Over 2 hrs between the above posts.

 

I am guessing, but it appears that your posts are aimed at me. If that is the case why are you hiding in the corner behind your trainer? if you have a useful contribution then why dont you add to the thread instead of your post count?.

 

Note I did not post anything between your two posts, in fact I have not posted since Sunday. Perhaps it was not aimed at me after all, in which case I with draw my comment.

 

I think an apology would be in order here.

 

 

Apologies Mick if you misconstrued my second post as a dig at you. It was actually a rather tongue-in-cheek reference to Rob's post (prior to mine), and my initial comment was intended to inject a bit of levity into the thread - nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Memo to Self: Wrist duly slapped - sit on naughty step]. :Whistle:  

 

Regards,

I really can't imagine not being able to see the difference between 20 and 60 fps. Even though 20fps is way smoother than 60 in Prepar3d, meaning that I don't get Stutter, the fluidity of 60FPS is unbeatable. Unfortunately P3D at 60fps at all times is something no current PC is able to do nowadays

 

Er ... I think you need to define what you mean by "smoothness" and "fluidity" here, because to me they mean the same.  Both imply lack of stutter and jerkiness, so what is the visual difference?

 

fluidity - the property of flowing easily; 

   (can't find any other appropriate definition)

 

smoothness

   (lot's of reasonably appropriate definitions here)

- Having a surface free from irregularities, roughness, or projections

- Free from waves or disturbances; calm:

- Having a fine texture

- Having an even consistency

- Having an even or gentle motion or movement:

 

So, what is the difference, to you, visually, between "smooth" and "fluid" please?

 

Maybe that's what is bemusing the rest of us browsing this thread wondering why there's so much disagreement over something which to us is so obvious? i.e. ignore the numbers, just fly. If it looks and feels good (smooth, fluid, whatever you want to call it) to you, then that's all that matters. No point in arguing numbers. On their own they are meaningless.

 

It really all comes down to what you understand by "smoothness", and I think you'll find that's all Vic was saying -- if it is smooth it is good.

 

Pete

Apologies Mick if you misconstrued my second post as a dig at you. It was actually a rather tongue-in-cheek reference to Rob's post (prior to mine), and my initial comment was intended to inject a bit of levity into the thread - nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Memo to Self: Wrist duly slapped - sit on naughty step]. :Whistle:  

 

Regards,

 

Accepted.

Ok thats long enough on the naughty step.

 

Mick

Judging by some posts in this thread I'm starting to think that maybe some people really can't see the difference between 20 and 60 FPS.

Have you ever tried to watch a movie at 20 Hz?

It seems fluid? No.

FSX/P3D is not a movie, and anyway, converting a movie to 20Hz is bound to throw in long frames and inconsistent flow. But I think all the major points have been covered well: If we can consistently run at or above monitor refresh rate we're home and dry. If we can't, then something has to give. MS and the GPU manufacturers gave us D3D designed just for the purpose with the look ahead buffer, that's for low fps. With high fps the time between frames becomes too small to worry about. By the way; If you can't do 20fps fixed, there's no point trying it out at 30. Internally fixing ensures each frame is computed from a consistent time period. With Unlimited setting and a frame limiter, each frame is computed from the time it took to render the last frame, but the next frame hardly ever takes the same time to render. The slight difference is measureable in terms of flight time and fuel use. The higher the frame rate the less the effect.

Judging by some posts in this thread I'm starting to think that maybe some people really can't see the difference between 20 and 60 FPS.

 

No, they can't see the difference between smooth/fluid and smooth/fluid. The frame rate should be irrelevant. It's what to see with your eyes that's important, not any numbers.

 

Pete

 

Have you ever tried to watch a movie at 20 Hz?

It seems fluid? No.

 

Movies run at 24 fps.

 

Pete

No, they can't see the difference between smooth/fluid and smooth/fluid. The frame rate should be irrelevant. It's what to see with your eyes that's important, not any numbers.

 

So, if frame rate is irrelevant as you state, why stop at 20 fps? Per your reasoning, even 10 fps, or 5 fps, should appear the same ("can't see the difference") as 60 fps, provided they're both "smooth/fluid" (i.e. steady fps). Do you think that makes sense?

Movies run at 24 fps.

 

Yes, but:

 

1) Movies have motion blur. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur :

 

"Without this simulated effect each frame shows a perfect instant in time (analogous to a camera with an infinitely fast shutter), with zero motion blur. This is why a video game with a frame rate of 25-30 frames per second will seem staggered, while natural motion filmed at the same frame rate appears rather more continuous."

 

2) In filming practices, panning speed is limited exactly for this reason: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/camera-panning-speed

 

"Being able to control panning is important because moving too quickly can cause unpleasant visual artifacts. Objects or backgrounds may appear to flash across the screen in discrete jumps, for example, whenever the on-screen displacement is too great compared to the duration between frames. This is commonly referred to as strobing or “judder,” and has happened since the early days of film."

I continue to post this in various threads about FPS: https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

 

As soon as you set one ball to 60FPS, the other to 30FPS, the background to whatever you want and deactivate motion blur, EVERYBODY can instantly see that 60FPS looks smoother. Even though, in this example, everything is perfectly constant...

 

It is really a nice "tool", as you can also easily see the benefit from adding motion blur.

...even 10 fps, or 5 fps, should appear the same ("can't see the difference") as 60 fps, provided they're both "smooth/fluid" (i.e. steady fps). Do you think that makes sense?

No this does not make sense, that's not fair on Pete. You know we are starting from a baseline already discussed; that is, a human generally needs 19 or more frames per second for one image to merge into the next to create a "comfortable" approximation of moving images.

 

I continue to post this in various threads about FPS: https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

 

As soon as you set one ball to 60FPS, the other to 30FPS, the background to whatever you want and deactivate motion blur, EVERYBODY can instantly see that 60FPS looks smoother. Even though, in this example, everything is perfectly constant...

 

It is really a nice "tool", as you can also easily see the benefit from adding motion blur.

Its best to turn OFF motion blur as the sim does not have that.

 

 

If people cannot see that 60fps is better than 30 and 30 is better than 20 they need to go here http://www.specsavers.co.uk/

 

If frame-rate was "irrelevant" then try running 10fps. Saying framerate is irrelevant is well.......crazy to say the least.

 

Just why do you think they make 120Hz screens? for the fun of it. My Monitor is 120Hz and 60 to 120 if I move the mouse around fast its very easy to see the difference.

So, if frame rate is irrelevant as you state, why stop at 20 fps? Per your reasoning, even 10 fps, or 5 fps, should appear the same ("can't see the difference") as 60 fps, provided they're both "smooth/fluid" (i.e. steady fps). Do you think that makes sense?

 

Are you being deliberately dense, or just argumentative for the sake of it?

 

I don't like even 20 fps much. Depending on the circumstances (turning, for insteance) it isn't smooth or fluid to me. I maintain a steady 50-odd -- when I can be bothered to look at the numbers -- except taxiing around large dense airports full of 100+ AI. Then it drops to the 20's and, in turns, does not look smooth and fluid.

 

But, yes, if it was fluid and smooth, without a frame rate counter, how could I possible tell what the frame rate is? But show me a system which looks smooth at 5 fps, as you stupidly suggest, and I'll show you a system which is static!

 

Note that I've taken to use both "smooth" and "fluid" because these evidently mean rather different things to some folks.

 

All I require, and suggest others too, is a system which looks perfectly smooth and fluid in all circumstances which are likely to be encountered. The frame rate, the actual number, is irrelevant. If it needs 60 fps to achieve that level of smoothness and fluidity, then that's what it needs. Others might not need so much, or might need more, but the number itself is still not relevant, it is what you SEE which is important.

 

If you read my original post properly you would have understood that was what I was saying..

 

Anyway, I'm out of here now. More real work to do on my system. :-)

 

Pete

We have 2 rules here :

1 Rob, Vic, Steve and Pete are always right

2 If that is not the case go back to rule 1

...........

Pete , Steve , Rob and Vic are saying it : smooth 20 fps looks the same as smooth 30 fps and looks the same as smooth 60 fps. And if you do not have a framerate counter onscreen you won't know at what fps you are looking.

 

And is I wrote before : only at high speeds at low altitude and then making a sharp turn will show some difference in the distance...

This whole discussion would be useless if LM to deign to do a real full screen and we could use the 1/2 refresh rate in Nvidia Inspector.