I don't know about you but I can definitely see a pretty significant difference between say 30 and 60 fps in various sims I run. The difference between playing a game and watching a cartoon is that we are actively trying to control movement in the game. 24fps is fine if you are just passively watching, but when you have to maintain control over something (particularly at high speeds) 24fps isn't really enough. For me, a race sim like GPL is virtually unplayable at 24fps. 36fps (the max it will run at) is much better, but still not nearly as good as NR2K3 running at 60fps or higher.

Likewise. While I find 20-24 acceptable for my simulating needs, I'd REALLY like to see it up around 60 or so... For my eye, the point of diminishing returns is somewhere around 70-80... anything higher than that for me and I can't tell the difference. I had Unreal Tournament up to 100+ frames and noticed no difference until I hit below 60 or so. It IS all very subjective - some people will be more sensitive to it - others not. And it stinks for those who ARE sensitive because it drives the price of a computer up. :)Regarding animation - I have no problem perceiving the flaws in the speed when watching any animation on the big screen... it's even more accentuated when you watch it on Imax. I watched Fantasia 2000 on Imax, and whenever you had a side-to-side pan during traditionally animated segments (or other fast motion), my eyes would go crosseyed with the smearing. Obviously Imax amplified the problem because of the big screen, but the same thing happens to me in most other movies, regular or Imax, animated or not. Nowadays, expecially with CGI-rendered movies, the blurring effect is often rendered into the movie. This is in part how CGI is appearing to blend into movies seamlessly now more than ever... in the past, CGI stuck out like a sore thumb because the image was edgy and looked like it was superimposed on the shot. Now with the blurring being added in, it looks like a PART of the shot. :) I guess a few of us will have to agree to disagree. I know I can perceive the differences in rates, but if someone else cannot, it's really a non-debatable perception issue. To each their own. (All my perception claims are based back when I had a CRT monitor... my current LCD couldn't go above 60 even if I wanted it to)

Just for clearification, nVidia did not steal 3DFX's thunder or customers.3dfx, took a bazooka and shot itself squarely in the foot.nVidia simply copied the business model 3dfx had been so successful at developing.3dFX ended up dominating the 3d chipset not only because of sucessful technology, but also because it beat what everyone else was doing by licensing it's chipsets. Everyone from Creative, to Asus, to generic tiawan knockoff, was creating Voodoo I and Voodoo II boards. 3dfx let all the card manufacturers beat themselves up and sold it's chips to whoever was buying. nVidia tried to compete, but it's technology wasn't close to 3dfx's and it could not generate the R&D funds as long as 3dfx dominated the OEM market. Then some "rocket scientist" at 3dfx decides to buy STB, a belagured card company that was one of the victims of the value video card wars. So now 3dfx is making it's own cards. The profitable OEM relationship between 3dfx and the OEMs is destroyed, either by the OEM's fearing unfair competition, or by 3dfx wanting exclusive control of Voodoo chipset pricing in the market.To the letter, almost all of the previous OEM customers turn to nVidia or ATI. (With nvidia getting the nod due to the weakness of the ATI rage chipset)This infuses the company with a HUGE pile of cash and as a result, the R&D dollars begin to flow, and soon nVidia is making chipsets that compete and outperform 3dfx.In the meantime, 3dfx, now saddled with the added expense and debt from STB, finds it's revenue streams cut as well. It markets the Voodoo 3 "fairly" well, but by this time, Both ATI and nVidia have 32bit color accelerators, and despite the fact that both of these 32 bit cards no where near perform as well as the Voodoo 3, the seed has been planted that 32bit color is now necessary to enjoy games.Thus, the fall begins.Had 3dfx NOT purchased STB, and continued selling to all the OEM's that could sign a purchase order, it is pretty clear that nVidia would have ended up a victim like Rendition and other companies that 3dfx had left in it's wake. ATI would have also probably stayed out of the 3d graphics field, and still centered on low end 2d cards.

>FS2004 WITHOUT AI?, OMG what a sacrifice, I couldnt imagine>going to an empty airport.>>Dan.yeah, i know the feeling! but the funny this is before FS2002 we all landed at empty airports all the time and didnt think to much of itciao!Brian S

Not that everyone will, but I have no problem running with Unlimited.

What I've found in simulations in general is it's not the FPS you get, but the fluctuation in FPS that is most noticable and distracting to the eye. If you set your FPS to 20 and it can stay there very close to 20 all the time then what you see will "look" good/smooth. If you set it to 40 and your system can not maintain 40 all the time then what you see is the difference, or stutter in FPS when it drops momentarily then climbs back to 40. If your system can perform at 150fps 99% of the time that 1% can be very annoying.I've had stutters in other games that occured every second. Even though I could fly at 65 fps I was so annoyed by that split second drop in fps to 22 fps that I made changes to my system to get a steady 45 fps that eliminated the stuttering.Adjusting your Vsync or AA can reduce fps but smooth out what you see.As for the fps slider in MSFS2004, if I set mine low I see more detail near or on the ground. If I set it higher I see less detail near the ground. We each need to find our own compromise as to scenery detail, number of AI or water settings and a happy fps that our eyes enjoy. :)

For ONLINE FLYING you should generally set your FPS to 20 - 25 at most. This is because FS9, unlike previous versions, sends info to the server with every frame. Running high FPS online can bog down the server and screw things up for everyone.David

One of the things I've noticed lately is a lag between the frames you see and the framerate being reported to the FPS counter. This is rather bothersome. As you get the frames your thinking are okey and then something happens to make them drop but by the time you see the drop in the counter the frames have already dropped. You can't corrilate what is happening with the framerate number. Also as hard as I have tried you can't get smooth rates no matter how low you set the counter. This also bugs me. I could spend hours trying to adjust the settings to get the frames at a reasonable number or I could spend time flying... It's hard to choose sometimes. You want performance but like tweeking a car there comes a time when you just have to chuck the tweeking and get on with the driving....No doubt about it...Ronson2k

NT

>I have mine set to 30 and am happy there. I don't know the>total implications for smooth operation of FS2004, but it is>my understanding that the human eye sees smooth motion as long>as the fps is greater than 16 fps. Maybe there is an eye man>on the forum that can clarify this.>>Since the lower level the system tries to use is about 70% of>the maximum value, if you want 16 fps as the lower level, then>the maximum should be set around 23 fps. So, 25-30 fps seems>a good choice.NM, misread your post. oops! LOL

I used to have mine set to unlimited but now I have it set to 65-75 depending on where I am going to fly.Everything runs like glass so I don't ever touch it any more.

Yep me too Shane, Since it is always over 35 and 50-80 in the air makes no sense in limiting it to a lower #. If I was to choose one I would shoot for 45 as a happy medium. I can spot view in circles with rate at 900 and see no stuttering even with heavy clouds (thanks to Chris Willis's Clouds ;)[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpgAMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

I am getting around 20-30fps (locked at 30fps) with a low-end,but quite good graphics/scenery quality with a Jetway FX5200 (128MB), AGP 8x (running at 4x, due to my Jetway 845G based chipset supported only 4x).

I think it's best to set it as low as possible; that means about 20 fps. This is enough to get a smooth image, and your computer has more time to build the scenery.

I actually get better performance when I have my framerate slider set to unlimited