All you need to know about framerates...I've WASTED a lot of time experimenting with framerates for almost two decades, and 27,346 Virtual Airline realtime HOURS. maybe my thoughts will save you time...As a former Motion Picture Projectionist and Photographer, I know in a movie theater, 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 in a movie, DVD or other graphics are rendered on a computer one frame at a time. This happens at a slightly higher frame rate so it seems like a constant picture.No matter what they are, framerates result in smoother motion, up to a _certain_ point. Above that, they may result in stutters or pauses in flight, so frame rates are _not_ the ultimate consideration.. Just keep in mind a computer and TV draw pixels vertically AND horizontally, where as a movie just goes vertically, and PROJECTS the entire image on the entire screen instantly, at 24 frames per second . . . Has been much discustion for decades, about the "best" framerates, BUT all those discussing them have _different_ computers, video boards, and are running different operating systems, with different services, and even different combinations of software loaded. YOU can only tell what will work best for you, by doing this on Your computer . . . ..Twenty-Five frames per second (FPS) is very decent for most flying in FS, even Aerobatics. The framerate lock helps the system draw in more _detail. Instead of just pumping out framerates, you may want _better_visuals_ or more detail, and higher slider settings, with less variation in framerates, _reducing_ or even _eliminating_ Pauses and Stutters in flight.. You can set Your system, to get the best You want, instead of relying upon confusion.....Soooo after much experimenting with framerates and sliders, perhaps the best thing to do, is take your own average framerates, above 20 fps, subtract 5-10 fps (5 if below 30 and 10 or more if above) and lock it there. . . .. If your average is below 20 fps, one good way to boost them if you only use GA airfields is to uncheck Commercial in the traffic box. If you only use Commercial, uncheck the GA traffic box. Unchecking Commercial, can give you as much as a 10 fps increase. Adjust your _sliders_ until the fps is at least 20 fps when flying. (It may be as low as 8-14 on the ground, but I find that is sufficient for Taxiing.) If you still want more fps on the ground, lower Autogen scenery details.... To improve FPS, check each slider individually, go back to flying and see the resultant changes. Some sliders seem to make NO difference at all in framerates, each PC is different, so its best to check yourself, not listen to others. By doing this, you will have the best possible setup for Your system.Once set to your satisfaction PLEASE Stop Playing with Settings.SAVE your settings by Pressing : using - ALL SETTINGS, so if something happens, you can go back to them. You may want to do this with each aircraft, as different ones will have different framerates.The hours we've all spend playing with settins instead of FLYING have caused much frustration. Stop trying to make your system do what it can't. Just enjoy what you have, until you get a Main Frame - Super Computer . . . ... ;-) Bob

that and this quote may helpI think it's 24fps in the Cinema. TV at 50 Hz interlaced (i.e PAL) gives you half a frame at 25fps.The reason for that speed is simply that: below that *some* people detect flicker, and much below that *everyone* detects flicker. Some folks can detect flicker all the way up to 80 fps, but it is rare to find anyone who can detect it beyond 24 fps in a darkened room with a bright enough image. You can detect it by "concentrating" the image -- viewing it from an acute angle, for instance.The removal of flicker in cinemas by speeding up the frame rate is due to "persistence of vision" in the eye. This is why it is easier with an otherwise darkened environment and a brighter image. Obviously such things do not apply to TVs and monitors, so they invented an artificial persistence -- the decay time of the excitation of the phosphors on the screen.With many modern advanced computer monitors there is almost no persistence in the "phosphors", and of course in TFT screens there are no phosphors, though there is still a small lag in the way the transistor cells switch on and off. The latter is measured as "response time" and in the better TFT screens is down to atound 16 milliseconds these days -- enough for 60 fps without smear (many TFT screens are fixed at 60 Hz refresh rate).So, what does this mean? Well, we are happy with TV motion at effectively 25 fps (in PAL), 30 fps (NTSC), even though only half the picture (alternate lines) are actually changing on each frame. Phosphor persistence plus eye persistence is working here to make it look okay.In the cinema, 24 fps looks fine to most of us -- but the environment is controlled. (BTW Experiments have shown that running films at over 100 fps and with the brightness turned up a helluva lot can actually fool the brain into believing the images are *real* -- but that's another story icon_wink.gif ).But on a TV monitor we need the REFRESH rate (not necessarily the FRAME rate) of the screen to be higher, else there will be flicker due to the lack of persistent phosphors. 60 Hz refresh is the minimum we are used to, and some see flicker on the screen at that. I have a friend who can detect flicker on a computer monitor if the refresh is less than 80 Hz. And I think most of use can notice flicker on most screens if seen at an angle out of the corner of our eye.Ideally, frame rate would match refresh rate, so that each time the screen started drawing an image, it was a new image. This would suggest that frame rates of at least 60 fps are needed. However, I think it is here that our brain's processing does intervene and allows us to perceive much lower rates as "smooth" -- once the image does not appear to be "flickering", the image processing in the vision-related areas of the brain, or even the eye, interpolate for us. After all, the main result of our visual processing is "change" data -- to reduce the bandwidth necessary.As with the child's stick images on the corner of pages in a book which is flicked in front of you, you perceive the changes as motion by interpolated the intermediate images which you never really saw.But, indeed, this is where we'll find the differences -- some folks will see 15 fps as smooth, others won't be happy unless it's over 30 or some other arbitrary figure. No one value suits all.But, please, please, before passing judgment on frame rates, TURN OFF THE FRAME RATE DISPLAY and just fly. Never ever judge smoothness by some stupid number. Judge it by feel, by look.Ultimately, what matters to me much more than frame rate is smoothness. If the frame rate is sometimes 30 and sometimes 15, it feels jerky, irregular. I would rather it stayed at 15 all the time than wobble about. This, I believe, is the prime purpose of the FS Frame Rate Limiter. find your average acheived frame rate, and set the limiter a little below that. Then, most of the time, FS will achieve it, and the results will be smoother.Sorry for rambling on so, but this has been flogged to death periodically for more years than I care to remember, and doesn't need to go on. Honest. icon_smile.gifRegards,PeteFor me I need 30 fps minimum for FS 2004 to run smooth. That is about the minimum for any game I play really.However for fast racing sims like f1 2002 the speed sensation is so much greater when you run at 50 fps+ :). As for FS 2004 when I get above 40 I have a hard time seeing any difference in smoothness.As for frame rate limiter for some all it do is lowering the max fps. Me I get no more detail while simming with my fps locked as with without. Though for photographic textures they load far worse when limitting my frame rate.Also another tip however this has nothing to do with fps. If you have a CRT monitor try setting 100 or 120 as refresh rate. Depending on what your monitor can handle. It does come with a slight performance hit however I find the perception of depth being greatly enhanced make the FS world feel more real :)

<>Where and how would I determine what my monitor can handle. I don't think I have a printed manual.Thanks,Jim

You may try to Google it :). If you are ready to gamble a bit you can always try it out for yourself however having it to high can of course kill your monitor. But look at the back on the monitor for model number and google it for info. If it

Ah yes... the old FPS. This seems to creep up every now so here's my take.I usually run Unlimited for no scientific reason whatsoever. I think because I fly around a lot in MagaScenery territory and their manual suggest that for faster reloading of textures. I also notice for me that anything below 13FPS is too slow... too jumpy. So that is the minimum I strive for.But after reading a post about setting the FPS at 40, for "XXXXX and giggles" I put mine at 30 (I'm only running a 2.8gig machine), since I had not locked for some time now. Took off from Seattle in my B717 (or is that an MD95?), and headed west over some beautiful northwest scenery.At about 8-10,000 feet I was solid at about 28-30FPS. No big dips. Two things I noticed immediately. The smoothness when panning around and the 3-D immersion effect. Felt like I was watching an Imax movie! Could all this be do to the small amount of difference jumping between 28-30FPS as opposed to a 45 down to a 23 or something and then back up to 30's? Who knows... who cares... it just looked awesom!So I'll play with this setting for a while, suggest you try some different ones as well... experiment- can't hurt ya.One thng I would like to point out about motion picture framerates. 24FPS was selected back in the 20's not for it's optimum setting but because it was the minimum a studio could get away with in order to save costs on film. Faster FPS means more film... more $$$Also, the FPS setting you are adjusting is the maximum setting. There is also a minimum setting you can set in you fs9.cfg file if you are so inclined to fool with that stuff. Otherwise it is set as a percentage based on what you set your maximum to.

So what's new? Yawn.....

Jim -If you are using XP, right-click on the desktop, chose Properties - Settings - Advanced. Then click Monitor and "Hide modes this monitor cannot display". The dialog box will show the refresh rate choices.You can also click the Adapter tab and "List All Modes" to see all the combinations of resolution and refresh rate available for your video card.

There does appear to be a minimum fps range as well...I thought I would try dropping my max fps down to 24 as had been reffered to earlier, and did a flight from Liverpool John Lennon Airport to Brussels International. Whillst taxiing, there aseemed to be large lurches as I navigated to taxiways, and once in the air, doing an external panning around the aircraft (FFX/Kittyhawk 737 EasyJet), it was very stuttery, and kept almost getting stuck for a second or two, before lurching on. Yeuchh!! I put the slider back to 36, where I'd had it before, and this time the panning was silky smooth and did a complete 360 revolution without a single stutter or lurch...taxing was a lot smoother too...So. At least on my system, Athlon 3000XP+, 1.5gb DDR PC2700 RAM, and BFG Geforce 6600GT/OC, going to low on the max fps slider can have a more pronounced dtremental effect than setting it too high (I hasve tried the unlimited setting too...it wasn't bad, but it did seem at times to get ahead of itself somehow!). 36fps seems to be around the 'sweet-spot' for my PC and so it'll stay there, until I upgrade again!

There is nothing new. However there will always come new simmers who will wonder about the very same thing. For you who think this is old well ever since 3D graphics emerged especially with 3D games like Doom there have been discussions about this. Thus there would be a good idea having a sticky about this ;)There was long an unchallenged human eye can

What if I change my monitor refresh rate to a higher value then it's capbale of? Will bad things happen? Mines at 75 but is cable of 85. I've never bothered to change it because I've never known what it actually does.Jonathan.

Keep in mind that originally film speed was dictated by the need to achieve adequate film exposures. A faster fps means shorter exposure time. This created a need for insanely bright lighting on movie sets. Directors/cinematographers would compensate by slowing down the film speed where motion was not present, then speeding it up during movement. This of course required projectionists to duplicate (more or less) during playback. Projectionists were actually artists, who followed cue sheets but were expected to use artistic judgement (though at times management would encourage pulling the film through faster to get more showings in).Once soundtracks were applied to film, it was necessary to establish a uniform film speed and 24 fps was selected (otherwise sound pitch would rise and fall with film speed).But, research has shown that computer generated graphics are not perceived the same by the brain as filmed images. This is not due to "persistence of vision". As a result, computer graphics displayed at 24 fps may not appear "lifelike" to a viewer.scott s..

>What if I change my monitor refresh rate to a higher value>then it's capbale of? Will bad things happen? Mines at 75 but>is cable of 85. I've never bothered to change it because I've>never known what it actually does.>>>Jonathan.If you go higher you will probably get a black screen with a lot of weird horizontal lines going on and perhaps a humm from your monitor :). It will not instantly kill your monitor but if you leave it at that for periods :). Anyway if your monitor supports 85 there is no issue. You don