Hi allThis is the first time I have been back since I heard of Avsims problems. All I can say is well done to everyone's efforts at Avsim in getting everything back to where they are today. Great effort and devotion.When will these other dispicable people who continually hack and destroy other peoples systems learn to grow up and do something meaningful with thier lives.My question. I have often wondered when browsing through many of topics within avsim about FPS in FS. Many pilots talk of a solid 20 fps or some other figure when using FS9 or FSX. If as an example someone states that they have say, 20 fps solid, what does this mean? Does it mean that from the "initial install" what the PC/Game can be configured to by your PC subject to tweaking etc? If this is the case is it the figure that shows in the settings / Display menu within FS. In my settings the display actually shows as "20fps". Is this what people are talking about?If not, How do you check or find out what the constant FPS is within FS. Is there a program you can run to find out?Any help would solve many long pondered thoughts on this.Many thanksTerry.S

Hi Terry, welcome back to the forum!FPS, or frames per second is the Holy Grail of all FS9 (and FSX) pilots. FPS is a very subjective thing, and what works for one does not work for another. "In my settings the display actually shows as "20fps". Is this what people are talking about?"Yep, that is the setting which determines the maximum FPS that FS9 will run at. You can change the slider to the right to increase the number of frames per second FS9 will try to run at, but bear in mind that FPS are based on a large number of variables including your pc hardware, fs9 add-ons, background processes running (such as anti-virus, firewalls). "How do you check or find out what the constant FPS is within FS"I'm not behind the controls now, but I believe pressing [ctrl] and [z] at the same time brings up the number of frames per second in red letters at the top left of your FS9 screen. good luck, and happy flying!/seb

During On-Line, Multiplayer Flights, the Server recommends "Locking" the Frame Rate to 20 FPS Max, to reduce the Bandwidth used, and prevent the dreaded "Stutters" caused by "Unlimited" settings affecting all other Players in the Session...;)...!With a reasonable Computer Hardware set-up, "locking" the Frame rate to 20-25 FPS will generally give the most consistently "Smooth" flight overall... :( ...!ALT > Options > Settings > Display > Hardware > Target Frame Rate....Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...FS Navigator...just call me "Mr. Smoothy".... :( ...!

Hi allThis is the first time I have been back since I heard of Avsims problems. All I can say is well done to everyone's efforts at Avsim in getting everything back to where they are today. Great effort and devotion.When will these other dispicable people who continually hack and destroy other peoples systems learn to grow up and do something meaningful with thier lives.My question. I have often wondered when browsing through many of topics within avsim about FPS in FS. Many pilots talk of a solid 20 fps or some other figure when using FS9 or FSX. If as an example someone states that they have say, 20 fps solid, what does this mean? Does it mean that from the "initial install" what the PC/Game can be configured to by your PC subject to tweaking etc? If this is the case is it the figure that shows in the settings / Display menu within FS. In my settings the display actually shows as "20fps". Is this what people are talking about?If not, How do you check or find out what the constant FPS is within FS. Is there a program you can run to find out?Any help would solve many long pondered thoughts on this.Many thanksTerry.S

Hi Terry,I think it was me who wrote "solid 20 FPS" :( In addition to what has been said, what I meant was the following: At major airports with 100 or so WOAI packages I get 20 FPS, it doesn't decrease below that value.Some people like to set it higher around 30, I believe 24 is a good value for fluidity.

FPS, or frames per second is the Holy Grail of all FS9 (and FSX) pilots

No, no, no and no again.This dick measuring attitude a lot of simmers seem to have, drives me crazy. I've read stupid statements like "I can't achieve 60fps, what's wrong with my system"? FPS is NOT the Holy Grail, a non stuttering, nice eye candy FS9 is what you should be looking for. As long as your experience isn't a slide show, what does it matter if your fps is 25 or 65.....it doesn't.

Anything that can hold your frames per second over about 14 at a consistent rate should be flyable and more than adequate. So whilst I perhaps wouldn't have put it quite so crudely as a 'd*ck measuring competition', I do agree with the sentiment. It is consistency and not maximum FPS that will help above all, which is where the 'solid' terminology comes in.The 24/25 frame per second target most people quote to shoot for, is based upon the notion that this is akin to the gate speed that film (movie) cameras and projectors have to go to in order to lose the flickering effect that you see on old (i.e. Buster Keaton/Harold Lloyd era) movies, where the flicker is caused by the frames changing and light from the projector firing onto the black edge of the frame as it passes through the gate, momentarily dimming the screen. Actually, it was hard to achieve a constant frame rate on many cameras in those days, since the film was often had cranked through the gate with a winding handle, so that didn't help in eliminating flicker either. Back in the modern era, the only time movie cameras these days go over 24 FPS is when they shoot at high speed in preparation for using the film for slow motion playback later on, and that has no relevance to a computer's FPS, which whether in slow mo, or accelerated time, will always maintain the rate you've selected for frame redraws.So it is a misnomer to say that a computer monitor needs to match or exceed that 24 FPS for a smooth view, since the 'frame' (actually redraw on a computer) does not lose the last image before replacing it with the newly drawn one like a film camera or projector does, hence there is no flicker effect to avoid, since there is no void between frames, which is why somewhere above 14 'frames' per second will be enough for convincing movement; 24 fps in movies was about losing the flicker, not making convincing movement. The only thing akin to the gap visible owing to a film's frame speed where a computer monitor is concerned, is the screen refresh rate, which is likely to be so fast you'd never see anything of the change at all.More FPS will be better, but needlessly shooting for incredibly high FPS will achieve nothing other than to tax your system and use up resources that could otherwise be better employed. More processing means more heat generated amongst other things, and more heat means greater wear and tear on your computer components as they expand and contract in that heat.But... Most people are familiar with film footage, and so there are some reasons to try and emulate film, these being to achieve effects that help to convince us of what we are seeing. Two of these are 'lens flare' (the diamond and prism starburst effects created by light refraction in a camera lens), and the 'wagon wheel' effect, so named because of old western movies where the wagon wheels on stagecoaches appear to be moving backwards as their RPM sysnchronises with the gate speed of the camera. Lens flare is a pretty effect at sunset in FS, and prop animations tend to look more believable in FS if they exhibit the wagon wheel effect, even though the human eye alone would not see them, because it makes us think we are watching the films of aircraft propellers we are all familiar with, which we know are real, so it convinces us our sim is real.Neither of those effects are created by FPS; lens flare is a graphic effect in the sim itself, and prop effects are down to the animation skill of the modeler.Al

A couple of thoughts on this topic- TV functions at a nominal/theoretical 30 FPS- yet chattering motion is visible at times. For example a hockey puck flashing across the screen or a horse airborne over a jump both will exhibit chatters.It's my understanding that motion picture frame rates in excess of 70 FPS are required before the human eye/brain combo sees all motion with total fluidity.----------------Just to add another potato to the stew: My triple monitor setup displays three views- LFwd,Fwd,RFwd- all synched into a single view by adjusting view angle to compensate for monitor bezels. My eyes/brain see what appears to be a single, very wide image. Exactly the same as in a car with a 2 piece windshield: the 3 views- driver side window, left windshield, right windshield display only a combined single view as far as the driver is concerned. The brain blends 3 into 1 because that's what it expects to see!Here is where it gets interesting for simming. With only one CPU in the 'puter, only one of the three views is being updated at any moment. The other two- 66% of the whole- are always static/unchanging. So a frame rate that seems low actually remains quite smooth to my eyes.I setup FS9 sliders to achieve 30- 45 FPS on a single monitor/single view. (FPS= Unlimited.) When I open views L/RFwd on the secondary mons, the FPS drops by 50% to the 15-22 range. And it is just as smooth!!! Tested this many times- observe the motion/fluidity of triple mon flight then suddenly kill the outer mons. FPS doubles but no change in detectable smoothness!!Now for the amazing part-In really heavy duty scenery, such as KLAX at night, FPS can drop well below what is considered flyable- as low as 7-8 & the bird continues to fly completely normally. The only visible effect is that objects such as blue runway lights flashing past wingtips will exhibit a chatter. How can this be? Well remember that 2/3 of the total image is a "still" picture! My advice re Frame rates is- if FS looks Ok to your eyes- it probably is! Turn off the red FPS display and enjoy Flight Sim!Alex Reid

Hi folksMany thanks for the welcome back Seb and to everyone for their replies. At least this has now settled many questions and experiments with the fps in my fs.Going by the varied replies but all along the same theme, this is obviously a subject very close to all simmers hearts. Even though there are debates and personel preferences within any form topic, we all know that with out this debate, many problems would not have been resolved within the simming community.Many variation of peoples answers have helped many a simmer whether it be a large or small problem. What matters is the help that is here at Avsim which was very nearly not. Thats what counts at the end of the day.Many thanks againTerry.S

No, no, no and no again.This dick measuring attitude a lot of simmers seem to have, drives me crazy. I've read stupid statements like "I can't achieve 60fps, what's wrong with my system"? FPS is NOT the Holy Grail, a non stuttering, nice eye candy FS9 is what you should be looking for. As long as your experience isn't a slide show, what does it matter if your fps is 25 or 65.....it doesn't.

then theres the other side of that coin - the guys like you who assume that those of us who do like higher framerates are just "dick measuring." I'm sorry you have a system that may be incapable of both looking good AND achieving what I consider to be the perfect framerate of 60fps for gaming but that doesn't necessarily mean that those of us who do are imagining the benefits of higher framerates. You put two PCs right beside each other - one running FS at 24fps and the other at 60fps constant - and let me fly around for a minute and I assure you that I will be able to tell you which is the 60fps system. It looks smoother, and it controls more fluidly. The difference is notable. Is it a necessity? Not at all. I flew FS9 on my previous system locked at 24 fps for years and it was fine. However, my current system runs the sim with the visual options essentially maxed and maintains 40-60 fps (vsync locked to 60) under virtually all circumstances. I now leave the frame lock in FS unlocked becuase I find if I do limit it to 30 or what have you I note more stutters and texture load delays than when its unlocked. It's got nothing to do with measuring parts of my anatomy. When it comes to FS, 24fps is ok. 60fps (at the same visual settings) is better. I also disagree with a few of the points regarding film presented above. While in a pure visual sense it may be true that 24 fps in a game is ok, when you ad in the fact that we are controlling the action realtime in the game, 24 fps starts to present problems. I know in many of the racesims I drive regularly 24fps is horrid - virtually un-useable. It seems to me that there are fudamental differences between film frames and game screens that go well beyond just the bars between the film frames. Individual frames of film will capture such things as motion blur on fast moving objects that will never be seen in an individual frame of a computer game and that helps to make 24fps appear smooth in film but less so in a game.

No, no, no and no again.This dick measuring attitude a lot of simmers seem to have, drives me crazy. I've read stupid statements like "I can't achieve 60fps, what's wrong with my system"? FPS is NOT the Holy Grail, a non stuttering, nice eye candy FS9 is what you should be looking for. As long as your experience isn't a slide show, what does it matter if your fps is 25 or 65.....it doesn't.

<sigh> As I said in my reply, FPS is a very subjective thing, and what works for one does not work for another. My dick measures 26fps; both myself and FS9 are very, very satisfied.

then theres the other side of that coin - the guys like you who assume that those of us who do like higher framerates are just "dick measuring."

If you consider having a higher fps just for the sake of it then yes, you are dick measuring! If your system is capable of it, fine, use it but don't start whining that you can't achieve it as if fps was the only thing that makes FS9 enjoyable.

If you consider having a higher fps just for the sake of it then yes, you are dick measuring! If your system is capable of it, fine, use it but don't start whining that you can't achieve it as if fps was the only thing that makes FS9 enjoyable.

If high framerates were the only thing that made FS9 enjoyable, I'd have given up on it years ago. I can't recall too many times when I've seen anyone say they wanted higher framerates "just for the sake of it." I know for myself, I want higher framerates becuase, having had long years of experience running all sorts of games and sims on PCs, I know for a fact that the games are far more enjoyable when you can achieve that wonderful 60fps mark. For me that seems to be the point where the framerate ceases to be an issue of any sort. But obviously the raw fps number is only a guideline. Its entirely possible to be getting 60fps or higher and still have a stuttering mess of a game. Smoothness is every bit as important as the overall framerate and there are all sorts of things that can cuase a lack of smoothness. But all things being equal, a perfectly smooth 60fps is gold afaic...

If high framerates were the only thing that made FS9 enjoyable, I'd have given up on it years ago. I can't recall too many times when I've seen anyone say they wanted higher framerates "just for the sake of it." I know for myself, I want higher framerates becuase, having had long years of experience running all sorts of games and sims on PCs, I know for a fact that the games are far more enjoyable when you can achieve that wonderful 60fps mark. For me that seems to be the point where the framerate ceases to be an issue of any sort. But obviously the raw fps number is only a guideline. Its entirely possible to be getting 60fps or higher and still have a stuttering mess of a game. Smoothness is every bit as important as the overall framerate and there are all sorts of things that can cuase a lack of smoothness. But all things being equal, a perfectly smooth 60fps is gold afaic...

----------------------------ZZ- just tried an experiment once again with my triple monitor/triple views setup. (for the 27th? time!) Take off, fly around and observe the fps range of numbers. Then start exactly same again but this time everything killed on the outer mons- both views and all popups are extinguished. Again observe FPS range. Flight path same for both tests. Results:Triple mons/triple synched views & all popups open: 18-28 fpsSingle mon/single view & 2D main panel only: 30-55 fpsI can detect no difference in quality or smoothness of motion between either configuration. I'm not convinced of the 60 fps- other than it provides lots of cushion to cope with super complex scenery! And that's a good thing! But a single 45

<sigh> As I said in my reply, FPS is a very subjective thing, and what works for one does not work for another. My dick measures 26fps; both myself and FS9 are very, very satisfied.

LOL :( The magic number in my house is 25 and that makes me and my FS9 a happy couple as well.And as long as we are on this topic, anyone here gets occasional stutters when FS9 draws more clouds in the distance? It's the ONE annoyance I have with my sim.

LOL :( The magic number in my house is 25 and that makes me and my FS9 a happy couple as well.And as long as we are on this topic, anyone here gets occasional stutters when FS9 draws more clouds in the distance? It's the ONE annoyance I have with my sim.

:( B) My major annoyance with stutters is when I'm approaching a big airport and ATC starts giving instructions to AI. :(