Sign in to follow this  
fsxkitty

Anyone able to get 60FPS over London?

Recommended Posts

Has anyone here been able to keep a consistent 60+FPS while flying over London with maxed out settings?

 

I've noticed that Flight School still uses CPU Core #1 to render buildings and traffic, so I don't think this would be possible unless you have a ridiculous clock speed.

 

I only get around 30FPS with my i5-3570K 4.5GHz.

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

What is wrong with 30 fps?

 

I don't suppose anything is wrong with 30 FPS, however, that wasn't the question asked.

Share this post


Link to post

What is wrong with 30 fps?

 

It's not 60 fps.

Share this post


Link to post

Why are  users  fixated on  what fps  they getting  is more  to the point

Share this post


Link to post

If I may hazard a guess, 60fps is kinda that much smoother.^^;;

 

I also think what OP actually wanted is a performance buffer for when high-detail addons catch up. For when default scenery go slow, what would high-detail addon ones do?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

My best result is either "constant" 30-35 FPS or 40-45 FPS with stutters. The second i accomplish by playing with FFTF. Couldn't get it in the middle though. For your reference i use ORBX Global + Vector (most things disabled) + LC + Aerosoft LHR + ASN. I'm "benchmarking" from the cockpit of a heavy payware airliner

Share this post


Link to post

It's not just frame rate obsession. If we're looking at Flight School as a technology preview for the upcoming flight sim (which is what we're all doing here, right?), then you'll probably want to see 60 fps or higher now, when it's running planes and scenery this basic in Flight School.

 

If you can get 60 to 70 fps now, then maybe you stand a chance of getting 30 fps when running a PMDG-level plane and tons of custom scenery in the full flight sim.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

It's not just frame rate obsession. If we're looking at Flight School as a technology preview for the upcoming flight sim (which is what we're all doing here, right?), then you'll probably want to see 60 fps or higher now, when it's running planes and scenery this basic in Flight School.

The trouble with looking at Flight School as a technology preview is that DTG probably didn't do too much optimisation. Martin was pretty clear in the 'Ask DTG' thread that they weren't doing too much work in Flight School apart from DX11 & 64bit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Right, I'm sure it's not as optimized as the final sim will (or should) be. But it would still be a good sign if people can reliably get 60 fps on systems that could be considered decent gaming computers, at a reasonable resolution like 1080p. 

 

Any stuttering or "long frames" would be more worrying, because that can happen even at otherwise high frame rates. It would point to deeper problems with the software than just optimization. 

Share this post


Link to post

Not that this adds much to the debate but I'm getting much smoother frame rates with much greater detail in Flight School than I can achieve in 32bit FSX or 64bit x-plane.

FSX, running with ASN, Soft Clouds, REX 3+ textures and Orbx England. It's still runs smooth but if increase the geometry to anything like Flight School levels it will choke.

X-Plane running X-Aviation clouds and custom photo scenery (runs faster than default) aslo runs smooth, but again, if I kick the geometry up to Flight School levels it's terrible.

 

Right now, Flight School's winning.

Share this post


Link to post

Why are  users  fixated on  what fps  they getting  is more  to the point

 

Well, for starters, it could show what kind of headroom the program has. Yes, it'll hopefully be optimized further, but it's also not realistic to expect DTG to somehow magically double the FPS in the next 6 months before they release the other simulator. 

Not that this adds much to the debate but I'm getting much smoother frame rates with much greater detail in Flight School than I can achieve in 32bit FSX or 64bit x-plane.

FSX, running with ASN, Soft Clouds, REX 3+ textures and Orbx England. It's still runs smooth but if increase the geometry to anything like Flight School levels it will choke.

X-Plane running X-Aviation clouds and custom photo scenery (runs faster than default) aslo runs smooth, but again, if I kick the geometry up to Flight School levels it's terrible.

 

Right now, Flight School's winning.

 

What do you mean by upping the geometry?

Share this post


Link to post

Not that this adds much to the debate but I'm getting much smoother frame rates with much greater detail in Flight School than I can achieve in 32bit FSX or 64bit x-plane.

FSX, running with ASN, Soft Clouds, REX 3+ textures and Orbx England. It's still runs smooth but if increase the geometry to anything like Flight School levels it will choke.

X-Plane running X-Aviation clouds and custom photo scenery (runs faster than default) aslo runs smooth, but again, if I kick the geometry up to Flight School levels it's terrible.

 

Right now, Flight School's winning.

 

Yep, it looks like the the building density Flight School can show on the ground is higher than I can get with X-Plane's autogen and SkyMaxx Pro clouds at a reasonable frame rate. That's impressive.

 

However... I wouldn't call it "winning," because it's only in the area close to the plane. Ground detail blurs out very quickly in the middle distance, which doesn't happen with X-Plane. I can still see high resolution when zoomed out to the distance and looking for a bush runway. So it looks like maybe a trade-off in close-up density vs. resolution in the distance?

 

It will be interesting to see if this trade-off remains over time. X-Plane has spoiled me for seeing high res scenery and 3D objects when zoomed out to the limit of weather visibility at low altitudes. I hate seeing pop-in and blur out there. 

Share this post


Link to post

bonchie -

What do you mean by upping the geometry?

 

In X-Plane that would be increasing the number of trees, objects, roads and vehicles,  Same thing for FSX.

Share this post


Link to post

bonchie -

In X-Plane that would be increasing the number of trees, objects, roads and vehicles,  Same thing for FSX.

 

Ok.

I've experienced that. Autogen really hits frames in FSX. In XP I have to keep trees and buildings on a notch below max. P3D, I keep it maxed, but they did a lot of work moving the processes onto the GPU.

Share this post


Link to post

Why are  users  fixated on  what fps  they getting  is more  to the point

 

I suppose they see all these other games running at 60+ FPS with max settings and FSX or Flight School should be able to do it too. 

 

I've been toying around with gaming at 30 FPS, and I've kind of gotten used to it over a few months. FSX or Flight School locked at 30 FPS feels quite smooth. 

Share this post


Link to post

+1 on not understanding some people's fixation with 60fps... This isn't a shooter, people...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

+1 on not understanding some people's fixation with 60fps... This isn't a shooter, people...

 

Once again... people are looking for 60 fps now, because the later full flight sim will (presumably) be running much more complex aircraft systems, better clouds and weather, more AI traffic, and better scenery that will impose a heavier load on the CPU/GPU.

 

If Flight School can run smoothly at 60 fps now, then it's a good sign that the upcoming full flight sim can run at a reasonable 30 fps with a much heavier processing load when it arrives later this year. 

 

That's the fixation with 60 fps, in a nutshell. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Although the new sim takes advantage of modern hardware, are you sure they aren't going to limit the settings so that it maintains a certain level of performance (eg. 30 FPS)? For example, cap the autogen or amount of particles the sim can render, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post

Once again... people are looking for 60 fps now, because the later full flight sim will (presumably) be running much more complex aircraft systems, better clouds and weather, more AI traffic, and better scenery that will impose a heavier load on the CPU/GPU.

 

If Flight School can run smoothly at 60 fps now, then it's a good sign that the upcoming full flight sim can run at a reasonable 30 fps with a much heavier processing load when it arrives later this year. 

 

That's the fixation with 60 fps, in a nutshell. 

 

In my mind the fixation with 60 FPS is that it's twice as smooth as 30, and that most people have 60 Hz monitors so it's a natural goal to aim for.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

In my mind the fixation with 60 FPS is that it's twice as smooth as 30, and that most people have 60 Hz monitors so it's a natural goal to aim for.

 

True, and also it feels more realistic at 60fps. Games at 60fps be it FPS, Racing etc. feel more 'real' and games at 30fps feels like a 'game'.  That is why games like COD, Forza all place emphasis on achieving that 60fps holy grail, I would rather dial things down to achieve close to 60fps IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post

Kind of like film. Where 24 FPS feels like a movie, and 60 FPS feels like you're actually on the movie set, IRL. Some people don't like this effect though. 

Share this post


Link to post

Comparing video games to movies is like comparing apples and oil paintings of apples though. We're ok with 24 fps in movies, partly because that's what we've gotten used to over the years but also because there is motion blur to smooth out the gap between the frames making the effects of a low framerate less noticeable. In video games we don't have that unless we add it artificially which requires even more computing power. Also, in games that require quick reactions we have input lag to worry about. At a lower framerate the time between us performing an action and seeing the result is increased which is a difference you don't so much see as feel.

 

I will admit that in civilian flight simming where things don't happen too quickly 30 fps is generally okay, especially for those who's mainly flying airliners. Personally I prefer WW2 fighters and other small, agile planes so for me it's worth trading scenery density for a higher framerate. I don't have a problem with others thinking 30 fps is fine, but please don't blatantly state that that's all anyone will ever need and that there aren't any benefits to going higher. It's particularly laughable when people bring up the old movie fallacy that the human eye can't see more that 24 frames anyway. Yes, there is a point where the brain can no longer keep up but it's much higher than that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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