Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest stranex

Newbie query!

Recommended Posts

Hi all,Well after receiving very cold feedback to my original post regarding running FS on a Mac, I went the PC route and have just finished building my rig (i7 860 OC 3.9GHz, Super OC GTX260, Win7)Yesterday I loaded up FS2004 and made the tweaks called for in Nicks excellent guide. I also downloaded a trial copy of UK2000 Heathrow scenery just to try and give the machine something to do! However, with most sliders to the right and Nicks settings in the cfg file I was getting an almost static 60fps flying around Heathrow in the C172 (substantially more when pointing at the sky of course!). I'm not sure what I was expecting really but seeing as similar setups get good fps in FSX I (maybe wrongly) presumed I would be able to acheive more than 60fps in FS9? Don't get me wrong, 60fps is great and I guess (?) I wouldn't see the benefit of anything higher as my screen is only set to 60Hz at 1980x1020? I guess I'd just like to know if 60fps sounds about right for my setup or if I'm missing something? As I'd like to add all the "whistle and bells" add ons at some stage and maybe FSX, I'd like to make sure I have the setup optimised first and am getting the max fps (even if I wont see the benefit at present)Thanks in advance for any insight, answers, tips etc......only my 2nd post but I've learnt so much by reading this forum already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I think I remember your post about FS on a Mac. I do it too, but find even FS2004 to be too laggy, actually, for what I want to do with it. I got 40FPS when all on default, but sitting on the NL2000 scenery at night, with lots of AI, REX and the PMDG 747, I'm lucky to have between 8 and 15 FPS. So, in that respect, I think you made a good choice. The 60FPS you have now is with mostly default stuff, right? Well, it's good enough, sure, but I am too a bit surprised you get nothing higher... Alas, I'm not sure if I can be of much help, but try to switch off Windows 7 services and close all kidns of background tasks, although I'm quite you've tried that already using Nick's guide...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Benjamin,I've not tried switching off background processes as I didn't think it would make much difference on what I deem to be a fairly high spec rig! I will give it a try and report back (oh and yes, everything's default save the UK2000 EGLL scenery)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just tried with Norton Secuirty switched off and only very minor processes running and no change :-( Interestingly, no matter where I point the plane (blue sky or detailed EGLL) I get almost EXACTLY the same fps...60. It fluctuates very marginally between 59 and 60 and for a split sec seems to go up to the 100s when I point at the sky but almost immediately (less than 1/2 second) returns to 60....almost like it's pegged there even though I have no limit set in the settings?My CPU is hardly stressed at all at the temp on Core1 never get over 45 (72 is max at 100%) so it's not that. The GTX260 is the same...sits at 42C and the fan doesn't even come on indicating it's not maxed out.Anyone any ideas as to why the fps are seemingly so "static"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let's make this clear: You ALWAYS have around 59~60FPS? It does not go OVER it, but does go UNDER 60 FPS? In that case, this is probably a frame lock you might want to remove. On the Hardware tab of the Display settings screen, there is a slider titled "Frame lock" please look at what FPS count it sits. If you find it at 60, you can try placing it all to the right (on "unlimited") and you'll see what your computer is really capable off.However, you might want it keep the frame lock, in the end, at 60. it will ensure you don't get those irritating FPS oscillations, and anyway the human brain can't see big differences in motion above 24FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep! Always 60fps but it does deviate up and down for split seconds.....it returns to 60 as soon as the plane levels off and I stop any inputs. Just to confirm....I have NO frame lock in the settings (it's set to unlimited)I've just tried changing various settings and sliders (moving them all to far left from far right for example) and also tried changing various options in the NVidia control panel but it sticks at 60 no matter what!It's a s though I have a frame rate lock set somewhere but like I say, it is set to unlimited. I changed it to 80 just to see what would happen but it still stayed at 60!Like you say....good that I'm ALWAYS getting 60 but I just want to know why?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just tried rebotting the system and flying out of a different airport (KSEA, all sliders to far right).....guess what? 60fps!!!Had a look in the cfg and saw this line;LOD_TARGET_FPS=100Is this ok? My frame rates are set to unlimited so wonder why this shows up in the cfg file?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you used Nick's settings than most probably you have Vsync enabled in nvidia settings. You mentioned that your monitor has a 60 Hz refresh rate and Vsync does just that: ensures that your framerate does not exceed your monitors refresh thereby eliminating stutters. I see yours as the ideal situation. Getting 60 fps in any situation on a complex airport looks good to me. Do not even be surprised if your framerate decreases even a bit once you set some weather and load the airport with AI.I am pretty sure it is caused by Vsyinc and it is normal.Cheers,Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds very probable. Check your monitor and the Vsync option, like Alex suggested. Otherwise, I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Alex! Such a simple answer can't beleive we missed it and makes total sense!Disabled VSync and now getting 70-80fps at UK2000 EGLL and similar at KSEA with ALL sliders fully to the right.....very happy!!!Thanks Benjamin for your help also and like you say, I guess anything over about 30fps in indescernible to the eye anyway?Guess the next question is does anyone know what these figures would roughyl translate to in a "moderate" (ie, very fluid but average quality settings) in FSX? Don't want to spend out the money on that if it's going to start being noticeable to the eye with a fps under 25ish? Maybe I should just be happy and go and add on some scenery, PDMG JS41 etc and se how that affects FS9 first ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Alex! Such a simple answer can't beleive we missed it and makes total sense!Disabled VSync and now getting 70-80fps at UK2000 EGLL and similar at KSEA with ALL sliders fully to the right.....very happy!!!Thanks Benjamin for your help also and like you say, I guess anything over about 30fps in indescernible to the eye anyway?Guess the next question is does anyone know what these figures would roughyl translate to in a "moderate" (ie, very fluid but average quality settings) in FSX? Don't want to spend out the money on that if it's going to start being noticeable to the eye with a fps under 25ish? Maybe I should just be happy and go and add on some scenery, PDMG JS41 etc and se how that affects FS9 first ;-)
You are welcome. However Vsync is generally not a bad thing so I would keep it engaged. The sim is usually markedly fuider with vsync on while turning it off might cause some texture tearing. I am not of the crowd that believes that anything under 24fps is undiscernable for the human eye. I consider myself no superhuman however I clearly discern between a framerate of 24 and a framerate of 50 or 60 with my clear preference being 60 of course :( You must decide for yourself.I am afraid the PMDG Js41 is for FSX only but I do suggest you try a PMDG aircraft at EGLL with some nastier cloud coverage.Cheers,Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:-( Do you guys think 70-80fps with all sliders far right but no add ons is fair performance or should I still be searching for more? I could O/C the CPU a little more if I disable Hyper Threading which I beleive is of little use in FS9?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your welcome. Concerning FSX, I can't really help... I only know that 45FPS in FS9 for me resulted in about 24FPS in FSX (all default stuff and settings around high). My computer is 1,5 year old though...Not saying FPS over 24 is undiscernable to the human eye, but the difference isn't as pronounced. 24FPS is where the human eye actually starts seeing fluid motion instead of single frames. So up until 50FPS you probably can see various degrees of fluidness, but you will not see single frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your welcome. Concerning FSX, I can't really help... I only know that 45FPS in FS9 for me resulted in about 24FPS in FSX (all default stuff and settings around high). My computer is 1,5 year old though...Not saying FPS over 24 is undiscernable to the human eye, but the difference isn't as pronounced. 24FPS is where the human eye actually starts seeing fluid motion instead of single frames. So up until 50FPS you probably can see various degrees of fluidness, but you will not see single frames.
Thraini- Watch a hockey puck flash across the TV screen (30 FPS) and you can easily see the frame to frame motion. I believe it is accepted that frame to frame change is detectable by the human eye/brain combo up to a low 70s frame rate. Some years ago I read of a Hollywood experimental film demo for an audience of industry experts, who were actually fooled into thinking that a projected "technician in a lab coat, walking across the stage", was the real thing. It was running at low 70 frames and used extremely bright illumination of the film.Alex Reid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:-( Do you guys think 70-80fps with all sliders far right but no add ons is fair performance or should I still be searching for more? I could O/C the CPU a little more if I disable Hyper Threading which I beleive is of little use in FS9?
It's irrelevant what you get in default. Load some addon weather, aircraft, and airport with addon traffic and see what you're getting. In the worst of situations, I get around 30fps and otherwise am locked at 50fps with my system...you should get a bit higher, but not much.p.s.-- 24fps max for human eye?...BS, to be frank. Research the mechanism and anatomy of the eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thank you all.....hopefully my system will allow me to run FS9 with all the bells and whistles!When you guys talk about fps, are you talking on the ground at a high detailed airport or airborne over scarse scenery or what? Just tried a quick flight out of KSEA and with some of the sliders scaled back a bit I was getting 125+ fps (just airborne from KSEA, 70-80fps)Wll need to do some research now as to the best add on scenery/planes etc! Any tips?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ january/red1: I think you misunderstand me bigtime. @ red1: thanks, I shall study eye anatomy AGAIN, although, as a biology student, I think I have studied it often enough, both from text books and animal bisections.@ january: now you are talking about something which I think is different than what I was hinting at. What I was talking about is one specific thing (a movie, for example), where actors and objects move with a certain speed. You can have variants of this same movie with more or less frames, for example 10FPS or 30FPS. The 10FPS movie for the human eye seems somewhat choppy. The 30FPS seems a lot like fluid motion. You can of course add more and more frames to the movie, and while you will see some degree of fluidness increase, you will not see a difference as such, that at 30FPS you saw single frames and at 60FPS you didn't. So, it's not like you didn't see fluid motion at 30FPS and at 60FPS, you did. You saw various degrees of fluid motion in that movie, yes, but you did not see the difference you saw between 10 and 30FPS!Now, the important thing about what I'm talking about, and it's a crucial thing: I am talking about a movie that, regardless of the amount of FPS, runs at a specific speed. This means that, when you play it with a lesser FPS, parts of the motions in the movie are "missing", and that is why you see it as a "slide show". If you now increase the FPS rate, it means you "fill up" the holes in the 10FPS movie, so that you eventually get a 30FPS movie. All the necessary holes are now filled, and you will see fluid motion. You can now add more and more frames between the already existing frames, but this will not have such a major impact. Now, let's get back to what you said:The problem you propose, is sort of related to what I said above, but it's more related to the time in which 1 motion is completed. Let me give an example:Say, the screen is fixed on 60FPS (well, for most people anyway). If I move my mouse over it normally, there is no problem: this is one motion to my eye. If I make it "shoot" past my screen, I see three cursors, meaning the speed of the cursor was probably 20 times higher. Your hockey puck example is the same kind of thing. So: these examples deal with the amount of time passed before a motion is completed. In the first cursor example it took, say, 10 second for the cursor to move to one edge of the screen, while in the other it took 0.5 seconds. Now, picture this:We again use the movie I discussed earlier. We run it at 10FPS. Now, we cut the holes, and stick all remaining frames right next to each other. The movie will have reduced in length approximately threefold, and the motions will also be three times as fast. THIS is what you are talking about: an amount of frames played in a shorter amount of time, which is related to the speed at which movements are made. It should be obvious this is not what I was talking about previously!So, let me summarize:- A movie running at 10FPS looks choppy because elements of a movement are missing.- If you add additional frames, you can fill up the holes, and so you see fluid movement.- If you now take out the frames again, and stick the remaining frames together, you get a heavily sped up movie.- Because the movie is much faster, movements will also be faster: again we miss frames, or, in other words: there are again holes in the motion. Therefore we see it choppy.- When you move your cursor fast over the screen, you see several cursors on the screen before the cursor gets to the other side of the screen, or you see several hockey pucks before the actual puck reaches the other end of the screen. So, this is because frames are missing, like in the movie example.Conclusion: the faster a motion is over a set distance, the more FPS are needed to make it seem like a true motion. My 24~30FPS can be exceptable, but it depends on the speed of the motion and the distance over which it happens. Make the motion faster, and you'll need a higher FPS to compensate. I therefore think that what i said previously, and what you said afterwards, are not at all in conflict.I hope to have been as clear as I can. By the way, you may disagree with me, of course you can! But if you do, please refer me to actual scientific papers, otherwise I will stick to what the professors at university told me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

125 fps is cool but I don't imagine has any relevance to the viewing experience.I'd like to know if there is a documented limit to what the human eye can discern - I've heard stories of 60-70 fps.Of course the medium is important too.A movie shot on film will have individual frames slightly blurred, which aids the illusion of movement.Digitally produced media like flightsims don't, and so I would imagine need a higher fps count to appear fluid.The sales pitch for watching sport on TV tells us 100Hz is a minimum - but the broadcast signal is only 25 or 30 fps!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thralin:If you want to start comparing education, I'm in the 4th year of doctor of pharmacy program.I don't want to start another discussion on this as it has been covered SOOO many times, but (from my research and education) the eye does not see 'frames'. If you really want to discuss it in term of frames, the human eye can detect differences well into the 100s. Again, this is what I have come away with.Stranex, just turn vsync on and limit fps to 60. My 'worst' case is the lowest fps I see, which is usually in something like the PMDG 747 taxing past 100+ ground AI at an addon airport like KJFK with heavy overcast HD clouds. Keep in mind this is running 1920x1080 resolution with 8xS AA and 16xAF. Your computer should do a bit better, but expect some low downs in the worst conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ january/red1: I think you misunderstand me bigtime. ---------------I hope to have been as clear as I can. By the way, you may disagree with me, of course you can! But if you do, please refer me to actual scientific papers, otherwise I will stick to what the professors at university told me.
Thraini- I don't think we are in disagrrement at all- amount or speed of movement determines what frame rate is needed to fool the eye & brain!Very slow movement = low frame rate. No movement = zero frame rate. And fooling the brain is what it's all about with 'puters, TV & Movies.But the eye/brain is remarkably perceptive in detecting where there SHOULD be motion, even though it isn't readily apparent.Visualize the case of an aircraft in Final Approach: looking straight ahead toward touchdown point, the amount of scenery/runway movement per frame is not great, so a low FPS looks pretty good. But a real pilot also sees out to the side- where the movement is very substantial- hence a higher frame rate is desirable. (The human retina is uniquely built to detect motion & shadow out of the corners of our eyes- not a big deal with the FS 45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, if you don't think we are in disagreement, then what's the problem? When I read this last post of yours, I saw reasoning that was logical, coherent, and completely compatible with all that I said... Moreover, you completed my reasoning by relating it with FS, and I think your reasoning is spot-on!red1: I did not mean to offend you (if I did, then sorry), I only reacted in a way that I deemed reasonable. I did not mean to "compare education", but you told me to go "look up eye anatomy", like some poor kid that got lost and ended up somewhere where it shouldn't belong, and so I saw good reason to state I hadn't got lost at all.Concerning your research, I don't think we disagree. I did not talk about the eye "seeing" FPS as such, rather, I have been talking about how the on-screen FPS that is detected by the human eye is handled by the brain (I know the eye sends out a continuous signal. I'm required to know such things...). True, I never said it in such a way and I acknowledge it could have caused misunderstandings, but in that case I'm saying it now: that's not the way I meant any of it. So, I also don't see how what you said about the eye being able to detect over 100FPS is conflicting with anything I said. Moreover, I have said things in my previous post that are in complete agreement with it!Have you read books by Oliver Sacks and Ramachandran by any chance? They deal with these subjects. I can recommend them if it interests you, it's truly fascinating! By the way, thinking about this subject and writing about it here, on this thread, does fill me with a kind of joy. I truly like this subject. May I know what research it is that you are doing, red1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really up to date on what people can and cannot distinguish in terms of frames but my solution on frame rates is this:Press Shift+Z a few times until you get the frame rates window up.Now press it again for that it goes away!If you don't know what the frame rate is then you don't have to worry about squeezing out 10 more frames :( But that's just my opinion and as long as you're satisfied with how the game looks then it doesn't matter if your frame rate is 10 FPS or 100 FPS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... I truly like this subject...
It is truly fascinating, and having a couple of bio scientists in the discussion might just clear up a few things.For instance, if the optic signal is constantly fed to the brain (is it? I thought the rods 'n cones fired "digitally") then the brain must be rejecting some of that signal to avoid overload, hence a "movement threshold".That is quantifiable, surely..has it been identified?Is it the same no matter what circumstances of lighting, movement, position in field of view etc?All of this has bearing on what makes you comfortable in setting up your fligtsim software btw so is not too fat OT ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stranex, if you could test the following, I'd be happy:Make sure vsync is on and lock the frames to 30. Does it seem as smooth as when set to 60?I (and lots of others) get bad stutters when locking at anything other than 60.It's a strange phenomenon, because when flying straight (and locked at 30 fps) it looks smooth, but when banking and turning those horrible stutters appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites