Whats the lowest frame-rate you could live with?

[HiFlyer 9,436]

Based on previous Comments, I always thought FS Videos were a bit misleading because with all of the editing software out there, it's hard to tell if what you're seeing is actually the case.

 

I never even occurred to me that you were doing anything other than asking a simple question.

 

As for videos, I take "professional" ones demonstrating a product with a big grain of salt regarding framerates. Less professional ones I attach a bit more trust in in that regard since its usually just somebody using fraps (Or lately, Shadowplay for FSX) and is less likely to be doing anything fancy.

 

I also like videos that are specifically about testing systems/framerates.

 

I do give videos a small break though because both fraps and Youtube itself can introduce false framerate difficulty's that would not be there otherwise.

 

I love this one because it matches almost perfectly the way X-plane behaves and looks on my system. I get less stuttering, but I make allowances for the recording software.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk_rbX2v6so&list=FLvfaxqBzT_NA5MvadxDj-ZQ&feature=share&index=84

[Guest Q_flyer]

23.9

 

Absolutely rock solid rule for me.   If flying ever get's below that figure, settings are reduced to get it back up .  I am always aiming for 29.9 (I'm externally locked at 30), but drops down to 23.9 are ok, but nothing below that.

 

Not to judge, (and of course our eyes are all different, as are our brains that are receiving the visual cues), but it amazes me people who can tolerate 15 FPS (and lower!) in a flight sim.

 

If I was getting 15 FPS, honestly I would pack it all into the attic and take up Line Dancing. :smile:

[simmerhead 885]

Any framerate that gives a smooth 9G turn in a fighter jet... Anything less is a compromise. 25-30 fps in P3D works, but it isn't ideal.

[Pe11e 812]

Min 30 during a flight, and 25 on a final. Everythiong below that is a complete immersion killer for me. Just imagine a slideshow in front of you when you are driving a car in RL, no way hose.

[WingZ 547]

It's an emotive question, almost as bad as: "How Long Is Yours?"

It depends on what you are looking at.

Generally the correct answer is: One 

But you will notice very little correlation in the answers posted...

[fppilot 4,459]

 

 

Not to judge, (and of course our eyes are all different, as are our brains that are receiving the visual cues), but it amazes me people who can tolerate 15 FPS (and lower!) in a flight sim.

 

Oddity. Today I snagged MSE2 Chicago UltraRes.  I already had Aerosoft Chicago, as well as FSDT O'Hare and FlyAwaySimulations KMDW.  I completed a couple of cursory tests to appraise the presentation of Aerosoft Chicago vs MSE2 UltraRes Chitown.  I found in my case with my system that detailed scenery began to appear from a somewhat greater distance with the Aerosoft city scenery, while the MSE2 UltraRes Chitown gave me marginally better frame rates over the city.  My system specs are readily available in the left column.  In the case of both sceneries, I did/could not discern any consistent frame rates.  With the two mentioned AIRPORT sceneries always active, and with the Aerosoft scenery active I observed frame rates from 13 to 22 with the most consistent rates between 13 and 17 fps. With the same two airport sceneries active along with MSE2 UltraRes Chicago my frame rates ranged from the same 13 fps up to in this case 29 fps, with the most consistent being in the 17 to 22 fps range.  In no case did I find the frame rates from either scenery package to be fully unacceptable, as the frame rates bounced around and the low of 13 fps in both cases was the clear exception.  I found the more frequent rate of 19 fps and above as acceptable from a scenery viewing perspective as well as from an approach and landing perspective.  My flights for this were with the Carenado C337, the MilViz B55, and the Carenado C90, all with RXP GPS use and integration.

 

Yes, anything lower than say 21 fps is less desirable.  But from a piloting perspective I found nothing in the range above that detracts from my current flying experience, especially considering the level of detail.  

[Noel 4,581]

I've become accustomed to frame rates v-sync locked at 60 most always in P3D V2 w/ a few add on birds.  And low 30's to 50's taxiing in the RA T Duke & QW757, locked at 60 in the CS Super MD80 Pro.  I think there is subtle loss of perfect smoothness when frame rates drop below 25 or so.  90% of my time I'm usually in the mid 40's to low 50's or so.  I've been duly spoiled in this regard by P3D V2.   

[pete_auau 1,177]

Anything  above 0 is good to go  not  that I bother checking  the fps anyway waste of  time,  since than you spend  the next month(posting  in here why is my fps are so low) trying to work out  why the fps have dropped.  So my motto is if  its still flying who care what the fps are

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Whenever my frame rates get down to 3.14159 it drives me insane, because that is when everything goes into circles

[ematheson 19]

I'd say an average of about 20 is the minimum acceptable. I've flown long and enjoyable flights at an average of 13 or so, but that was over a dense fully overcast cloud-deck AND in a docile airplane - that same FPS wasn't a problem when I landed because the clouds had cleared and I had 20 FPS again - all the same, that particular plane doesn't get a lot of flight time since it is rather FPS greedy.

[HiFlyer 9,436]

Yes, anything lower than say 21 fps is less desirable. But from a piloting perspective I found nothing in the range above that detracts from my current flying experience, especially considering the level of detail.

I found in FSX that there were just certain things nearly impossible for me to do, despite the fact that I wanted to very much. One of those was running Aerosoft New York and FSDT JFK at the same time. I never had an OOM problem at all, it just never happened, but frame rates were a completely different issue.

 

Add even a light KLGA as well to that scenario and you were looking at a potential slideshow.

 

There were a lot of compromises that needed to be made as far as water complexity, traffic density etc to get it all running, but there were still annoying stutters, and I always fantasized about being able to run and explore it all together at a nice smooth frame rate. For me, the suspension of disbelief begins to fall apart rapidly as the FPS drops.

[Guest Q_flyer]

Whenever my frame rates get down to 3.14159 it drives me insane, because that is when everything goes into circles

 

...and you just have to cheer yourself upm with a slice of Pi(e)....  :lol:

[ZXR-7R 8]

i don't fly if i'm getting less than 40fps. I need the fluidity,smoothness, sense of speed when i fly or drive. When Im racing N2K3 with 43 hi res cars on a hi res track, or flying LOMAC with all hi res textures and getting a smooth 60+fps, im an extremely happy camper. I am amazed that some people are happy with 10 fps. That just isnt acceptable for me, but that's the beauty of "to each his own".

[Guest Flyer10]

I can live with 20fps smooth. Less than that and the stutters are because my brain can tell its watching a slide show. Its not an issue for me any more because I have an i7 4770k @5ghz with a GTX780 build :lol: Brag! Brag!

[LHookins 3,118]

 

 

I am amazed that some people are happy with 10 fps.

 

No one is *happy* with 10 FPS.  That's just the lowest limit we find acceptable.  I guess people don't remember getting 4 FPS in the old days.

 

If I refused to fly because I couldn't get 60 FPS I'd be playing a train sim.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have 60 fps;  I'd also love to be 20 years old again.

 

I've got my system locked at 30, and it still dropped into the teens occasionally.  I don't care.  I've turned off the frame rate counter and quit worrying about numbers.  After all, nothing kills the immersion like looking at your frame rate counter and realizing it's at 25, right?

 

Hook