How many FPS do we really need?

[steve inwood 67]

Yeah 25 - 30fps is great

[Niall Hanley 0]

I'd say anything between 25-30 would be adaquate.

[ZachLW 37]

If you guys have ever seen 50-60FPS in sim, you know just how fluid the aircraft feels. It's fantastic in this range. I limit mine to 30, though. 20 is unbearable for me, 25 is acceptable.

[Humpty 751]

If you guys have ever seen 50-60FPS in sim, you know just how fluid the aircraft feels. It's fantastic in this range. I limit mine to 30, though. 20 is unbearable for me, 25 is acceptable.

25 fps is perfect anything above that could be fantastic.

[Lemond23 0]

50 fps for fluidity. It seems the new 747-400 sim by Aerowinx will be in this range. Teo Halfen

[Flexman 30]

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.

That is incorrect. The reason for film cameras to shoot at that frame rate was mainly COST, and tradition. Today, movies are shot at up to 60fps and sometimes TVs will bring those to even 200fps by interpolating intermediate frames "content aware". Eyesight, being mainly a chemical process (and electrical), obviously has a limit at which you cannot notice the difference, but that limit is certainly higher than 30, and that is a fact. A game/sim at 100fps on a 100hz capable screen truly is an amazing experience.

[JokersWild 34]

If you guys have ever seen 50-60FPS in sim, you know just how fluid the aircraft feels. It's fantastic in this range. I limit mine to 30, though. 20 is unbearable for me, 25 is acceptable.

Yeah, 20 or below will really frak up your landing due to lag between what you see and the control inputs. If I can get mid 20s and up, I'm very satisfied.

[virtualstuff 751]

Yeah, 20 or below will really frak up your landing due to lag between what you see and the control inputs. If I can get mid 20s and up, I'm very satisfied.

Well actually 60 fps and stutters or 18 fps and smooth lol it's all about smoothness to begin with ;-)

[JokersWild 34]

Well actually 60 fps and stutters or 18 fps and smooth lol it's all about smoothness to begin with ;-)

That is true...I think. I've never achieved 60fps in an add on with this rig. I wouldn't know what that feels like! I know it makes me ill when I see how fluid some people are able to fly AND capture HD video. If I tried that with my rig it would spark and flip me the bird.

[virtualstuff 751]

That is true...I think. I've never achieved 60fps in an add on with this rig. I wouldn't know what that feels like! I know it makes me ill when I see how fluid some people are able to fly AND capture HD video. If I tried that with my rig it would spark and flip me the bird.

Yep true I had a flash back about my previous dual and quad cores, only the current I5 and I7 over clocked can achieve that.

[ZachLW 37]

That is incorrect. The reason for film cameras to shoot at that frame rate was mainly COST, and tradition. Today, movies are shot at up to 60fps and sometimes TVs will bring those to even 200fps by interpolating intermediate frames "content aware". Eyesight, being mainly a chemical process (and electrical), obviously has a limit at which you cannot notice the difference, but that limit is certainly higher than 30, and that is a fact. A game/sim at 100fps on a 100hz capable screen truly is an amazing experience.

Very true. And anyone that can't see the difference between 23 and 60 FPS either: A. has never seen 60 FPSB. needs their eyes checkedC. is lying (no offense)D. is in denial to the fact that new hardware is in order Just a note. One, all, or several of the above may apply.

[JokersWild 34]

Very true. And anyone that can't see the difference between 23 and 60 FPS either: A. has never seen 60 FPSB. needs their eyes checkedC. is lying (no offense)D. is in denial to the fact that new hardware is in order Just a note. One, all, or several of the above may apply.

I can't deny new hardware is in order...making it attainable is a completely other story! Inane question: Antilag limiter: What do I set the render ahead limit to?

[Jigsaw 8]

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..

I was about to say that. It's annoying that this misconception of "25fps are all the human eye can see" keeps getting perpetuated, even though everyone can try themselves that there even is a noticable difference between 40 and 60fps and more.

[ZachLW 37]

I can't deny new hardware is in order...making it attainable is a completely other story! Inane question: Antilag limiter: What do I set the render ahead limit to?

Very true. "0" . 1 and 2 are for FPS gamers and mouse lag, or something silly. Either way, 2 gave terrible stutters. 1 gave lower FPS.

I was about to say that. It's annoying that this misconception of "25fps are all the human eye can see" keeps getting perpetuated, even though everyone can try themselves that there even is a noticable difference between 40 and 60fps and more.

Yup! I think it comes down to misinterpretation. Simple as that!

[g_precentralis 191]

Actually, we cannot measure "how many frames human eye can see", because human eye is much different from any camera. But, that certainly is not 25 or so. In FSX, even 20fps can be enough for nice flight, but if you can run 100fps, there is no reason to limit yourself at 25 just because some crazy researchers said that is enough. Difference is huge, on 25fps you can never fly manually as good as you can with 50-60fps or more. Lj. Prodanovic