How many FPS do we really need?

[wanabflyer 53]

Looking at all of the many posts regarding performance which altimately ends up with "How many FPS am i getting" begs the question, "How many FPS do we need" Not being an expert on all (or any) of the software configurations and thier effect on the performance or indeed operation of todays' computers i wonder, if you lower the required number of required FPS, does that free up rescourses for other demands on the system, thus creating a smoother sim? In other words, if you externally (or internaly) limit your FPS to that just above what can be detected by the human eye and not what seems to be a standard of 30, could you end up with a smoother sim with less stutters, mini or otherwise?

[Humpty 751]

30 fps , I would like that 30 fps with all high end addons and my fsx setting either to max or just above mid. The human eye does not register motion above 25 fps according to researchers , but maybe in gaming it is different you probably would require 27-30 fps. " if you lower the required number of required FPS, does that free up rescourses for other demands on the system, " this will depend on your overall system capabilities like in your case it can handle very well. The higher the bandwidth or the higher graphics data would definitely be more demanding on a system. You don't lower the fps , you increase games setting's to heavier settings which would result in downgrading of your fps. So if you put more demand on your system more load goes into processing it. But looking at your setup it should be a breeze with a few tweaks.

[Joel 10]

30 fps , I would like that 30 fps with all high end addons and my fsx setting either to max or just above mid. The human eye does not register motion above 25 fps according to researchers , but maybe in gaming it is different you probably would require 27-30 fps.

Well in video games that's different. It's quite noticable in shooters when you have FPS at around 40 or so. I think it has something to do with ghosting.

[Etex_RJ 0]

The human eye can't detect smoothness above 25 fps, in any situation.Not i'm telling this, according with researchers.

[andysim 0]

you can see the diffrence from 20 to 30fps and above. there is a common misconception that you only need 24 or so FPS but thats with films, films and tv programs have motion blur that makes it alot less noticable. Computers are totaly diffrent each time the screen refreshes the result is more clinical and almost too perfect where as programs on your tv are full of movment and blend into each other..

[Flexman 30]

The more FPS the better. Currently you are only limited by the refresh rate of your monitor, so, no matter how good your rig is, you will never be able to display more frames per second than your monitor.... In racing simulators, people often lower visual quality to get as high a frame rate they can get. Some weven use 120hz projectors and cap their framerates to 120. 120fps on a 120hz display is AMAZING.... if only we could get that in FSX. I think full size simulators reach those frame rates.

[Humpty 751]

you can see the diffrence from 20 to 30fps and above. there is a common misconception that you only need 24 or so FPS but thats with films, films and tv programs have motion blur that makes it alot less noticable. Computers are totaly diffrent each time the screen refreshes the result is more clinical and almost too perfect where as programs on your tv are full of movment and blend into each other..

They all have motion except in the case of computer graphics and games there are different things being used which would make one seem you need a higher frame rate as every graphics render is done in real time and may be that could be a reason behind it. It is a debatable topic.

[JokersWild 34]

" The overwhelming solution to a more realistic game play, or computer video has been to push the human eye past the misconception of only being able to perceive 30 FPS. Pushing the Human Eye past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is possible, ask the video card manufacturers, an eye doctor, or a Physiologist. We as humans CAN and DO see more than 60 frames a second." http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

[Christian Adrigan 0]

30.

[Airbus Commander 563]

25-30

[Jordan 0]

Films are render to 23.976 FPS. The eye can detect movement from 3 FPS. Detecting movement is not the same as seeing smooth movement, which is why films in the cinema are at 23.976 FPS. You will see absolutely no difference between something like 24 or 23 FPS and 30 FPS, 40 FPS, 60, 70, 120, 10000, 10000000000 FPS.

[Humpty 751]

" The overwhelming solution to a more realistic game play, or computer video has been to push the human eye past the misconception of only being able to perceive 30 FPS. Pushing the Human Eye past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is possible, ask the video card manufacturers, an eye doctor, or a Physiologist. We as humans CAN and DO see more than 60 frames a second." http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

Haha is that true . Maybe one could see above 30 fps , 25 fps is what we call perfect, maybe I mis quoted in my earlier post, if we go below 25 fps to lets say 19 fps then we may see the frames like oh this is the 20th frame etc.... and in a computer game it needs to bundle so many things in that single frame.

[JokersWild 34]

Haha is that true . Maybe one could see above 30 fps , 25 fps is what we call perfect, maybe I mis quoted in my earlier post, if we go below 25 fps to lets say 19 fps then we may see the frames.

I think in terms of sim fps and monitor frames, then the 27-30 frame rule of thumb does apply. The link was just for those curious about the research.

[wanabflyer 53]

30 fps , I would like that 30 fps with all high end addons and my fsx setting either to max or just above mid. The human eye does not register motion above 25 fps according to researchers , but maybe in gaming it is different you probably would require 27-30 fps. " if you lower the required number of required FPS, does that free up rescourses for other demands on the system, " this will depend on your overall system capabilities like in your case it can handle very well. The higher the bandwidth or the higher graphics data would definitely be more demanding on a system. You don't lower the fps , you increase games setting's to heavier settings which would result in downgrading of your fps. So if you put more demand on your system more load goes into processing it. But looking at your setup it should be a breeze with a few tweaks.

As far as setup is concerned i agree with you and no i,m not complaining. I am asking the question because with FSX, no matter how good your system, when you are running high quality, highly demanding addons such as NGX, you are going to get stutters if you crank up your expectations (FPS) too much. So if you go the other way, can it help even the best of sytems?

[Humpty 751]

As far as setup is concerned i agree with you and no i,m not complaining. I am asking the question because with FSX, no matter how good your system, when you are running high quality, highly demanding addons such as NGX, you are going to get stutters if you crank up your expectations (FPS) too much. So if you go the other way, can it help even the best of sytems?

Trust me NGX is not so heavy on the frames, check my sig my frnds got a similar rig and dense autogen , water mid 1.x lod 50% terrain 100% no ground trafic air traffic 60% @1400x1050 and no bloom or lens flare he is pullin 16 fps on ground @manhattan X and in air it is jumping from 16-24. and no special effects and using bojotes tweaks . There are many users who have heavy add ons are enjoying it.