Hi, I was wondering if ther was an advantage to locking framerates at a certain number like 20 or 30 fps, or just leaving it at unlimited? Thanx forany input. Kirk

Hi Kirk,that depends on your hardware, FS settings, and your expectations. When I ran FS2002 on a 1GHz computer, there was no difference in performance between locked and unlocked fps sliders. That was probably due to the fact that all resources were used up by FS anyway, so there wasn't much left to optimise - leaving it at 'unlimited' actually gave a slightly smoother performance.Now I'm running FS2004 on an AMD XP300+ and a Radeon 9700 Pro, and I notice some serious stutters, especially during approach when leaving the fps slider at 'unlimited'. Using Shift+Z to check the frame rates, I noticed they were fluctuating between 30 and 100, averaging somewhere around 40-50. Now that's a difference of some 70fps between the lowest and highest, and that can't be good. When I lock the slider at 25, everything is perfectly smooth, as the frame rates just stay at that level all the time, fluctuating only 0.4fps between 24.6 and 25. That's a lot better than 70fps difference :).The bottom line is, try it out and see what works best for your system. However, when you lock the frame rate slider, make sure you set it to a level your system can deliver, rather than what you would like to see :).Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

This is a worn out topic, but there is still a lot of misunderstanding about framerates, locks, system resources and results. Here's the way it looks to me based on Microsoft information and posts from some highly respected members of the flight sim community, as well as a lot of playing around with both of my computers, a 700Mhz and a 3.2Ghz machine.Framerates left open force your computer to ignore a lot of eye candy, texture mapping (filtering), texture sharpening, AA, AF, autogen scenery, scenery detail and a whole bunch of display quality issues. You are, in effect, telling the computer, "I don't care what else you do, but run this sim at 100 fps if you can do it." There are several problems with this approach. First, you can't SEE any difference between 100 fps and 24 fps on your screen. Second, you are forcing your CPU to spend all it's time chasing an impossible goal and wasting cycles that could be used for AI traffic, autogen scenery, cloud display and all the great new stuff in FS9.Another factor is that, the more I experiment, the more I'm convinced that the framerate counter in FS9 is a "flash sample" counter, not an average. On my hyperthreaded 3.2Ghz box, I can watch both CPU's in FS9. One is running full bore (50% of system resources nearly all the time) while the other one loafs at 1-5%. If the demand increases due to heavy scenery detail and lots of traffic at a big airport, the 2nd CPU will begin to show some increased load. Sometimes the framerate counter will vary from 24 down to the low teens, but the onscreen display is still smooth as glass. So, instantaneous variations are to be ignored for the most part. If you are getting stutters, then you are overdriving your system somewhere, and your settings are too high.You should set framerate lock at the lowest setting you can live with, plus maybe 2. That rate will depend on your own sensitivity to the rate, the resolution of your monitor, and your system resources and settings on both FS9 and your graphics card.I have my rate set at 18 fps on the 700Mhz box with some reduced slider settings, and at 24 fps on the 3.2Ghz box with the entire system set for maximum display quality (and, no, that doesn't mean all sliders maxed out). The settings in both FS9 and your graphics card are, for the most part, adjustments that are meant to be set somewhere mid range for best results. You don't max out your brightness and contrast settings on your monitor or TV to get the best picture, and you don't max out your graphics card and FS9 sliders and get the best display, either. Some settings in FS9 are duplicated by the graphics card, and using them in both places is not only a waste of resources, but also counterproductive. The only settings that do add to display detail are 3D clouds, autogen scenery, AI traffic (here a mid setting is much more realistic), and scenery detail/complexity.A good example of overkill is the mipmap setting. Many are crying because they can't set it to 8 without getting shimmering. It is an artificial edge sharpener, and, depending on where your graphics card settings are, 4 is about right if trilinear filtering is on and you are using any anisiotropic filtering.Every system is different and you have to play around to get your's at it's best. The ATI cards still have some driver issues which will, hopefully, be fixed soon, which are related to stuttering. But the key is to begin with realistic framerates to give your system a chance to do something besides chase the elusive 100 fps.MDavis

Hi there,>Another factor is that, the more I experiment, the more I'm convinced that the framerate counter in FS9 is a "flash sample" counter, not an average.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

"First, you can't SEE any difference between 100 fps and 24 fps on your screen"sorry, but I don't agree on this. Here I can see differences between 30, 45 and 60 FPS.I work with film/video production and I can see difference between 30 and 60 frames per second, more than that, in FS the hardest thing is to keep a constant 30 FPS playback, so you see stutters with huge FPS differences and locking should help.In the other hand, I'm using it at Unlimited and my Vertical Sync is set to ON, so the system tries to lock frame rate to the display frequency, helping in smooth the simulation, give it a try.Ulisses

No you can't.Maybe you THINK you can, you might even have convinced yourself you can, but you can't.Your screen can't handle the difference and neither can your eyes.

he, he...so 24 FPS = 60 FPS, who told you that ?Come here and I show you the difference, both the screen and eyes can handle it.http://www.pcvsconsole.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2800http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec.aviat...s/7/msg7466.htmHere the sim in my DLP projector at 50 inches looks a lot more smooth at 60 FPS than 30 FPS and if I lock the frame rate to 30 and to 60 and show to 10 different people, everyone will tell me the 60 FPS is smoother (without showing the frame rate on screen)If you are happy with 24FPS, good.Ulisses

The difference between 24 and 60 may be less meaningful than the difference between 24 and, say, 30 in terms of flyability-but I agree it can be both seen and "felt". You are getting far more rapid updating and interface between your control inputs and what you see on screen, creating a much more realistic fluidity to the sim. At anything less than 30 I've found that far too much input data is "skipped" between frames, especially important on final approach and landing, where subtle inputs are what its all about.Personally I think 60 is probably over the top for what you need to realistically replicate flight, but to say there is no difference isn't true either. I lock at 30 and wouldn't go a frame lower than that- on occasion when in a detailed area and frames drop to 25-26 the difference is very noticable.I know that because I don't keep my framerate counter on all the time- I just pop it up when I think there's a slowdown. And 100% of the time if I sense a slowdown, I find that there is indeed a drop. Sometimes only 2-4 FPS, but I can definitely tell the difference, no counter needed to let me know.Those who say flying at 15 or 20 FPS is the same as 30 are entitled to their opinion of course, and its their choice to trade eye candy for realism- but I agree with Ulisses that the choice is real.Best,Joel