100+ FPS with FSX

[paulyg123 132]

Does anyone get 100+ FPS with FSX with all the sliders maxed out and flying the default FSX aircrafts? I know anything > 30 is great, but I was wondering how a top end computer would handle FSX.

[Guest chris493]

Hardly anyone would get over 100fps, unless you had a majorly OCed i7 extreme with the best possible cooling, and even then I doubt you would hit 100. Also most people monitors run @ 60Hz which means that it won't display anything above 60fps. Unless you have a 100+Hz monitor as well, there is no chance of hitting 100.

[TechguyMaxC 516]

A very high-end overclocked system can get over 100 FPS with stock A/C by disabling ground and A/C shadows, turning AI to 30% or less, and running autogen a couple notches down. Maxed out - probably never going to happen. Serial (i.e. single-threaded) performance is unlikely to increase that much in our lifetimes. It's all about parallel (i.e. multi-threaded) performance from here on out.

[paulyg123 132]

Hardly anyone would get over 100fps, unless you had a majorly OCed i7 extreme with the best possible cooling, and even then I doubt you would hit 100. Also most people monitors run @ 60Hz which means that it won't display anything above 60fps. Unless you have a 100+Hz monitor as well, there is no chance of hitting 100.

The reason I ask, it that I constsiently see 100-120 fps with the default planes in FSX in certain areas of the world - like Hawaii, the Carribean etc, but in New York I see a lot less. Also with the LD767, I get only 40-50 fps. That seems like a big hit in framerates. I am running on a Dell 720 H2C liquid cooled 3.83 Mhz, dual 8800 GTX video cards, 4 mB of ram.

[TechguyMaxC 516]

At altitude, with stock A/C, over sparsely populated areas you absolutely can achieve high FPS with most any decent config, as this is not at all a demanding scenario. The difference in FPS is due to a difference in workload, not any inherent weakness in the hardware.

[greggerm 312]

I cannot stress the validity of Chris's post above enough. In fact, I am going to expand on it here on my soapbox. If you are using an LCD flat panel monitor, you will NOT see any visual difference once you move above 60 FPS. The simulator may be driving out 65, 70, 80, or even 100 FPS, but an LCD monitor is physically incapable of displaying those added frames. In these cases, there is (zero) benefit for running at such high rates. No smoothness improvements, no image quality improvements, and no fly-ability improvements. Explanation Follows:Like all display devices, LCD monitors have what is called a "refresh rate" - this is the number of times per second in which an image is drawn to the screen. In an LCD's case, this rate is set at a standard 60Hz, or 60 cycles per second. This translates to 60 images per second... or, if you'd prefer a different term, 60 "frames" per second. If you have a game running at 30 FPS, it can be said that the monitor displays the same scene twice before moving on to the next one as provided by the computer. 30 FPS on an LCD: [1] [1] [2] [2] [3] [3]If you have a game running at 60 FPS, it can be said that the monitor displays each scene in sequence...60 FPS on an LCD: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]If you have a game running at 120 FPS, the monitor is going to take whatever is being fed to it when it comes time to refresh the screen, and will display that image. In this case, exactly every other image is lost to thin air. The added fidelity of having 120 FPS is cut down to 60 FPS due to the monitor's limitation. 120 FPS on an LCD: [1] [3] [5] [7] [9] [11] With this in mind, running Flight Simulator or indeed *ANY* game at framerates over 60 FPS on an LCD monitor will never provide any visual benefits. The monitor itself just can't and won't display all those other interim frames above the 60 it needs per second. This leads me to the question of the day....Why waste your processor cycles on frames you'll never see?For systems capable of rates greater than 60 FPS using an LCD monitor, it is strongly recommended that you adjust settings to make 60 your top end. Lock your FPS slider to 60 to give back-end processes more time, or add in more detail and scenery until 60 becomes the high end... don't waste processor cycles on images that your eyes will never get to enjoy! This is the same for MSFS and any other game - add in more visual details until 60 becomes your peak, or at least a stable location. This will give you more clarity and visual enjoyment while not truly wasting the power and capability of your computer. If you are running a traditional CRT monitor, things can be a little different. CRT's also have a specified refresh rate, and it functions just about the same as an LCD. Due to the way CRT's draw their image on the screen, this refresh rate is usually higher... usually at or greater than 72Hz. ...the same principal applies though - any FPS settings greater than your display's refresh rate will be lost and never seen. Be it 72hz, 80hz, 90hz... that refresh rate will be the top-end max that the monitor will ever display. Having MSFS capable of running at 100FPS is *GREAT!*, however understand that 40% of those frames may be getting lost in thin air. Wouldn't it be better to tweak the sim to give you better visuals and fidelity instead of wasting those processor and GPU cycles on things you just won't see? Something to think about! -Greg

[Garrett67 1]

Something to think about! -Greg

Bravo! :(

[Glynn 404]

I cannot stress the validity of Chris's post above enough. In fact, I am going to expand on it here on my soapbox. If you are using an LCD flat panel monitor, you will NOT see any visual difference once you move above 60 FPS. The simulator may be driving out 65, 70, 80, or even 100 FPS, but an LCD monitor is physically incapable of displaying those added frames. In these cases, there is (zero) benefit for running at such high rates. No smoothness improvements, no image quality improvements, and no fly-ability improvements. Explanation Follows:Like all display devices, LCD monitors have what is called a "refresh rate" - this is the number of times per second in which an image is drawn to the screen. In an LCD's case, this rate is set at a standard 60Hz, or 60 cycles per second. This translates to 60 images per second... or, if you'd prefer a different term, 60 "frames" per second. If you have a game running at 30 FPS, it can be said that the monitor displays the same scene twice before moving on to the next one as provided by the computer. 30 FPS on an LCD: [1] [1] [2] [2] [3] [3]If you have a game running at 60 FPS, it can be said that the monitor displays each scene in sequence...60 FPS on an LCD: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]If you have a game running at 120 FPS, the monitor is going to take whatever is being fed to it when it comes time to refresh the screen, and will display that image. In this case, exactly every other image is lost to thin air. The added fidelity of having 120 FPS is cut down to 60 FPS due to the monitor's limitation. 120 FPS on an LCD: [1] [3] [5] [7] [9] [11] With this in mind, running Flight Simulator or indeed *ANY* game at framerates over 60 FPS on an LCD monitor will never provide any visual benefits. The monitor itself just can't and won't display all those other interim frames above the 60 it needs per second. This leads me to the question of the day....Why waste your processor cycles on frames you'll never see?For systems capable of rates greater than 60 FPS using an LCD monitor, it is strongly recommended that you adjust settings to make 60 your top end. Lock your FPS slider to 60 to give back-end processes more time, or add in more detail and scenery until 60 becomes the high end... don't waste processor cycles on images that your eyes will never get to enjoy! This is the same for MSFS and any other game - add in more visual details until 60 becomes your peak, or at least a stable location. This will give you more clarity and visual enjoyment while not truly wasting the power and capability of your computer. If you are running a traditional CRT monitor, things can be a little different. CRT's also have a specified refresh rate, and it functions just about the same as an LCD. Due to the way CRT's draw their image on the screen, this refresh rate is usually higher... usually at or greater than 72Hz. ...the same principal applies though - any FPS settings greater than your display's refresh rate will be lost and never seen. Be it 72hz, 80hz, 90hz... that refresh rate will be the top-end max that the monitor will ever display. Having MSFS capable of running at 100FPS is *GREAT!*, however understand that 40% of those frames may be getting lost in thin air. Wouldn't it be better to tweak the sim to give you better visuals and fidelity instead of wasting those processor and GPU cycles on things you just won't see? Something to think about! -Greg

Greg , Thank youI wish you had been around last week when I had my sanity called into question over this very issue :( Mods please make this a sticky