Hi, as I am strongly addicted to flight already flying it for more than 80 hours I ask you as experts for hardware, how to upgrade my current system.

I want 60 fps with high/ max details in strong weather conditions in Flight.

 

My system:

i5 750 @ 4,0 Ghz

MSI Nvidia 560 Ti Twin Frozr 1GB

12 GB RAM 1300 Mhz

500 GB Spin Point F3

NEC 27, 1920 x 1200

 

New processor, or SSD?

Or a complete new gaming machine?

This rig should be fine.

It`s just the outdated engine of Flight that makes even up to date machines going down. There is no way to achieve this high performance. The same problem that we had with FSX, but Flight is a bit better, though still not up to date.

I want 60 fps

 

For what reason?

This rig should be fine.

It`s just the outdated engine of Flight that makes even up to date machines going down. There is no way to achieve this high performance. The same problem that we had with FSX, but Flight is a bit better, though still not up to date.

 

What would you consider up to date ?

In relation to computers? Like the system styler 360 posted above.

 

In relation to game engines? The code for Flight is made from FSX, which is made from FS2004 which is made from... - and so on.

As far as i know is the base code at least from 1994 if not older.

 

A few years ago when FSX was abandoned a Dev from Aces Team said that there is no sense to rewrite the code again, because it lacks too much to present an up to date Sim/Game in terms of graphic, performance and system depth. Of course you can improve still this engine, but you`ll never reach the quality of other games/sims.

 

But to start from scratch takes time and money. And I think this is the reason why we get Flight: They want to look how big the market is, or could be and earn a few extra $. When Flight is a success they maybe start a really new version of the franchise MSFS.

This rig should be fine.

It`s just the outdated engine of Flight that makes even up to date machines going down. There is no way to achieve this high performance. The same problem that we had with FSX, but Flight is a bit better, though still not up to date.

 

I agree that the rig should be fine but I disagree with Flight being a bit better. If I enable all reflections in FSX and ground shadows too (which look absolutely ugly and are incomparable with the Flight shadows, but that's another story) fps would drop to single frames per second. Flight is a LOT better then FSX when it comes to performance.

The code for Flight is made from FSX, which is made from FS2004 which is made from... - and so on.

As far as i know is the base code at least from 1994 if not older.

 

People that do know have said that Flight is rewritten, not recycled, code.

 

They used a lot of similar data structure, because either it worked well and was familiar, or simply the same people did the rewrite as the original, but the code itself is new.

 

Exactly, most of the code is new, because otherwise it still wouldn't use the graphics card, like previous versions of FS, for most of the graphics functions. Strange that anybody would think the code is the same as FS - just look at how performance has changed and you will see that it is perfectly obvious that the code was rewritten.

 

Best regards.

Luis

In relation to computers? Like the system styler 360 posted above.

 

In relation to game engines? The code for Flight is made from FSX, which is made from FS2004 which is made from... - and so on.

As far as i know is the base code at least from 1994 if not older.

 

A few years ago when FSX was abandoned a Dev from Aces Team said that there is no sense to rewrite the code again, because it lacks too much to present an up to date Sim/Game in terms of graphic, performance and system depth. Of course you can improve still this engine, but you`ll never reach the quality of other games/sims.

 

But to start from scratch takes time and money. And I think this is the reason why we get Flight: They want to look how big the market is, or could be and earn a few extra $. When Flight is a success they maybe start a really new version of the franchise MSFS.

 

Well they must have done something dramatic with the code, because flight runs much better and smoother than it's predecessors ever did.

 

Hi, as I am strongly addicted to flight already flying it for more than 80 hours I ask you as experts for hardware, how to upgrade my current system.

I want 60 fps with high/ max details in strong weather conditions in Flight.

 

My system:

i5 750 @ 4,0 Ghz

MSI Nvidia 560 Ti Twin Frozr 1GB

12 GB RAM 1300 Mhz

500 GB Spin Point F3

NEC 27, 1920 x 1200

 

New processor, or SSD?

Or a complete new gaming machine?

 

 

 

Smooth motion is perceived at from about 22fps up. When you go to a movie theater you are seeing 24 frames a second, I don't hear people complaining about motion artifacts in a movie. Now with the new Digital projectors in theaters , they are moving to 30FPS, because it is easier to make 30FPS and convert it for use in television, which is based on 30 FPS, otherwise you need something called 3:2 pulldown to convert which is complicated and produces artifacts of it's own.

 

So the point is, getting over 30 FPS, probably won't make any difference in how it looks.

 

So the point is, getting over 30 FPS, probably won't make any difference in how it looks.

 

As the refreshing rate of the monitor is 60Hz, it makes a BIG difference. Believe me, the difference is like night and day, when the fps drop from 60 to 30 (v-sync on), especialle when panning around with trackIR all the time.

 

With weather and scenery density set to medium, i can keep my 60 fps. I can live with that.

 

Will there be a huge improvement, if I upgrade to a i5 2550k, or sth. thelike?

Actually, a lot of people complain about stuttering motion in 24fps film. :D. Cinema and home-theater is my other hobby. :)

 

While you don't need high framerates to perceive motion as smooth, it does get even smoother as the framerates increase; up to a point. Individuals have different tolerances, some with 24 not being quite enough, some able to identify framerate changes up to 80fps or more. My testing found myself unable to distinguish increases beyond about 72fps.

 

But a consistent framerate is more important than a high framerate. I will take a steady 30fps over variable 30-45fps any day of the week. Flight's new framerate-locking in the latest title update is supposed to be helping with this.

 

Frequent rapid panning, like when using TrackIR, is a worst-case scenario for low framerates.

 

Actually, a lot of people complain about stuttering motion in 24fps film. :D. Cinema and home-theater is my other hobby. :)

 

While you don't need high framerates to perceive motion as smooth, it does get even smoother as the framerates increase; up to a point. Individuals have different tolerances, some with 24 not being quite enough, some able to identify framerate changes up to 80fps or more. My testing found myself unable to distinguish increases beyond about 72fps.

 

But a consistent framerate is more important than a high framerate. I will take a steady 30fps over variable 30-45fps any day of the week. Flight's new framerate-locking in the latest title update is supposed to be helping with this.

 

Frequent rapid panning, like when using TrackIR, is a worst-case scenario for low framerates.

 

Before I retired, I was the Training Director for a very high end projector company that makes projectors for commercial flight sims and theaters, among their other products. Some folks see motion artifacts in 24 fps, but not many, and if you think about it, people have been going to movie theaters for years, seeing action films, and very few complain about the motion. Frames per second and monitor refresh rate are two different things. FPS is the number of pictures sent to the display device, and refresh rate is the number of times the picture is displayed or refreshed on the device. You could have 30 FPS but a refresh rate of 120 hz. Faster monitor refresh rates are desirable, because there is some lag in LCD's as the pixels switch on and off. Also 3D displays, have very high refresh rates, since half the pictures are for the left eye and half for the right. When I had FS9, years ago, I brought my computer into work a few times and connected it to a $70,000 LCD projector on a 25 foot wide screen. Talk about immersion.....My students used to love it.

 

Waiting for the first 3D flight sim to come out, which will force everyone to get new 3D monitors and glasses, which of course could be disguised as Flight Goggles....

Comparing video games to film is not really valid. Film has innate motion blur that hides a lot motion artifacts. Even so, you can tell the difference between movies shot at 24 vs 48fps, just look up the Hobbit movie if you want to hear more about it.

 

I've found that Flight seems pretty smooth at around 30fps, some games are different, but this one is pretty smooth. It would be nice to have a consistent 60fps, but I don't expect to be able to get that.

 

You might get an improvement with a better processor, but you will probably need to overclock it a lot to really make a difference. An SSD would a help a little with load times, but probably not with in-game performance (on the other hand, they are great for everything else you do on the computer, and are definitely worth the cost of upgrading to).

 

Have you tried using the adaptive v-sync setting in the nvidia control panel? It should get rid of that drastic drop off from 60 to 30fps, or 30 to 20fps. Some people complain about screen tearing when you go below 60fps, but it's worth trying.

When you have AI aircraft, cars etc. running in FSX, it will of course cost a lot of FPS. Flight has no AI traffic yet, so that should be one of the reasons for the much better FPS. Also Flight has no backward compatibility, which will give even more FPS. 30 FPS is a good framerate, in both FSX and Flight.

Some folks see motion artifacts in 24 fps, but not many, and if you think about it, people have been going to movie theaters for years, seeing action films, and very few complain about the motion. Frames per second and monitor refresh rate are two different things. FPS is the number of pictures sent to the display device, and refresh rate is the number of times the picture is displayed or refreshed on the device. You could have 30 FPS but a refresh rate of 120 hz.

 

Indeed, but I am talking about framerate, not refresh rate.

 

Framerate with an interactive medium (like sims) is far more critical to perception of smooth motion than passive media like films. Pan rates when filming are often consciously restrained to limit the effects on perceived smoothness of the motion.

 

That really isn't an option with games or sims.