In the Microsoft web site, they recommend that the FPS slider be set to unlimited in order to enhance performance.I always thought that a setting of about 25 to 30 FPS was best in order to allow the graphics card to work on other aspects of the sim.Do you agree with Microsoft??Thank you.Stanner

I guess people would argue with Microsoft at their own risk and in addition, MegaScenery, which ought to know something about the subject recommends unlimiting fps as well. Their manual states..."Ground textures will load faster during flight if your target frame rate is set to unlimited. Although they go on to say that if you experience stuttering, then use the generally accepted practice of limiting fps to 10% below the highest observed fps.My experience is that such "tips" are HIGHLY specific to particular cpmputer and gpu set ups so techinques that work for one person beautifully, don't work or make things worse for others.

In FS2002, locking the fps had a dual benefit. It seemed to free up the cpu, allowing for better loading of textures. And, for those with slower systems, it made the sim appear more fluid. It may seem counter productive to lock fps at a low value, but stutters are more evident when there's wide variation in fps. Having a consistent fps, even if it's low, is more pleasing then one which jumps around.That latter benefit is still there for FS2004, but I discovered textures load more cleanly with the setting at unlimited. My FS2002 fps slider is still locked at 25. My FS2004 is unlimited, and oddly enough I average 25 on most approaches anyway--but have much clearer textures.Anyway, I agree with Microsoft's tip on this one...-John

This from MicroSoft's page on the subject:"In a movie theater, the film generally runs past the projector's lens at a rate of 24 frames per second. At this speed, the human eye cannot detect the fact that the film is actually a series of rapidly changing still pictures. Like a movie, animated graphics are rendered on a computer screen one frame at a time. This happens at a high frame rate so it seems like a constant picture.For some computers, it may be advantageous to limit the target frame rate. By limiting the upper end of the frame rate, the computer doesn't spend any more resources than it requires to render the selected frame rate. Resources not used to increase the frame rate beyond that setting can be used for other tasks like rendering clouds or drawing scenery in the distance. Experiment to find the frame rate that works best for you."http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...ay_settings.aspGreg

Textures indeed load much faster when using Unlimited framerate or setting a very high limit. This applies to ground scenery textures and is most evident when using photographic sceneries. It's well documented and researched by the developers of such sceneries (ie. Visual Flight, Aerosoft Australia).If you set a limit to the framerate FS does *not* remove AI traffic, weather or scenery details to maintain that framerate - there are separate controls for those things in the otpions menu. Instead, you set an *upper* limit to the framerate. So if your computer was capable of say 45 FPS and you limit FPS to 20, you'll obviously never get over 20 FPS. However, let's also assume that the lowest FPS you get with your computer is 14 FPS. With Unlimited framerate, FPS would vary between 14 and 45 FPS which might cause stutters especially if the framerate is unstable. With the limit at 20 framerate only varies between 14 and 20 FPS so while the framerate is now lower it is more consistent.

Hi Allahhhh the 24fps argument:) 24 fps is not a limitation of the eye/brain,its a how little film we can use and make the movie going experience a happy one :)some links that show all is not well with 24fps and movies (these where quickly googled)http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/lofiversion/index.php?t2864.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/...maxivision.htmlNow imagine your sitting in the cinema and the movie started to run at 12fps then speed up to 22fps then down to 5fps how would you feel?:DOk now to pooters:)ya monitor runs at a preset scan rate yes?and you video card can only send a frame when its synced with that scan rate(unless vsync is switched off)if running at 60mhz scan rate and ya locked at 25fps,this will mean at some point ya will drop frames so there is no real benefit from doing this you could try and lock ya fps to a number that divides evenly into ya scan rate ie 15 20 30 60 (I wish)Also if you have a look at the fs9.cfg you will see a entry LOD_TARGET_FPS= when set to 25 its set to about 17,I believe that when the fps drops below this fs starts to switch stuff off and when you go above it it switches em back on stutters as data is reloaded(I might be wrong),Now if you set it to unlimited the LOD_TARGET_FPS= is set to 10 the lowest possible setting most system should be able to maintain that,Ive tried to change it but its always reset to defaults.The biggest problem with gaming is getting a smooth constant fps 25fps looks ok but Ill bet a weeks wages that 60fps looks and feels better :)Have a look around the net there are hundreds of pages explaining the fps/games in and outs far far better than I canHave fun MaV

"if you have a look at the fs9.cfg you will see a entry LOD_TARGET_FPS= when set to 25 its set to about 17,I believe that when the fps drops below this fs starts to switch stuff off and when you go above it it switches em back on stutters as data is reloaded(I might be wrong)"Oddly enough, this entry did work in CFS 2, but hasn't worked since."but Ill bet a weeks wages that 60fps looks and feels better :)"Without a doubt. I notice quite a difference, although the difference between 60 fps and 30 fps does not have the same perceptive impact as that between 30 fps and 15 fps--that I really notice.-John

Hi everbody, AFAI can judge, adjusting the framerate (FR) limiter in FS has multiple consequences. One visible consequence you'll be able to notice, is the 'LOD_Target_Framereate' (LTF) automatically modifying itself too. Usually, the LTF-ratio is 2/3 of the locked FR +1. So if you lock the FR @ 24-25, the LTF will stick to 17. IMHO, locking the framerate at anything higher than 25-28-30, may be detrimental to system performance. Because, simply put, LTF may ask too much of the system? I beleive this is what MS bases their comments on. On some systems, it may be beneficiary, to lock the framerate? What MS maybe didn't mention? @ a relatively low value? IMHO-2, stronger machines will not necessarily benefit from the lock. More importantly, if you tested your system with an i.e. 25fps-lock and thereafter unlocked it, the LTF will not go back to a lower value. Perhaps unlocking generally signifies, everything must be set up nicely? Greg, AFAI can judge, using 'V-sync' makes the 'display system' use 'deviders'. With (my) 85Hz monitor frequency and V-sync 'On', I see the FR sticks @ 28.X ('coincidentally' = 1/3 of the 85Hz) and ca. 21.5 (1/4 of the 85Hz) most of the time (and @ low altitude and airports). At higher altitudes, it's usually 42.Xfps, coincidentally 50% of the 85Hz... So, combining above findings with the latter, it might make sense to find a 'mixed mode'? I mean, setting the lock i.e. 1 frame above a devider (w/ V-sync on). Perhaps even with V-sync 'Off'? BTW, you're the one who triggered the investigations and outcome of these V-sync remarks. I hadn't used V-sync in years! Many thanks for the inspiration and guidance, Greg. FYI, I've spent the past two months 'untweaking' my system(s) and trying to understand certain Windows basics. Funny enough, everything works great! I have no more than 2-3 hands full of OS/FS tweaks left. And I ain't finished yet! Hehe. Funny enough too, activating V-sync has also improved the FS-feel on my end. The downside: It looks like the framerates went down! On the upside again: I only turn the counter on for analysis... Before I forget, I've been most successful, unlocking the framerate and setting LTF to '10' or '12'. Good luck and kind regards Jaap PS: I've also re-defined my personal assessment of the word 'stutter'. A stutter i.e., can also be going from 48 to 22fps all of a sudden. Although 22 is usually considered or perceived as very smooth, IMHO often, the sudden 48 to 22fps drop isn't necessarily. I see a possible benefit by perhaps adding these words to what I mentioned above. Thus, with V-sync 'On' and possibly running on a 'devider', you'll consequently not see huge FR fluctuations and the general feel might be smoother? In this case, V-sync could serve as a 'natural' framelock? Right now, this is what I would subscribe to. However, AIM, average performance seems down a bit. Nevertheless, I'm definitely prepared to fight for the V-sync 'On' option. I l

my biggest problem when I put my slider to unlimited is the 1 to 2 second delay when I change views before the textures load.when I look out the window, I don't like seeing "bare mesh" and then the textures painted a couple seconds later. This often happens when I am at "unlimited"When I set my slider to 24, however, the textures are immediately there. My .02 worth

I just tried this myself. It at worst seems to do nothing bad, and sometimes helps. On my system, I found:- When my framerates drop in complex areas, they drop to the same amount with the lock on or off. For example, flying over Aerosoft Manhattan gives me between 16-18 fps either way. (no difference)- Same thing happens in heavy clouds, fps drops to whatever my PC can handle (no difference)- At least on my system, textures seem to load the same with either setting (no difference)- Obviously in climb and cruise, framerates are much higher. 40s - 60s are not uncommon. As far as smoothness in this situation, unlimited seems a little better, but that might be just an illusion while looking at those higher fps. Next I tried some high G maneuvers in the Realair sf260. This time I turned my framerate counter off. Smoothness seemed similar either way. One area I noticed a bigger improvement was the smoothness of the gauges. The vc in the sf260 seemed much smoother with frames at unlimited. The artificial horizon was keeping more realistic responses from my maneuvers. With fps locked, the gauge movement seemed to stutter more, both in vc and 2d. The one thing I expected and did not see was stutters created by the framerate jumping from 60 to 30 all the time. You would think that huge framerate changes would cause stutters, but if it does, I did not notice them at all. Either way, I can't notice a big difference, but setting it to unlimited seems to do no worse anywhere in the sim, at least that I can visibly tell on my system. At other times, it is better. It is certainly not a miracle fps increase, but it does no harm, and just might be a little better overall.

>some links that show all is not>well with 24fps and movies Well, these links consist of nothing else than someone else's opinion.My own opinion, based on my own eyes is that 24 fps is plenty, at least for majority of movies with typical action. It is only not enough when you see stagecoach's wheels on a western spinning in the opposite direction....The problem is not with 24 fps standard but with the fact that the frame rates you see displayed in FS9 are not true. All the mini/micro stutter is not accounted for. It can tell you you are getting 35 fps but in fact there are lots of pauses when fps counter is simply not being updated at all. In other words the are tiny pauses when your fps is effectively zero (or a very low #) but the displayed number is stuck at the same value. So fps counter is a lie - or at least it is not "always" true. If it was univerally true and if you had a constant 24 fps you would see a super smooth movie-like experience.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

You have to realize that you can

>They create blur effects to increase the>smoothness. They also use a lot of other cheats.Bunch of BS, sorry. I have no idea what they do TODAY but I take old Disney animation like "Snow White and Seven Dwarfs" made before World War II and there was no "special" effects, no blurr, no cheats and it is smooth as silk with 24 fps only.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

correct.The human brain is simply not capable of handling a higher frequency than 24 (or so, give or take a few) frames per second.The optic nerve probably can't feed it data any faster either and/or the eyes can't record the data faster.The main reason some people believe they must have hundreds of frames per second is caused by FPS games (well chosen acronym meaning both first person shooter AND frames per second) where people with higher spec machines (and thus higher framerates) will usually win from people with lower spec machines.This is mainly because their control input is processed faster thus they will be able to react faster.Due to the higher framerates achieved they may also see a target a fraction of a second earlier and thus get the first killer shot off.But even there the quest for mega-fps is senseless, merely driven (in in FS for many) by a desire to show off your system. There's apparently a kind of status to having the highest framerates of all your class at school...Penis envy probably has a lot to do with it...As a result psychological factors come into play. People look at a screen with a displayed framerate counter and think the game is slow because the counter is low.If they look at another screen without that counter (or with a faked counter showing a higher number) which is running at the same framerate they will not think the game is slow.I've done extensive experimentation with framerates in FS back when I was a framerate junk myself and those were the results.I also found that anything much over 20 on average is a waste of computer resources.It's in fact (as already stated by others) far better to have a lower number and have that number be reasonably stable than to have a very high maximum but with regular drops to a far lower number. This leads to perceived stuttering which is highly irritating and reduces the smoothness of the simulation greatly.Again, that average should still be a decent figure. 15-20 is enough for MSFS, for other games where faster response times are required (like military sims or maybe when flying a highperformance military jet in FS at low altitude) a higher number is needed but anything over 25-30 will still be a waste as the human brain will be unable to process that extra information and just throws it away.And even at 20 frames per second that's one frame every 50 milliseconds which is faster than you are likely to be able to react to the ground rushing up to you when you're in a terminal dive at 100ft so no use claiming that you need 100+fps for lowlevel flying...

Microsoft should add another parameter that you could monitor besides the FPS. FPS is simply unreliable since it is inacapable of reacting fast enough (it averages frames over 1/2, 1/4 sec ? - my guess). They should add capability to monitor "maximum seperation between frames". You should be able to tell how often say two frames were delivered more than say 1/20, or 1/10 sec apart. That would be a very good measure of the stutter. Folks crank up fps in hope they will get smoother action but they are fooling themselves since the only way to get the smoother action is to reduce/eliminate the (micro) stutter.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2