But that's what a pilot's life supposed to be!!!! Don't you enjoy it? I do!!!! ;-)

Yeah, I imagine that in real life is exciting, but in Flight is not, maybe because you always fly alone and never see anyone, or maybe because the weather dont change, or because the radio dont work.

 

I think if its a game, at least put a good story on it.

The human eye can see well over 100 FPS as many sources will easily confirm. And this does apply to flight sims. I locked my framerate to 30 FPS just to see the difference, and it was essentially a slideshow. And I'll just leave it at that as I have better things to do with my day than debunking the misconceptions of someone who doesn't even do a quick search to get their facts straight.

 

 

No it can't. Well, It can "SEE" unlimited FPS, but it can only process X amount of light and motion...which comes in at about 60 fps. However, FR chance and drop can be detected by the eye at rates over way over 60fps(like several hundred), So if you're watching something running at 200fps, and it dips to 100fps, you will notice the chop.

 

 

At a smooth constant 30fps, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference....it may have been a slideshow...but thats probably from the FR jumping around. about 90% of all video games run at a locked 30fps on consoles. Racing and Fighting games run at 60FPS(for a reason), and its almost impossible to notice a frame rate disturbance.

 

Any source that talks about watching movies or games at frame rates in the hundreds is basically pointless, and refers to the 1/1000 people who could actually notice any difference at all.

 

Ditto. Flight runs nearly flawless on my system but unfortunately I've grown bored with the Hawaii limitation and no signs of active life where I'm flying. Don't get me wrong, the scenery is gorgeous but right now I need more variety & purpose. Which is why I've installed FSX and purchased a few add ons. I really missed AI, ATC, and a larger variety of available aircraft and geography. All of this FSX offers.

 

Flight has tremendous potential but for me, and for now, I need more than Hawaii. Alaska will help but I see it as only a short term remedy. Eventually Alaska and Hawaii won't be enough. And if MS decides to separate those regions making them (and future areas) mutually exclusive in Flight, then forget about it. I knew it at the time & kept my mouth shut but looking back at the release of cockpitless warbards, for me it really solidified the pace, direction, and intent of Flight. So many people on the forums stood tall saying they wouldn't purchase the Zero - as if to show MS we don't want these planes, yet in game half the equipment I see being flown now are Zeros, which I think also sparked some interest in the P51.

 

 

 

Heh, join the club...I have a pretty higher end custom PC, thats now highly outdated(1 year old ;p) even with its $600 graphics card and flight runs wild at 100+fps pretty easily...FSX, on the otherhand, runs like crap. never knew why (ran crappy on my other computer as well)

Didnt we go over this the last time you posted that Flight sucks? Your $30 video card cant handle it.

Something is wrong with Flight then as its graphics are very outdated and it should run very well on lower end systems of today.

Something is wrong with Flight then as its graphics are very outdated and it should run very well on lower end systems of today.

Yawn !!

 

Fred.

This is again where I point out that I'm running Flight on a POS bottom dollar Lenovo laptop with an Intel Mobile Chipset that leaches off of the RAM instead of having it's own memory and I'm quite able to fly without many issues. I have a little trouble around Honolulu due to the number of detailed models, but everywhere else on the island runs fine on minimum settings with medium textures.

 

If you enjoy the game, you can get it to work. If you don't, you won't bother, it's simple as that. :unknw:

Back in the days of Fighter Duel (and Net Duel) anything over 14 FPS was just gravy. Something about the fact that above a certain frame rate, the human eye is incapable of noticing the difference...as long as that frame rate is delivered smoothly. So, a smooth 20 probably looks the same as a smooth 60.

Back in the days of Fighter Duel (and Net Duel) anything over 14 FPS was just gravy. Something about the fact that above a certain frame rate, the human eye is incapable of noticing the difference...as long as that frame rate is delivered smoothly. So, a smooth 20 probably looks the same as a smooth 60.

 

With all due respect, 20 frames never looks like 60; no matter how smooth or constant it is :) I do agree, though, that constant frame rate does appear much smoother than the one that fluctuates, so constant 20 will look smoother than 30 jumping to 60 and back. Still, it's not just about the appearance. Reaction time is much better and command inputs are correct when you have 60 frames since the refresh rate of the monitor is 60 hz for the most of us.

 

 

Cheers

On DVD's, Movies are displayed at 30 FPS. That is all the human eye needs. But it must be constant......no flicker.

In a cinema it is less than 30.

 

Fred.

On DVD's, Movies are displayed at 30 FPS. That is all the human eye needs. But it must be constant......no flicker.

In a cinema it is less than 30.

 

Fred.

 

 

Most movies are shot at 24 frames per second as it gives the best overall feel and look. When you play a video that was shot in 30 fps, you get that "amateur" look as it was shot with a cell phone or a cheap camcorder.

 

 

Cheers

In film, at the theater, what you usually see is 24 fps. It is a particular style that the audience and film-makers like to see in film. We shall see how smooth 48 fps looks because the Hobbit is being filmed in 48 fps. When we shoot, we shoot at 29.97 (30) but there are times when I'm working animation that I want to render that animation out at 60 fps because I need to slow portions of it down. The more frames I have to work with, the less "choppy" it is.

 

Usually, things on TV, like Soaps were filmed on cheap at 29.97 or 30fps. http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-57410231-278/the-soap-opera-effect-when-your-tv-tries-to-be-smarter-than-you/ is a good article about the "Soap Opera Effect"

 

also...

 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Frame_rate gives a good explanation of it.

In film, at the theater, what you usually see is 24 fps. It is a particular style that the audience and film-makers like to see in film. We shall see how smooth 48 fps looks because the Hobbit is being filmed in 48 fps. When we shoot, we shoot at 29.97 (30) but there are times when I'm working animation that I want to render that animation out at 60 fps because I need to slow portions of it down. The more frames I have to work with, the less "choppy" it is.

 

Usually, things on TV, like Soaps were filmed on cheap at 29.97 or 30fps. http://news.cnet.com...arter-than-you/ is a good article about the "Soap Opera Effect"

 

also...

 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Frame_rate gives a good explanation of it.

 

Exactly. I'm in a similar business as yours (i own a small video production company) and am an independent filmmaker as well, so i know all there is to know about frames and their rates :) Also, even though Hobbit is shot at 48 fps, we have no idea what shutter speed is Peter going to use. Should he stick to the general rule for digital cameras and DSLR's, he will go with approximately twice the value of framerate. If he chooses to leave the shutter open for a longer time, who knows, maybe he manages to introduce us to a new "movie standard" since he's lobbying for 48fps quite aggressively :P

 

Personally, i'm a true 24fps addict when it comes to movies and i don't think that i am changing my mind about that any time soon :) I shot videos in a wide range of framerates varying from 24 to 2000 (Weisscam) and i still find myself in love with traditional 24.

Good luck to Pete, though, can't wait to see those 30 Epic cameras in action (hoping to get my hands on one soon).

 

 

Cheers

I read that animation films are usually made with 12fps to save cost ("shooting on twos"). Only in scenes with rapid movement frames are drawn with full 24fps. Has anyone ever noted that?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_animation#.22Shooting_on_twos.22

But that's what a pilot's life supposed to be!!!! Don't you enjoy it? I do!!!! ;-)

sure we do, but every time it has different weather conditions, traffic, ATC, loads, and also system faults (not always thanks God)

we have no idea what shutter speed is Peter going to use.

 

 

"Update April 26th, 2011: Peter Jackson posted on Facebook that they are shooting at 48 fps with a 270° shutter (translating to a 135° shutter at 24 fps). So it’s right between the traditional 180° and my speculation of 360°" ~ Martin (CG Rebel)

 

http://cgrebel.com/2011/04/the-48-fps-crime/

"Update April 26th, 2011: Peter Jackson posted on Facebook that they are shooting at 48 fps with a 270° shutter (translating to a 135° shutter at 24 fps). So it’s right between the traditional 180° and my speculation of 360°" ~ Martin (CG Rebel)

 

http://cgrebel.com/2011/04/the-48-fps-crime/

 

Wow, now that is a great find! Thanks for sharing. Can't wait to see how that looks on a big screen.

So that would actually translate to approximately 1/64 shutter speed at 24 fps. I might be wrong but that is going to look a bit too crisp, would you agree?

 

 

Cheers