Frame Rate

[Guest DTB60]

I wonder if you folks can tell me if there is any difference to what I would see, to get a frame rate above 24 FPS?I heard that movies are projected at 24 FPS, so does it make any sense to try to get it any higher.My system is running pretty fluid at 26 FPS with most sliders maxed, excepting weather spacific ones & shadows.

[woodhick 504]

You have reopened a never ending can of worms here. FR's are debated ad infinitum ad nauseum. There are those who feel anything less than 100FPS is not worth looking at and those who feel that as long as FSX (or FS-9) looks to your eye to be smooth and enjoyable things are fine. I am in this category. You are correct, movies are projected at 24 FPS because the human eye--all humans and all eyes--cannot see the difference between this and any higher frame rate (on boy am I gonna get trashed for that statement). The human eye can see when things drop much below 24 FR's.Are you happy with what you are seeing? Is the screen smooth and fluid? If you are happy leave things alone. Beware--traveling this path can lead to madness.

[The Moose 1,178]

Woodhick, of course you will get trashed for that statement, because it's a comlete lie!

[trisager 2]

Woodhick, you are absolutely right about the "if you are happy, leave things alone" part. You do deserve to get trashed for your statement about the human eye (and brain) being limited to 24 fps, though - this is simply wrong.For some starting points, I suggest you (and anyone interested) google "frames per second human eye".

[Guest anthony31fs]

It just so happens that a week or so ago I was looking at this trying to see what differences I could detect. The max framerate I used was 60fps (as my monitor has a refresh rate of 60fps so no need to go higher).Here are some things I noticed comparing 60fps with 25fps (both locked):- Looking at the runway and rolling along the runway there was a definite improvement in the smoothness in the rapidly moving runway textures.- Turns were smoother (at 25fps there was a touch more jerkiness).- Straight and level flight there was very very little difference.- Panning around using my hat switch is a lot quicker at 60fps than 25fps.- The difference between 15fps and 25fps was far more noticeable than the difference between 25fps and 60fps.If you are getting 26fps with most sliders maxed then you should be able to achieve 60fps by cutting back on the sliders. It would then be possible for you to compare for yourself the difference between 60fps and 24fps. If you can't tell the difference then why worry about it?BTW: NTSC TV (used in the US) uses 29.97 fps, PAL TV uses 25.

[woodhick 504]

OK guys, I have read more than one of the entries re "frame rates and the human eye" as per instructed, and ya know what? I'm going to stick by my statement--somewhat. The articles seem to say you might--or might not--see any FR differences beyond 24fps. I'm not interested in getting into your "my frame rate (you know what I mean) is bigger than your frame rate" games. Locking the flight sim game (and it is a game) at 24-30 fps is perfectly satisfactory, and if your personal game is fluid at less than that to your eye then that's fine too.If DTB60 is happy with what he (or she) sees, then well and good. No, don't continue to beat me over the head, I'm unchecking notifications and will not further reply. As I told DTB in my original post, this is a useless conversation that generates more heat than light--or smooth visuals in FSX or FS-9.

[The Moose 1,178]

Reply or not, it wont change the facts.Now, i have to agree that locked at 25FPS (as my FSX is) I'm perfectly happy. It's pretty damn smooth in most situations. The argument is to whether the human eye can notice the difference with more than 24 FPS and the absolute undeniable fact of the matter is it can. The whole movies at 24fps argument has no relevance whatsoever. Movies have a blurring between fames that make them appear perfectly smooth. Gaming is a completely different kettle of fish. Anyhow, back to the OP. 24FPS in FSX perfectly acceptable for straight and level flight and will appear smooth. Pan quickly around and you'll notice it isn't that smooth though. I find a constant 30FPS is perfect for FSX and would never feel the need to go higher, as it is im stuck with the compromise of 25FPS at the moment and I'm perfectly happy with it.If your happy with the smoothness of your sim then that's all that matters. If you manage to tweak it so you can achieve 30 FPS+ constantly then you WILL notice the difference, especially when panning or making fast manoeuvres.If you cant notice a difference between 24FPS and 30FPS then I'd head to the opticians :DJust forget about the human eye not seeing any difference over 24 FPS nonsense though. That's a myth. Fact.

[january 19]

One of the key factors in establishing a satisfactory frame rate is- "how much wiggle room is there between a comfortable vs an unsatisfactory rate.At 24 you can drop to about 15 without great penalty when you are suddenly rapidly manoeuvering, entering high density scenery etc. and things will still look ok. Go below 15 and the result may be unsatisfactory.That's not bad- but a faster than 24 average would permit even greater "wiggle room". As they say, it's not the fall that hurts but the sudden stop.Some years ago I read of a demonstration of an experimental film projection system for Hollywood industry experts. It used a 72+ frame rate with extremely high intensity film illumination. This demo fooled the audience into believing that a lab coated technician walking onto stage was real- rather than actually being a projected image.We've got a fair way to go yet!Alex Reid

[Guest DTB60]

One of the key factors in establishing a satisfactory frame rate is- "how much wiggle room is there between a comfortable vs an unsatisfactory rate.At 24 you can drop to about 15 without great penalty when you are suddenly rapidly manoeuvering, entering high density scenery etc. and things will still look ok. Go below 15 and the result may be unsatisfactory.That's not bad- but a faster than 24 average would permit even greater "wiggle room". As they say, it's not the fall that hurts but the sudden stop.Some years ago I read of a demonstration of an experimental film projection system for Hollywood industry experts. It used a 72+ frame rate with extremely high intensity film illumination. This demo fooled the audience into believing that a lab coated technician walking onto stage was real- rather than actually being a projected image.We've got a fair way to go yet!Alex Reid

To All you folk:I am sorry, I didn't intend to "Open a Can of Worms" I do appreciate all the input. It certainly was enlightening. I like the thought of having a little "wiggle room" So I think I'll Save the setup right now, then mess around a bit to see if I can get a 30 or so rate to leave the bUffer , "so to speak"

[Guest NOK]

That's Ok, keep the can open, and try this nifty little tool, then you're able to wiggle:http://www.caveofdistraction.com/2009/07/2...d-other-titles/Can't fly without it!

[TheFamilyMan 281]

I can't resist..just got to kick this FPS horse myself...As mentioned, the film industry gets by with using 24fps because of the motion-blur phenomenon of photographing motion. This is why stop-action animation always seems fake, each frame is perfectly focused even though the object appears to be in motion. When the Jurassic Park movie was produced, one of its major innovations was the use of motion-blur for CGI graphics. I've heard of a few computer games that attempted to implement motion-blur and obviously FSX isn't one of them. And I really don't know if any game has successfully pulled it off; I've also heard it's extremely compute intensive. Now is this really desirable? Should a game look like you are watching a movie? Does watching a movie look like watching real life? As for "what fps can you detect", while playing ping-pong when it's lit overhead by a fluorescent lamp (like I've done in my garage) I can see the 60 hz strobing effect on the ball coming at me. I've pointed this out to others and most can see it. So now how much fps is enough? I really don't know...but getting better than 40 fps average works fine for me.When I consider any performance aspect of FSX, my creed is "don't worry, be happy", as in I'll gladly take whatever I can get for the amount of money and effort I've devoted to it.

[scott967 62]

My understanding is so-called "persistence of vision" doesn't have that much to do with 24 fps speed for theatrical films. Originally there was no set speed for movies, which were measured in "feet per minute" and cue sheets were provided to the projectionist with the desired film speed for different parts of the film. Speed was designed around the need for longest possible exposure time per frame due to the limitations of early Eastman filmstock (Edison had taken standard 70mm Eastman film and split it lengthwise to create a 35mm stock). Typical technique was to use long exposure times in scenes with little motion, but speeding up when motion was evident. This was to prevent seeing the "jerks" in a moving object, not due to any vision persistence issue. (Modern reproduction of silent era films tend to be run at a constant speed and often that results in scenes with motion looking comical because they are projected too fast.) Also, theater operators were not above instructing their projectionists to run the film fast to allow for an extra showing.When sound was added as a visual track on the side of the film, it was necessary to develop a standard speed to prevent the resulting sound pitch from going up and down which was easy to hear. So they came up with 24 fps and narrowed the frame slightly to accommodate the sound track, eventually resulting in so-called "Academy standard".All of which deals with the needs of projected films, and isn't directly related to the problem of computer game graphics.scott s..

[michal 44]

I can't resist..just got to kick this FPS horse myself...

Unfortunately this FPS counter in FSX is bogus - it is incomplete information to judge the 'true' FPS and hence fluidity.In the movies (even in old animated Disney movies) the FPS was 24 and it was delivered in a synchronous fashion - meaning that each frame was separated by the same exact 1/24 sec. I could watch highly spirited scenes from "Snow White and Seven Dwarfs" (circa 1937) and judge it's fluidity to be very good.In FS the frames are delivered asynchronously and this makes a big difference - it pretty much negates whatever the FPS shows since the FPS counter only 'averages' fps over some small time window. One small hiccup in frame delivery and fluidity goes down the drain even though the fps counter shows an acceptable number.If frames were delivered in FS the same was as they are delivered in the movies - in a synchronous manner I could bet no one would complain about fluidity even with fps=24.

[TheBFG 1]

This is an ancient and mysterious art but interesting. I usually tune mine until it never drops below 15 fps. I'll get 30 in most situations but the killer is the low limit. 15 fps is still flyable while on final approach to a busy airport in a complex aircraft. Below 15, it gets irritating, but certainly the human eye will see the difference between 25 and 40 fps.The biggest fps killers for me?1. Clouds. I've installed the smallest cloud textures I could find, and even converted some myself. The default textures for example, on an overcast day, will grind my sim to a halt. Low res clouds make a big difference, and while they don't look as nice as the high res ones, you hardly notice and it's still better than ticking the "simple clouds" box.2. Scenery shadows. Turning these off gives me an extra 4-5fps.3. Anti aliasing settings. This also makes a big difference. Unfortunately MSFS looks pretty poor with no AA, but how far you go will impact fps dramatically. I have on occasion just turned AA off, say while landing a PMDG B744 on VATSIM at a big airport... something that otherwise kills the party.

[steve_1979 0]

I can only just tell the difference between 24 and 30 FPS and even then it's only noticeable when I turn my head front side to side.I have FSX set-up so that it runs at a near constant 30FPS (limited) for 99% of the time but if the frame rate ever drops below 20FPS it's time to turn the graphics down a bit. When using ASA thick heavy overcast storm clouds will occasionally knock the frame rate down into the teens but this is very rare.