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.

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. 

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

+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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.