Is this guy for real or just stirring trouble?

 

He claims at 2560x1600 he gets 150fps.

 

I am running at 5Ghz CPU and an ATI 7970 on the same resolution and I only get 18-50fps even with tweaked config files.

 

Anyone get this performance?

 

 

 

It also says FS2004

Nah, it'll be genuine. I get frame rates that never dip below 100 fps in the iFly 737 NG in FS9, and that's with all the sliders maxed out. FS9 runs at a lower resolution, and has a lot less going on than FSX.

 

Al

150 FPS is totally meaningless too:

 

1. No monitor can display it without Vsync off and tons of tearing.

 

2. The human eye can't tell the difference anywhere above around 72 or so. I've seen some people claiming they can see a difference with a 120Hz monitor, but I honestly wonder if it is just that small difference from 60 to 72 that they're seeing. I've read scientific papers showing no ability to perceive differences above 72.

I don't know what scientific paper that was, but it is most certainly incorrect. Aside from the fact that the human eye sees a continuous stream of light and not frames, it's been proved that the human eye can perceive at least 220 frames per second by no less an organisation than the USAF. The USAF tested people by flashing an image of an aircraft on a screen at 220th of a second; they found that people could not only see it, but also identify what type of aircraft it was which had been shown.

 

But really, there is absolutely no reason why the human eye could not notice frame rates very much higher than that, because as noted, the human eye does not see in frames per second, but as a continuous stream of information, picked up by the cones in the retina, which transmit the info to the brain, where it is perceived and compared to our memory in order to identify what it is we are seeing; and all this takes place quite literally at the speed of light, so it is not in any way similar to how a motion camera or computer monitor works, apart from the bit about detecting light.

 

But the thing with the human eye and the brain, is that it can perceive what it sees and decide what to do with the info, which is why it is smart enough to mix a series of images together which are presented to it at a reasonable frame rate and imagine that it is motion when we want it to. Because this is so, film and camera makers settled on 24/25 frames per second as the rate at which there is not too much annoying flickering to discard from the information stream, but that is a practical decision based on the amount of film required to make the system workable as much as for any other reason, and as technology improves, the limit which cameras and computer monitors use will rise, because there is literally no limit on what will suit the human eye, since the eye does not see in frames, that is just not how it works.

 

Al

Al,

 

I am not sure if this illustrates your point, but not too long ago I got to see footage from a super slomo HD broadcast camera running at almost 180 fps side-by-side with standard broadcast cameras running at 59.94 fps. There was a definite difference in the fluidity of motion between the cameras when the footage was played back at normal speed.

I lost interest as soon as I saw the FS9...my setup runs FS9 blazing fast so why would I care to get more fsp? Besides, I have moved on years ago, now I'm experimenting with P3D and soon X-Plane.

Ahh FS9! My mistake...

 

I feel better now, my system is ok ahh :)

 

If only it would run at 60fps locked like DCS and rise of flight, but it's ok I think because we don't need to aim guns at things in FSX so~ 30fps is nice enough.

It's been a while since I've seen a "the human eye can only see insert arbitrary number here" post. They used to be really popular but I guess they have drifted off a bit.

The old FR debate!! Will not reply!! Will..not..ARGGGHHH!!!! :LMAO: