster to normal people or with higher fps to people like us. Computer graphics are not blurred or anything and each frame has the same high detail.Andrew :-wave

Unfortunately, things are not as simple as that.The following link presents some interesting reading regarding frame rates, human eye perception, etc., etc.http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htmI agree with LAdamson when it comes to setting the limit at low 30's, because I too can differentiate between low 20's and low 30's.Stamatis

"Regardless of what others do, I set mine at 35, down from the previous 40. The "eyes"(at least mine) can easily detect fps differences into the upper 30's...."So can mine.....I've kept mine at 25--just to keep the fps consistent, as 25 seems to be achievable around 99 percent of the time around most congested scenery. But other than that, I also agree that I didn't notice any scenery degradation when I had it set higher, and if I feel like flying a stretch away from the cities, I can bump it up to 35 with no issues at all--and I can see a difference.BTW, when are you going to post some more screenies? Love your SLC shots--keep 'em coming!-John

I'm pretty sure I posted a reply here. But it's gone now. Am I beginning to loose my mind? Have I already lost it? Could it be that I never had one? Anyway, I posted a reply, and now it's gone. Where no reply has gone before...

Sexual references in posts here will be removed everytime. Please do not repeat that in the future. We have a considerable number of children who attend these forums, and your message was totally out of line in that regard.

Tom, what ON EARTH are you talking about? SEXUAL REFERENCES? TOTALLY OUT OF LINE? My posting about frame rates??? About the concept of motion blur in movies? About monitors? If you and I are talking about the same posting (which we must, because I made only one), I believe that you've gone completely off your rocker. Look, it's your place here, and you make the rules. But at least extend to me the courtesy (either here or in email: [email protected] is my address) of telling me what the heck you're talking about. For I've no idea, and in fact I feel mightily offended by your removal of my post, and by your accusation. Jaap.

>Tom, what ON EARTH are you talking about? SEXUAL REFERENCES? >TOTALLY OUT OF LINE? My posting about frame rates??? About >the concept of motion blur in movies? About monitors? If you >and I are talking about the same posting (which we must, >because I made only one), I believe that you've gone >completely off your rocker. >>Look, it's your place here, and you make the rules. But at >least extend to me the courtesy (either here or in email: >[email protected] is my address) of telling me what the heck >you're talking about. For I've no idea, and in fact I feel >mightily offended by your removal of my post, and by your >accusation. >>Jaap. You must suffer from either a very short memory or duel personalities, :-roll as I was temted to hit the "alert" button myself because of your "REFERENCES". Frankly that kind of talk just doesn't belong here, live and learn! :)