Hi, after about 2 weeks of testing with P3D, is it possible to establish with a certain degree of confidence if the 777 in P3D has generally lower or higher fps than in FSX in the following 2 situations?

 

1. With *more or less* the same settings as FSX (scenery density, autogen, shadows)

2. with the same settings as FSX *plus* cockpit and cloud shadows.

 

P.S.: Please, don't say "lower fps but in P3D lower fps are more fluid than in FSX" -  30 fps are 30 fps, no matter where!

 

Thank you.

 Tough call as many users try to use the same settings in P3d as they did in FSX or even higher. The problem is  "scenery density, autogen, shadows", these "same settings" are VERY different between the two sims.

 

 

P.S.: Please, don't say "lower fps but in P3D lower fps are more fluid than in FSX" -  30 fps are 30 fps, no matter where!

 

Firstly, this is not really true.

 

Secondly, as mentioned by Dave, above, you can't make a direct comparison between the two products because they are vastly different. I can't set the same exact settings as I had in FSX and make a direct comparison on even terms.

 

That being said, P3D is a slightly higher hit to my system, but I'm also running higher settings, DX11 is the default (and not an option) in P3D, and other assorted things. Still, I like it a lot better because it's usually more fluid.

 

 

it's usually more fluid.

 

Ok, I understand that "more fluid" in P3D is intended like "more stutter free", because if fps are lower it can't be more fluid. Thus I would conclude that the 777 in P3D is heavier in fps but with less stutters.

Ok, I understand that "more fluid" in P3D is intended like "more stutter free", because if fps are lower it can't be more fluid. Thus I would conclude that the 777 in P3D is heavier in fps but with less stutters.

 

Lower FPS can still be more fluid. No need to get into the semantics here. If you don't like the feedback you're welcome to go try it on your own, honestly...

 

If you want to ask a question, let people answer it. If you don't want answers you don't want to hear, don't ask the question because your decision is likely already made.

No, I just want to make sure that P3D users don't see more fluidity with lower fps just to convince themselves that by moving to P3D they did the right choice, like with the move FS9-FSX, everybody said "20 fps in FSX are like 30 in FS9". I didn't see any difference between 20 fps in FSX and FS9...

 

 

Lower FPS can still be more fluid. No need to get into the semantics here. If you don't like the feedback you're welcome to go try it on your own, honestly...
 
If you want to ask a question, let people answer it. If you don't want answers you don't want to hear, don't ask the question because your decision is likely already made.

 

Seriously, why are you getting so shirty with the guy?  He simply attempted to paraphrase, to clarify your response.

 

The attitude is totally un-called for.

Guys relax.....it's no big deal. Let's not get all high and mighty over who said what and who did what. 

I just purchased the 777 for P3D and have done a couple of training flights so far. Last night flew a short RW flight from FSDT KIAH to Flightbeam KIAD, using Opus FSI, REX 512 clouds (I don't use HD), GSX, FTX Global + Vector, and WoAI. I don't follow FPS so I can't give you figures. That being said, the flight was butter smooth. Zero stutters. All systems are different so no one can predict what your experience will be like, but my experience so far is VERY good.

 

Todd

Lower FPS can still be more fluid.

 

Kyle is absolutely right. We had a lengthy discussion on that over at the Prepar3d forum. It is pretty clear that the perception of fluidity is more related to even times between frames than the absolute number of fps. 25 fps can appear almost perfectly fluid when the timings between frames are very even. On the other hand, 40 fps can be very stuttery if frame times vary a lot. And that's where Prepar3d has it's advantages. Especially with the PMDG 777 frame times seem to be quite even so that even with 25 fps it's very fluid. So it doesn't make sense just to compare fps.

 

Carlo Kraemer

Actually the T7 already feels fluid in FSX - so "more fluid" in P3D???

 

 

No, I just want to make sure that P3D users don't see more fluidity with lower fps just to convince themselves that by moving to P3D they did the right choice, like with the move FS9-FSX, everybody said "20 fps in FSX are like 30 in FS9". I didn't see any difference between 20 fps in FSX and FS9...

"YOU" want to make sure that "WE" made our choices for the right reasons! How about this choice sir, I choose to un-follow you and your drivel. UNBELIEVABLE!

"YOU" want to make sure that "WE" made our choices for the right reasons! How about this choice sir, I choose to un-follow you and your drivel. UNBELIEVABLE!

Well stated.+++++1.Saying 30fps is 30fps no matter where is like saying 0-60mph is 0-60mph no matter which car!

Seriously, why are you getting so shirty with the guy?  He simply attempted to paraphrase, to clarify your response.

 

The attitude is totally un-called for.

 

Not sure I agree here. There was a request for feedback. The request had somewhat of an unrealistic requirement to speak only in terms of FPS because that metric is fraught with inaccurate reporting. In other words, looking at FPS alone, you could actually have a bad visual experience.

 

I challenged this and got pushback ("if fps are lower it can't be more fluid"). That statement is what I was addressed in the first post. I'm all for challenging things when things are incorrect, but it's a known fact in the industry that people have been moving to frame time variance (FTV) as a benchmark simply because the industry acknowledges that FPS is remarkably poor at judging actual user experience.

 

So, 30 FPS is not 30 FPS, because 30 FPS with high FTV will look terrible compared to 30 FPS with low FTV. Again, this is a fact. I apologize somewhat for the blunt approach, but refusal to accept facts is unforgivable in my mind.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-2.html

 

 

Not sure I agree here. There was a request for feedback. The request had somewhat of an unrealistic requirement to speak only in terms of FPS because that metric is fraught with inaccurate reporting. In other words, looking at FPS alone, you could actually have a bad visual experience.

+1