No believe me they use blur effects. Try watching a DVD at home than use still motion pictures :). Depending on situation. There is a great link that explains it all but don

>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 above statement is simply, patently false. I'm sorry, but you should do a bit of reading. The human brain is far far from limited to 24 fps. The movie industry chose a 24 fps standard not becuase it was found to be the "maximum the human brain can process", but instead becuase it was found to be the MINIMUM the industry could get away with and still have a smooth representation of motion. Film costs money and they want to use as little as possible. Do we need "hundreds" of fps? Certainly not. But there is certainly and without doubt a qualitative difference between 20 and 50 or 60 fps. And yes, part of that is control (as you indicate with reference to first person shooters). Higher framerates improve control responsiveness and the feeling of immediacy in controller inputs. We can get away with lower framerates in MSFS though since we aren't doing things like trying to target other planes and so forth. PLaying IL2 or Falcon4 at 20fps is not a joyfull experience.It's also important to keep in mind that if your average fps is 20 or 24, you are likely regularly dipping down to the low teens or worse when the cpu load gets heavy. Part of the advantage of running a higher framerate is that those framerates drops stay above a certain useable level...

I think Pete Dowson summed it up perfectly. I think we should have a sticky about it because this is coming up over and over again anyway and has been doing so for I don

More than you ever wanted to know....http://www.100fps.com/

>Nothing is smooth as silk at 24 fps. YES IT IS.It is smooth enough for me and I do see any slight stutter. Again, do yourself a favor and watch some original Disney classics made way before age of computers. And I doubt you would identify a single stutter or hick-up.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

I'm no expert, but I can easily tell the difference between 24fps and 30fps in fs2004. Whether that is the actual framerate, or whatever, there is an easily noticable difference. Set yourself a flight with an aerobatic or even better a fighter plane and do some high G maneuvers. I can notice a definite difference between fps locked at 24 and locked at 30. I think Michael had a good point in saying the displayed framerate is probably not 100% accurate. There are most likely rapid changes which don't get shown in the gauge, and I think that is where the difference lies. Our fps is dropping, and giving us stutters, even though the counter does not display it.

You can not see the slightest stutter michal ;). I have yet to see a Disney classic with really smooth animations. I think I have seen the most. I see snow white and the seven dwarfs and cinderella and many others every christmas :).Try a game like f1 2002. If you have trouble spotting the difference in FS 2004 you will definitly in that or any more fast paced game. I know that eye sight is individual but I think there is a really really small population that can

You might be surprised. If I really pay attention to most animation I can often spot stutters (particularly with backgrounds and so forth where not as much care is taken) But theres a considerable difference between watching something at 24fps and interacting with something at 24fps. But the issue isn't really whether 24fps is "smooth enough" becuase obviously it is for FS9. In fact, even lower framerates than that are smooth enough to at least maintain control. Lots of us fly quite regularly at 15 or 18 fps and its fine ftmp. That being the case though doesn't change the fact that things feel smoother and more "convincingly real" at 60fps.

Remember also that when a movie is shown at 24fps, that number will never change assuming the projector is working. The beginning credits, along with the most intense action scenes will stay at a constant rate. Obviously film does not suffer the same limitations our PCs do. That change in framerate causes stutters, and that is why fs is different than a movie.

>I have yet>to see a Disney classic with really smooth animations.Frankly, I don't believe you watched one in the last 10 years no matter what you say. *:-*Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

>But>theres a considerable difference between watching>something at 24fps and interacting with something at>24fps. Sorry I see this as another poor attempt to construct a nonexistant 'theory'. No, there is no difference as far as watching smooth or jittery action. What kind of nonsense I am going to hear next - perhaps someone will tell me that I see smooth action in Disney animation because they are all fairy tales :-lolMichael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

I think there is a difference between interacting and watching. It's not like it looks smoother just because you're not interacting with it but smoothness obviously becomes more important when you're trying to fly an aircraft with precision.Movies on TV look smooth enough to me at whatever framerate they use (24 FPS?) probably because of the motion blur. Obviously most old PAL/NTSC TV's flicker like mad because they're less than 60Hz.In FS - sure I can land an aircraft at 10 FPS. Heck I could probably land at 1 FPS as well with some practice. However, to really feel like I'm in control of the aircraft and flying it with precision I need a bit over 20 FPS. At 30 FPS I can no longer blame the framerate for my hard landings :) *however* there's still a huge difference between 30 and 60 to me. Motion just *looks* more convincing at 60 FPS. I just don't get why people say framerate isn't as important for flightsims. Sure, flightsims are not as fast-paced as shooters (60 FPS is often considered the min FPS for shooters) but precision is at least as important in a flightsim and you can't fly with any kind of precision when you have no idea where your aircraft will be in the next frame.I think I can perceive up to about 100 FPS. Why? If I use a 60Hz refreshrate on a CRT it gives me a headache. 85Hz is better but I can still detect flicker. At 100Hz I no longer detect flicker. If I switch from 100Hz to 120Hz I can still perceive that flicker is reduced but I don't think I'd be able to tell 100Hz from 120Hz without switching back and fourth.

>Movies on TV look smooth enough to me at whatever framerate>they use (24 FPS?) probably because of the motion blur... and I have a beach front property for you in Utah ;-)Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

The actual point where the brain begins to not be able to tell the difference is 72Hz - this is why most people have to set their monitors to something higher than 60Hz - you see the flicker from the screen redraw. I have to set mine to at least 85Hz to totally elminate it. Saying that the brain can't see more than 24FPS is totally wrong. I read an actual scientific paper on this a while back and they concluded that for most people it's 72.

>>But>>theres a considerable difference between watching>>something at 24fps and interacting with something at>>24fps. >>Sorry I see this as another poor attempt to construct a>nonexistant 'theory'. No, there is no difference as far as>watching smooth or jittery action. What kind of nonsense I am>going to hear next - perhaps someone will tell me that I see>smooth action in Disney animation because they are all fairy>tales :-lol>>Michael J.>WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB>Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2As said I see them every christmas it