MS - Increase FPS to MEGA high....

[Guest]

HiI'd like to hope that you are planning on programming FS so that the FPS will be VERY high e.g. something like 60-70fps while flying.If you could possibly aim for something like this, us 3rd party developers can add further details to our work. Its only because of FPS that we're restricted.PS. I'm going to be releasing something for Century Of Flight which will be VERY detailed, payware yes. , ........ so the higher the fps, the better ;)CheersWill :-wave

[Guest]

>Hi >>I'd like to hope that you are planning on programming FS so >that the FPS will be VERY high e.g. something like 60-70fps >while flying. Hi,They already have done this Will.Just turn some of the sliders back. :-roll:)There are no magic wands, you can't have both worlds.I for one am glad to be able to at least see all of the effects and settings available even though my machine might not be able to handle it all.As it is right now we have a very powerful peace of software and with the additional atmospheric updates even more so with the next version, very incredible! I don

[Guest Rob]

aspects of OpenGL were used for some rendering .. an increase in frame rates might be seen. Although ... you want detail and frame rates? Go buy yourself a Cray.We are yet to see the direct differences between Direct X 8 and Direct X 9 on any software. (Before anyone says it .. Direct X 9 does NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT in MSFS2002). It appears that MS maybe addressing vertex shaders etc.. with the new enviro effects .. but I couldn't be sure.The GeForce FX, when released in about a month .. should give you 60-70FPS with full detail .. as well as the

[Guest jase439]

For the curious. 30 FPS is the generally-accepted target frame rate for mid-grade systems in the game industry. You won't see many developers trying to optimise for 70 FPS for their core market ;-)J

[Guest]

"The GeForce FX, when released in about a month .. should give you 60-70FPS with full detail .. as well as the

[KERNEL32 497]

Yes- would be nice to see the higher frame rates, but I agree we cant have it all!Oh- and before someone posts that "the human eye can only see 24 frames/sec..." you may want to check out this interesting piece of info from "The Hard Wire"I Quote from an article:

I've read several e-mails and forum posts that claim anything over 24 frames per second is a waste, since the human eye cannot see anything faster than that. Proponents of this belief often site the 24 FPS rate of movies as proof. This is a complete fallacy. The human eye can see images far faster than 1/24th of a second in duration. There are records of experiments with fighter pilots where images of enemy planes were flashed before them for less than 1/100th of a second, and the pilots could not only spot it, but identify the plane as well. Granted, fighter pilots represent the upper limit of human vision. The fluorescent lights we're all familiar with actually blink on and off 120 times a second, since they light up as current passes through them and the alternating current standard to the U.S. fluctuates back and forth at 60Hz. Still, we see a steady stream of light because we can't process visual changes at that rate. The point is that we can recognize shapes and movement in much smaller increments of time than 1/24th or even 1/30th of a second (color is slower to respond, but that's the way the human eye works). Video and film get by with 24 FPS (30 for broadcast video) because they capture all the visual information for that entire fraction of a second. When a movie camera snaps 24 pictures every second, each one captures all the movement for that 24th of a second. This is why you see all that blur when you freeze the picture on a single frame during an action scene, and why the blur goes away when the scene is played at full speed. Computers don't do this, however. Each image displayed represents "zero time." That is, if it takes your computer 1/24th of a second to render the next frame, it only shows an instantaneous snapshot of the new position of everything, but doesn't show any of the visual information of the movement during that 1/24th of a second. If it did, you could freeze your game and everything moving would be blurry. The motion blur capabilities touted by some video cards doesn't work like a movie camera does, either. It only blends together previous drawings of objects, rather than actually representing all the motion "in between" frames. If you don't think you can see more than 24fps, turn your monitor's refresh rate down to 60Hz and watch how it flickers. Eye experts say that a video refresh of 50 times a second is the minimum necessary to represent smooth movement without flickering for the average human eye. The key, of course, is to keep the frame rate up above 50 all the time. Benchmarks almost always measure an average frame rate, when it's the swing that matters

[Guest]

HiI wasn't basing my statement on "the eye can only see up to ... fps"....I was basing it on as a "workable" area for us designers. The higher the fps, the more detail we can put into objects, instead of doing this and approaching the border line of good/bad fps. If MS gave it a massive boost, then we'd always be in the GOOD area. :DI'm getting about 20-30 fps @ 2X AA 1280-1024 32bit with my work at the moment.Cheers

[Guest Bigshot]

Excuse me! Twenty frames per second is plenty adequate for FS2k2. And it's as smooth as silk with no trace of any stutters. There is absolutely no difference between running at 20fps and 60fps with the exception of the amount of terrain and detail drawn. There's far more terrain and detail at 20 frames per second than at 60 frames per second. To get the most out of FS2k2, run at 20fps and max out the AA & AF. FS2k2 isn't a first person shooter that requires a high framerate to be smooth. And my eyes can't tell the difference smoothness wise.

[Guest]

"There's far more terrain and detail at 20 frames per second than at 60 frames per second"Surely FS would be able to cope with LOTS MORE detail @ 60fps than @ 20fps?Your not getting my point. Say then if your running a system of 20fps, and then you load on my MEGA scenery, it will drag your fps down to an amount(e.g. 5fps) which will compromise your "smooth flying fps".IF MS increased the FPS to a large sum, then us designers could work with all that available fps to add very nice detailed airports etc, and with my MEGA scenery, it wouldn't effect any flight smoothness. It's only fps that limit our work you know.Will

[JETninja 0]

If 3rd party designers made better use of gMax and LOD models for most everything, then FPS would not be much of an issue with addons. If I'm two miles away, why should my GPU have to draw every detail of a Terminal, or a Plane, or even a Taxy Sign! I can't see it! But if there are no LOD's, the GPU/CPU has to draw every single line. In most any sim whether flight, car, or ? use them for not just the primary objets, but most all scenery objects (Building's, Tree's, etc) in the default objects. More Add-ons need to also.....

[1mikel151 71]

while I appreciate your post Jet, and agree to an extent, I have to agree with Will. I think what Will is saying that some of these posts are not getting is he (and others ) want the ability to have detailed objects and have the headroom in FPS to allow it without dragging down the FPS. Maybe not workable, but a need in itself. I bought my PC for gaming 3 years agao and knew nothing of FPS until I got into simming. FS is my primary entertainment (occasional Ghost Recon coop) and I design scenery (my attempt at learning GMAX is a whole other post!!) and also tweak and work with aircraft. I have a middle to lower end of the road PC (Athlon 1.4 1 gig DDR G4 4600) and although I have tweaked my system and have the current drivers, etc, I HAVE TO WATCH MY FPS!! I can barely use the Simflyers KDFW (home airport) with full AI (which is the only way to enjoy it). If I used only default everything it wouldn't be an issue, but I RARELY use the default anything! LOL, and to the person that mentioned the sliders, if you have ever used the sim at full everything, turning the sliders down is NOT an option afterwards!(IMHO!)My point is that obviously MS designed the sim to work great out of the box, which is does, but it would be nice (since they say they read the forums) to think ahead and allow more for 3rd party designing (ie. room for more detail without dragging down the sim!)my 2 cents Regards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpg

[Guest]

Hi Michael,Having been a scenery designer since FS4 and having done extensive scenery for FS5-FS2k2 (Photoreal mesh, objects, aircraft and panels) in all areas of FS I would have to agree with Jet on this.Many points have already been made here above so I won't bother to repeat them, I do get what Will said, but what Jets says is completely true. If you want to do scenery designing YOU are the one responsible for "clean" code not MS, they already do LOD models and "clean" code.And yes I have the power to run with full sliders full on, but if I want to make my scenery for someone with a machine like yours or less I would have to keep that in mind when designing, not only making LOD models of my objects but also giving them the sparse/normal/dense/extremely dense switch in the code so that you the user can select how much will show. I am sure that you have noticed that is exactly how all games have evolved, with the sliders/detail control so older machines can use it and newer machines can keep exploring the detail. How the (.) does anyone expect an update to FS2k2 to be rendered with more FPS? It >simulates< real flight, real terrain, real gauges, real vectoring, and soon real weather etc. that is done on the cpu not the gpu, sure a few things for the visuals in fs get put on the GPU (T&L-shaders) but most is math on the CPU and that wont be changing anytime soon.