Martin, you need to consider the persistence of the image on the monitor to understand fully the concept of seeing each frame or not.

What an impolite individual you are.

 

You won't get any advice, from anyone, anywhere, in a forum or elsewhere, with that attitude.

 

Martin, you need to consider the persistence of the image on the monitor to understand fully the concept of seeing each frame or not.

 

Care to elaborate Steve?

how so? "I am also fascinated by your inability to perceive individual frames at a mere 19 frames per second" I see this as rude...

 

"Monitor, persistence of image", a bit like when you close your eyes you can for a moment still see the lighter detail of what you were observing, same for monitors, some have longer persistence than others, so this could account for you seeing 19 and me not.

"I am also fascinated by your inability to perceive individual frames at a mere 19 frames per second" I see this as rude...

 

Why rude? I am genuinely fascinated by it. You may have the capability to perceive very slow frame rate as smooth continuous motion. It interests me greatly, thus I am fascinated. I have always been interested in such things. Fascination, is never rude, fascination is good. :smile:

 

"Monitor, persistence of image", a bit like when you close your eyes you can for a moment still see the lighter detail of what you were observing, same for monitors, some have longer persistence than others, so this could account for you seeing 19 and me not.

 

That's an interesting theory. You're talking about a kind of monitor "after image" that fills in between the frames. Don't think that's plausible. Although certain techniques to deliberately "add" extra frames have been tried.

 

Do you have any external links to back that up? Article?

 

 

 

I'm open to having my mind changed though.

 

What monitor do you have? If it is plausible, then all I can say is that after simming, and being involved with computers and monitors since the first Clive Sinclair machines [yes I'm an old fart] I've never come across a monitor that can disguise such slow frame rate in that way.

I'm not arguing with you Martin, you go and look it up. I've got a Dell U2410. When I was speaking to Dell engineers the Xeon 2.5Ghz runs FSX just as fast they assured me. Perhaps it does. When I look at my CPUs they are going around 2.5-3Ghz. As I have observed now with several machines and with the OP's machine, thrashing the guts out of the CPU does not help, to increase fps on latest hardware needs an overall faster machine.

I have looked it up. Is this what you meant...

 

Persistence of vision is the phenomenon of the eye by which an afterimage is thought to persist for approximately one twenty-fifth of a second on the retina.^{[citation needed]}

The myth of persistence of vision is the belief that human perception of motion (brain centered) is the result of persistence of vision (eye centered). The myth was debunked in 1912 by Wertheimer^[1]

 

According to Wiki it's a myth. :smile: Thats for the eye though. Can't find anything about certain monitors filling in between the frames, to magically give the appearance of higher frame rate.. Mine doesn't, so wouldn't expect yours to.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....mputer_monitors

As I have observed now with several machines and with the OP's machine, thrashing the guts out of the CPU does not help, to increase fps on latest hardware needs an overall faster machine.

 

It won't help if you have a bottleneck, as the OP apperas to have, as I pointed out many posts ago. Balance is important. But all things being equal, an OC has a significant effect. Otherwise no one would bother to do it.

 

On my system there is a direct linear relationship between percentage of clock increase and percentage of frame rate increase.

 

If I increase my clock speed by 10%... I get 10% higher frame rate.

So when you close your eyes it's completely black? :lol:

Huh, what on Earth are you talking about.

 

In regard to monitors: I don't know of a single one that generates something akin to an after image, and inserts it between the frames to transform a slow frame rate into one perceived as smooth. If you do, show me.

 

In terms of the human eye: The Persistence of vision notion by which an afterimage was once thought to persist for approximately one twenty-fifth of a second on the retina, and be responsible for the human perception of motion, has been thoroughly debunked. The myth was debunked in 1912 by Wertheimer^.

 

That doesn't of course mean that a longer after image of the highlights of a bright image isn't visible when you close your eyes. But it has nothing to do with the perception of frame rate in games. It's an indistinct patch of light, obviously not a detailed image that could be mistaken for a computer rendered frame.

 

The link is there for you to read.

 

Unfortunately, with no explanation for your claimed capability to percieve discontinuous frame rate as smooth... you now seem to be dliberliterately winding me up, I'll leave you to discuss this with someone else, or not, which ever the case might be.

 

Have fun.

You crack us up Martin. If I increase 19fps to 20 I don't see a difference, it can't be the monitor running at 59Hz or around 17ms. Old phosphor monitors have quite a long persistence of image, but nothing's like that these days. It must be the human visual system?

Will the person showing off his high FPS with all default scenery and airplanes and little tech knowledge please exit this thread? Anyone who needs system restore in the first place has no business talking about anything technical.

14 you say...

 

Now pan quickly around the VC...

 

If you can't perceive each frame, you are not a human being. Because human beings are not designed to perceive such slow frame rate as smooth. Certainly not breathtaking as someone posted above.

 

All am saying 15 is not garbage in the VC . That is my opinion respect it am not talking science . An no offence but it clear now that you are not here for smooth flying in fsx you are here for high frame rate for fsx i can really see you switching over to battlefield when your fps drop. We all have problems in fsx an if you haven't then consider yourself lucky.You can say all you want about science an the motion eye an all that smart talk , but you should respect other people point of view just i respect your high frame rate an no stutter. An junk food no no i eat organic food an also cook it myself . Trying to stay healthy.

The nice thing about science is that whether you agree with it or not... it's still fact.

 

So not only do you know nothing about computers or science, but you can't even read the words from the article I quoted either.

 

All am saying 15 is not garbage in the VC . That is my opinion respect it am not talking science . An no offence but it clear now that you are now here for smooth flying in fsx you are here for fsx i can really see you switching over to battlefield when your fps drop. We all have problems in fsx an if you haven't then consider yourself lucky.You can say all you want about science an the motion eye an all that smart talk , but you should respect other people point of view just i respect your high frame rate an no stutter. An junk food no no i eat organic food an also cook it myself . Trying to stay healthy.

 

He reminds me of the kids who overclock their computers and post their highest scores for everyone to gawk at. He's wasting everyones time in here.

Wawo he seem new to FSX , like he haven't been around here long enough when we all talk about Limiting FPS an how high Frame Rate doesn't mean smooth flying all the time . Where is Word Not Allowed right now maybe he can point out what we are trying to get to this guy. I give lots of credit to Steve for explaining it slowly to martin but he just don't want to see it that way. So before this gets really into something not relating to the thread. Lets just leave martin with his high frame rate an get back into the OP before one of AVSIM Staff close this important topic that can help new simmers into fsx in the future. :biggrin: Peace Martin an no offence just calm down an respect other people point of view an No JUNK FOOD HERE MR. LOL

 

So not only do you know nothing about computers or science, but you can't even read the words from the article I quoted either.

 

 

 

He reminds me of the kids who overclock their computers and post their highest scores for everyone to gawk at. He's wasting everyones time in here.

 

He sure is completely agree with you . I thought since he have been around here long he should no better but i was wrong :Hmmmph:

Here's a couple of points to ponder: A paused video looks blurred but it seems sharp enough when watching... and when setting up CRT monitors years ago, the difference between 60Hz and 85 Hz was pretty obvious... there's more to this than meets-the-eye doh!