>Nobody in this thread made mention of "100's of fps." >>100's no, One Hundred, yes.. :-lolANYONE can achieve 100 FPS by playing with the sliders and picking the right angle of the shot.Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

Touche . Of course, I meant previous to your first mention of the ego explanation. :-roll

When you go to a movie theater and watch a movie you are not watching it at 24fps. You are watching it at 48fps. How is this when it is recorded at 24fps? Each frame is shown twice. The frames are double by the projector. Don't ask me how it works I have no idea. I have had it explained to me by a projectionist but frankly didn't understand it all that well. If you were to watch a movie in a theater at 24fps, the flicker would drive you nuts. Also to mention, film and video has motion blur which gets percieved as smoothness, something video games still dont have. Your monitor(CRT) hertz is the same as thing as frame rates. Therefore, if your monitor is set at 85 hz, you will never see anything more than that in a game. I, sometimes in rare conditions in FS get 85fps and the smoothness is incredible. For some folks it is too smooth. Actually makes some people nauseous. I built a system that is able to maintain 40 fps in most conditions. It makes a difference while taxiing and seeing other planes take off, or flying low by downtown areas. When I started getting into video games I was completely happy with my 20-25 fps. Then I went to a Lan game for Descent 3 and saw what 80 fps looked like. I was blown away. All of a sudden I was totally unhappy with my rig. Luckily all it took was a video card upgrade and D3 was never the same again. If you get the opportunity to see FS at 40fps or more...DON'T LOOK!!! Kidding of course, it may or may not make a difference at all to you. If you are happy with what you have, then who cares what other folks are getting. But just because one is happy with 25fps, doesn't mean that everyone else should be happy with that as well.Just a side note here. How many frames per second can the eye see? Everyone thinks they know the answer. Most say 24-30 since that is where film and video top out at. I can prove with a blank page of a web browser and a CRT that you can tell the difference between 60,72, and 85. THERE ARE NO KNOWN MAXIMUM OF FRAME RATES THAT A HEALTHLY PERSON CAN SEE. Yes, health makes a difference. If you can't see the difference between 20 and 40 fps, lay off the crack pipe.

Greetings All,Although the frames per second are important, I agree that fluid intra-frame consistency is just as important.Since this is a hot topic, (I noticed that the AVSIM Demographic Survey showed Sim Fluidity and Frames rates the highest wanted improvement) I decided to perform a few tests of my own.I wanted to measure the differences between a typical XP desktop and a raw optimized build of XP. I tested two applications: our beloved MS Flight Simulator 2004 and Battlefield 2. The results were dramatic. I think the most compelling (graphs on the 3rd page) are the intra-frame testings. This is the measured time between each drawn image.Note: I use "Typical" desktop as MY day-to-day business build of XP with applications.(office, email, anti-virus, etc.) I then exited all applications on the desktop and system tray.I can't really sum up the results easily into one nice tidy number, since everybody's mileage will vary, but there was an improvement on almost all the tests! In one test on FS2004, almost 28% on my system.You can find my results here:http://www.digitalthemepark.com/downloads/...FPS_Testing.pdf-Todd

>Just a side note here. How many frames per second can the eye>see? Everyone thinks they know the answer. Most say 24-30>since that is where film and video top out at. I can prove>with a blank page of a web browser and a CRT that you can tell>the difference between 60,72, and 85. THERE ARE NO KNOWN>MAXIMUM OF FRAME RATES THAT A HEALTHLY PERSON CAN SEE. Yes,>health makes a difference. If you can't see the difference>between 20 and 40 fps, lay off the crack pipe. 27.Mark "Dark Moment" BeaumontVP Fleet, DC-3 AirwaysTeam Member, MAAM-SIM[a href=http://www.swiremariners.com/cathayhk.html" target="_blank]http://www.paxship.com/maamlogo2.jpg[/a]

>Isn't fluidity important too? It is. But what is fluidity? It is delivery of every frame in a synchronous manner, so every frame arrives say 1/25 sec apart. In FS9 you get microstutter because individual frames arrive in an asynchronous manner - even though your fps counter is telling you that you see 25 fps in reality if you analyzed every frame you would see big gaps between some of them. The fps number they show you is just a number averaged over some period of time.Michael J.

Man,,,,,I loved that Mega missile in Descent3........Stan

>>>Just a side note here. How many frames per second can the>eye>>see? Everyone thinks they know the answer. Most say 24-30>>since that is where film and video top out at. I can prove>>with a blank page of a web browser and a CRT that you can>tell>>the difference between 60,72, and 85. THERE ARE NO KNOWN>>MAXIMUM OF FRAME RATES THAT A HEALTHLY PERSON CAN SEE. Yes,>>health makes a difference. If you can't see the difference>>between 20 and 40 fps, lay off the crack pipe. >>27.27? You are joking right? I will assume that you are before I blow that figure out of the water.

Thanks for that test Todd. Good to see a scientific approach on the question being discussed here. When we compare frame reates with each other it's very easy to forget that there are so many variables.

>When you go to a movie theater and watch a movie you are not>watching it at 24fps. You are watching it at 48fps. How is>this when it is recorded at 24fps? Each frame is shown twice.> The frames are double by the projector. Don't ask me how it>works I have no idea. I have had it explained to me by a>projectionist but frankly didn't understand it all that well. >If you were to watch a movie in a theater at 24fps, the>flicker would drive you nuts. Also to mention, film and video>has motion blur which gets percieved as smoothness, something>video games still dont have. The "persistance of vision" of your eye requires that you have the light "refreshed" at a least 45 hz or more or your brain will perceive the light blinking on and off, which is called "flicker". At the movie theater, there is a shutter in the light path that switches the light on and off twice for each frame of film. This gives you a frame rate of 24FPS , each frame flashed 2X to avoid flicker, hence 48 flashes per second. We do the same with our TV system using interlacing. We flash 30 FPS, but only 1/2 the frame at a time ( odd lines and then even lines) . Your eye sees 60 flashes of light per second, but only 1/2 the frame information at a flash. This allows you to see 30FPS without flicker>>Your monitor(CRT) hertz is the same as thing as frame rates. >Therefore, if your monitor is set at 85 hz, you will never see>anything more than that in a game. I, sometimes in rare>conditions in FS get 85fps and the smoothness is incredible. >For some folks it is too smooth. Actually makes some people>nauseous. I built a system that is able to maintain 40 fps in>most conditions. It makes a difference while taxiing and>seeing other planes take off, or flying low by downtown areas.> >>When I started getting into video games I was completely happy>with my 20-25 fps. Then I went to a Lan game for Descent 3>and saw what 80 fps looked like. I was blown away. All of a>sudden I was totally unhappy with my rig. Luckily all it took>was a video card upgrade and D3 was never the same again. >>If you get the opportunity to see FS at 40fps or more...DON'T>LOOK!!! Kidding of course, it may or may not make a>difference at all to you. If you are happy with what you>have, then who cares what other folks are getting. But just>because one is happy with 25fps, doesn't mean that everyone>else should be happy with that as well.>>Just a side note here. How many frames per second can the eye>see? Everyone thinks they know the answer. Most say 24-30>since that is where film and video top out at. I can prove>with a blank page of a web browser and a CRT that you can tell>the difference between 60,72, and 85. THERE ARE NO KNOWN>MAXIMUM OF FRAME RATES THAT A HEALTHLY PERSON CAN SEE. Yes,>health makes a difference. If you can't see the difference>between 20 and 40 fps, lay off the crack pipe. >>The main reason that graphics cards are set at higher refresh rates than say 60 , is to lessen eye fatique. This has to do with the decay time of the phosphor on the CRT, and may other factors. Of course if you are talking about a DLP or LCD monitor, this is all irrelevant anyway, because we are back to the topic of how many frames FS9 is going to make per second which is really a function of the system bandwidth and processing power.

Because "I get 1000 fps in Doom so I need it in FS too and M$ is deliberately making it slow".

>Because "I get 1000 fps in Doom so I need it in FS too and M$>is deliberately making it slow".LOL......yeh, why not!:-hah

I'm not so sure about the 48 fps on showing a movie,I've never heard that but...with film 24 is fine because the projector is ALWAYS running at 24 fps--it doesn't jump around to 12 then to 32 and so on. Thats why merely getting 24fps doesn't always insure fluid motion--probably more like 48 fps with the sim dropping to 24 in heavy scenery areas. For those who don't think that your eyes and brain can tell any difference in frames over 24 do this simple test. Lower your monitor refresh rate to 60 or below. Look at the screen or turn your head slighly one way or the other. You'll easily see the screen flickering at 50-60 fps.And...like you said that you can never get any higher fps than the refresh rate on your computer. Most people will be running a refresh rate of around 75-85,which is 75-85 fps. When someone brags about getting 100 fps or more there not seeing all those frames,there just merely seeing some counter thats telling them their getting 100 fps.David

Man I wish I was getting 1000 FPS in DOOM3, runs about the same as MSFS (wonder if the same guys coded it, LOL )Battelfield 2 on the other hand, runs better, looks wayyyyyy better, LOLRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Well, if >24fps was useless, why do we have HDTV's at 50FPS (PAL) and digital broadcast (hi-def) in Australia is 50 Fps.Keith