Sign in to follow this  
davidzill

FPS

Recommended Posts

While using PMDG aircraft, i.e. the NGX, with payware airports (flightbeam flytampa) and textures set to 4096 and using REX 4 TD clouds, is 25-30 a good fps while taxing around the airports? Am I being too ambitious in pursuing anything further? I have a 2600K at 4.6ghz and a 780 gtx. bajote's fsx tweak, nvidia inspector set to 16xS [Combined: 2x2 SS + 4x MS] and 2 sparsegrid supersampling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

That's very good. You're locked at 30 I imagine?

 

Don't go messing with anything lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't understand the "OMG I NEED MOAR FRAMES" sentiment in the gaming industry.  I believe the film industry uses 24 frames in recording.  Your eye can only perceive around 12-16.  What your eye does pick up, however, is changes to that value.  If it stutters, or hangs, you'll definitely notice because the frames drop below that doubled threshold (24 is double the low range of natural perception).  You may notice certain equipment - GoPro/Contour cameras, notably - may have settings for upwards of 60 frames, but that's so that you can slow the film down for slow motion effects without it looking jumpy.

 

So, your goal shouldn't be 40 or 60 or 100 fps - it should be a stable, reasonable frame rate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the images are displayed smoothly, I couldn't care less about the frame rates.  I'll take 15 and smooth as glass over 60 and jerky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the brain can perceive up to around 30 FPS before any further increase becomes undetectable. Watching traditional film, I can actually "see" the framerate, but modern laser projectors which do not blank make it harder to detect.

 

If you actually analyze how the sim is processed, you want as many FPS as possible, as the smoothness of the simulation is tied to frame rate. The higher the frame rate, the better the overall simulation.

 

Something I noticed with FSX is that whilst the FPS counter may display e.g. 35 FPS, the rate at which the FPS counter itself updates is far more telling of how well the sim is running.

 

I have seen it at 20FPS updating at a rate that is far faster than when it reads 40 FPS. These times when the frame rate counter is slow to update also councides with slower systems response from the aircraft, despite apparently higher FPS.

 

FSX is generally broken in the overall way it works.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your eye can only perceive around 12-16.

It varies across the eye, and between the sexes.

It also varies with luminance, colour, contrast, and area of the flickering source.

18-120 c/s!

 

In eyes, it's usually referred to by the FFF: flicker fusion frequency. The cyclic rate at which a flickering light source appears constant.

 

Peripheral vision is much better than central vision at detecting flicker, and females appreciably better than males.

So if the ladies working at their desks notice the fluorescents flickering overhead, and complain, the male office manager will come in, look directly at the tubes, and see no flicker at all.

And they'll both be right.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple misconceptions going on here (and I'm going to speak generally at first and then with respect to FSX):

 

- Kyle, you actually can't compare video game graphics to film in an apples to apples manner like that - 24 fps works for film mostly due to motion blur. If you've ever seen individual movie frames there is always a slight blur there. The brain composites these all into something that seems smooth. Games project perfectly sharp individual frames that don't have blur. Some game engines (ie most modern first person shooter engines) have a simulated motion blur effect that can mimic the film effect but it's still applied after the fact, it's not an inherent shutter thing in the source material like film.

 

- Robin, the eye can definitely see more than 30 FPS. I'm old enough to have had CRT monitors for a long time before the proliferation of LCDs that redraw the whole screen at once, and anything below around 72Hz I could easily see flicker on. I'd get a headache from it after a while - I remember upgrading monitors at one point in the mid 90s specifically to be able to run 75Hz so that the flicker went away.

 

In general with modern video gaming, 60 FPS is seen as the target framerate. There's several reasons for this - mainly because it's still the standard "refresh rate" for LCDs (which again doesn't mean what it did with CRTs - there's no flicker at 60Hz on an LCD), but a big one aside from that is that it enhances mouse control in "twitch" games like first person shooters. Someone who's getting 60 FPS vs, someone getting 30 is going to have much finer control when they're aiming. 30 FPS absolutely is pretty unacceptable in a shooter - it just feels laggy and unresponsive when you move the mouse. The monitor and GPU tech is beginning to move beyond this - we have a line of 120Hz monitors out there now that can accurately display every frame up to 120 FPS. Nvidia has their GSync technology coming out too that essentially creates a dynamic refresh rate that the GPU controls by sending signals to the monitor rather than the monitor just being a dumb box that can only accept one rate. These things will increase the perceived smoothness even if the actually FPS doesn't increase.

 

Now - that said, FSX has a few characteristics that I think make the lack of the standard gaming-world 60 FPS not as big a deal as it would be in the aforementioned shooter games. Mainly, it's that FSX isn't a "twitch" game. You are often very far away from the motion of the scenery or whatever (even at landing, it's nothing compared to how close objects and other players are to you in a shooter) If the FSX world moved by you at the same relative speed things move by in a shooter, this would be a much bigger deal.  Don't get me wrong, 60FPS definitely would not *hurt* anything in FSX, but it wouldn't have the same effect that it does in Battlefield or whatever vs. 30. Unfortunately thanks to the graphics engine's inefficiency, lack of serious GPU acceleration and things like the clickspot FPS loss issue we're probably never going to see 60 in high end addons.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´ve got some performance issues, too. My system uses a I5 3570K (@4,3GHZ), 8 gb RAM and a ASUS GTX 770. I locked my frames inside FSX to 30 and for most of the time, especially at higher cruise altitudes, i get these frames and a smooth performance. But with the 737ngx and 777X, at some addon airports my frames drops from 22-30 and i get huge stuttering etc if i´m about to land or i taxi etc. 

 

I have to deal with this performance but i can´t really understand why i have bad performance with up to 22 frames (huge stuttering). I use nvidia inspector and tweaked my FSX.cfg (a "virgin" cfg does not have any effect for me). Sometimes i hope that this is only happening becouse some settings are wrong or something^^.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as fsx is smooth,15 or 40 fps dont matter,the way i see it,

the ngx is eating less fps on my pc,than the T7

its also how the aiport is made,copenhagen on my pc is eating much more than los angeles from fsdreamteam.

the new ones from aerosoft is not eating much,the old one does.

they are much better today,than they were just 2 years ago,making optimized airports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find 25-30 FPS perfectly acceptable in FSX or other flight simulators, but as Tabs stated, in a fast paced first person shooter it is not acceptable at all and feels awful.

 

I still don't understand how so many members of the flight simulation community continue to believe/repeat the misconception that the eye cannot perceive more then 30 FPS... :P For whatever reason I almost exclusively see people claiming this at flight sim forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree that saying as long as you get 16fps but stable FSX is fine..

 

The FPS is a good indication on how much the sim is struggling processing the data. IF you try and pan around the cockpit at 16fps go into a default (or majestic dash 8) and pan around then.. The different is immediately and significantly apparent.

 

I think the focus of high end developments is to try and get the highest fps possible in every situation. It's what we, the simmer, immediately notice when flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely notice anything below 30 FPS, that is the bare minimum I will accept for FPS.

 

 For those running a 770GTX or higher I found a random tweak online that advises changing texture max load from 1024 to 4096 in the FSX.cfg

 

On my setup a saw a very nice performance boost.  Not sure how or why it works.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ryan:

 

- Robin, the eye can definitely see more than 30 FPS. I'm old enough to have had CRT monitors for a long time before the proliferation of LCDs that redraw the whole screen at once, and anything below around 72Hz I could easily see flicker on. I'd get a headache from it after a while - I remember upgrading monitors at one point in the mid 90s specifically to be able to run 75Hz so that the flicker went away.

 

I agree. What I meant was the break in the update was undetecable (take for example cine-film vs. laser projector), but the flicker, whilst it can't directly be seen, can still be sensed by the eye/brain.

 

I can "see" the 50 Hz flicker of my panel backlight now, even though it appears to be on constantly.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't understand the "OMG I NEED MOAR FRAMES" sentiment in the gaming industry. I believe the film industry uses 24 frames in recording. Your eye can only perceive around 12-16. What your eye does pick up, however, is changes to that value. If it stutters, or hangs, you'll definitely notice because the frames drop below that doubled threshold (24 is double the low range of natural perception). You may notice certain equipment - GoPro/Contour cameras, notably - may have settings for upwards of 60 frames, but that's so that you can slow the film down for slow motion effects without it looking jumpy.

 

So, your goal shouldn't be 40 or 60 or 100 fps - it should be a stable, reasonable frame rate.

I can't believe this myth regarding frames to be still doing the rounds after all these years. Ryan has given a fairly good explanation and if you search the forums this 24 fps limit has been beaten to death and discredited many times over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have babbled on about,  24 FPS  is smooth  due to the blurring nature of cinematography, and doesn't apply to games, many times in the forum. In fact in a current thread. Nice explanation from Ryan regarding this.

 

For those of you that say, 15 is fine, all that matters is that it doesn't stutter... now try panning around the VC. You will instantly see the difference. you will also see a significant difference, if you compare 30 and 60 while panning in the VC.

 

Something else that's rarely mentioned is flight dynamics.  If frame rate is too low, flight dynamics are compromised, and you won't experience the subtleties coded by talented people from PMDG, majestic etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You nailed it Martin! FPS equates to systems and FDE fidelity in simulations.

 

You will ALWAYS fly better the faster the frame rate, which is why I commented on the literal FPS counter value vs. the update rate of said counter in FSX being important to note.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that some decided to come up with their own interpretation of what I said earlier.  If you go back and re-read what I wrote, you'll note that I didn't actually pin down a target.

 

I didn't say 24 was the goal.  I said the film industry uses that as an example.  In fact, my final sentence gave exactly what everyone else is saying:

 

 


So, your goal shouldn't be 40 or 60 or 100 fps - it should be a stable, reasonable frame rate.

 

As noted, people sense differently.  If you notice flicker at a certain framerate, then you will need to change your frame rate somehow to accommodate that.  Sure, higher is generally going to be better for your perception (especially since the sim isn't delivering "tweens" - yes, I'm familiar with why the film industry gets away with their lower frame rates), but if your personal perception seems to be okay with frame rate X, you're not going to be doing yourself any good spending thousands of dollars on a sim rig in an effort to get 10 more frames in an outdated, poorly-optimized sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say 24 was the goal. I said the film industry uses that as an example.

An example of what?

 

Why even mention 24 if it wasn't to imply that 24 is smooth to the human eye. 

 

 

In fact, my final sentence gave exactly what everyone else is saying:

 

 

Actually you said a "stable, reasonable frame rate" without committing yourself as to what that figure should be. However, most of us will assume that the 24 figure you quoted for cinematography was the figure you had in mind. Forgive me, but I can't think of any other reason you would even mention 24 in cinematography, as it doesn't relate to the nature of gaming..

 

 

 

Still don't understand the "OMG I NEED MOAR FRAMES" sentiment in the gaming industry. I believe the film industry uses 24 frames in recording. Your eye can only perceive around 12-16. What your eye does pick up, however, is changes to that value. If it stutters, or hangs, you'll definitely notice because the frames drop below that doubled threshold (24 is double the low range of natural perception).

 

 

 

When you state how you don't understand the obsession with "need more frames" in the gaming industry, and then back up your statement  by telling us how in cinematography it's just 24, It's clear how that will be interpreted.

 

Couple that with quite clearly [and erroneously] maintaining that the eye can only perceive 12-16, and that the eye "only notices changes to that value" and that further enhances the notion that you believed 24 is smooth.

 

 

I'm sure you'll try to wriggle out of trouble. ;)

 

My advice would be to admit you were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this