I have not said that you can't perceive more than 24 FPS. In fact I agree with you that high FPS feel smoother.

 

I answered to kneighbours comparison between analogue and digital:

 

 

Even in an analogue movie, "every small movement" is NOT recorded. Each frame is a snapshot, and the data between the snapshots is lost. That's why the movie industry is experimenting with 48 FPS now ("The Hobbit" as the most known example), because it's smoother.

 

Ah, okay, I misunderstood, my bad. Sorry!

I often see this film v computer argument but it's not a great comparison. The reason film and video can look smooth at 24fps is because it is shot at relatively slow shutter speed, usually double ie 1/48th of a second. The effect this is to introduce small amounts of motion blur into each element of the image that is moving which in turn smooths the look out. Computer games as far as I know do not have this motion blur hence the need to have higher frame rates to give the perception of smoothness.

Eric,

 

XP10, and now 11, deals miserably with even a slight 5 knot wind, not necessarily true x-wind component!  It's a ridiculous aspect of x-plane ground physics or whatsoever that I look forward to see addressed by LR... And yes, I'm tired of opening tickets about it :-)

 

It's just another "torque bug", I believe.... Seen a few "justifications", but couldn't understand a single one....  Too much writing, to few making sense...

I'd like to chime in with this issue as well.  I have flown both default C172 in 10 and 11, and while you are warned about the pull to the left, even with little to no wind, that aircraft handles like a raging bull out of the gate.  Even if I go easy on the throttle, allowing the aircraft to spool up, I have to do some serious countering to keep it on the centerline, and sometimes I wind up like the OP, taking off on the runway edge or the grass.  Now, if I load the Carenado CT206 and fly that, there is pull but not so exaggerated, which leaves me wondering who is correct as far as real world physics?

 

Setting my sim to no weather helps a little but just a little.  IF LR is adamant about the physics, then I would find that no day is a good day to fly unless you want to crash your plane.

Well, I ask anyway: Why? X-Plane needs 20 FPS to keep up real-time simulation, and 30 FPS are more than your eyes can perceive. Do you do VR stuff?

 

It's 2016 and I still see people saying this nonsense. Eyes perceive more than 30fps. There is a night and day difference between 30 fps and 60fps. Years of using a 120Hz monitor I can perceive a difference between 60fps and 120fps and the difference is in fluidity. If you don't believe me then watch a 30fps youtube gaming video and a 60fps one. 

 

That all said what should be said is that running any sim at 30fps is more than enough.

It's 2016 and I still see people saying this nonsense. Eyes perceive more than 30fps. There is a night and day difference between 30 fps and 60fps. Years of using a 120Hz monitor I can perceive a difference between 60fps and 120fps and the difference is in fluidity. If you don't believe me then watch a 30fps youtube gaming video and a 60fps one. 

 

That all said what should be said is that running any sim at 30fps is more than enough.

Yep, I corrected myself in a later post

Frame rate on default aircraft trippled today   following a short download.  Is now quite good.  My Kodiak is still low though.

Frame rate on default aircraft trippled today   following a short download.  Is now quite good.  My Kodiak is still low though.

 

Tripled?  What caused that to happen?

It's 2016 and I still see people saying this nonsense. Eyes perceive more than 30fps. There is a night and day difference between 30 fps and 60fps. Years of using a 120Hz monitor I can perceive a difference between 60fps and 120fps and the difference is in fluidity. If you don't believe me then watch a 30fps youtube gaming video and a 60fps one. 

 

That all said what should be said is that running any sim at 30fps is more than enough.

The difference between 30 and 60fps was most noticable for me when using TrackIR. Luckily for me, I couldn't get to like TrackIR, so I sold it and use the usual mouse look and quick view functions instead.

I'd like to chime in with this issue as well.  I have flown both default C172 in 10 and 11, and while you are warned about the pull to the left, even with little to no wind, that aircraft handles like a raging bull out of the gate.

 

The XP10 and XP11 demos are my first experience with XPlane after spending many years using FSX. I, too, was concerned by the significant pull to the left in the default C172 in XP. Last night, though, when I was in 3d cockpit view, I clicked on the spot to display the yoke. I noticed that with my controller in its neutral, centered position the yoke in the C172 was displayed as tilted to the left. Curious, I recalibrated the default alignment of my controller in the XP settings. When I went back into the 3d cockpit, the yoke was still tilted to the left.

 

So, I went back to the settings and recalibrated my controller again. This time though, I nudged my controller to the left a little when it was calibrating the "neutral" zone. I then went back to 3d view and the yoke was centered. When I took off, there was less pull to the left and when I took off there was little roll to the left.

 

Perhaps this is a known issue / resolution, I don't know. But, it seems odd that the yoke is by default tilted to the left when your controller is in its neutral position.

In my XP11 C172 veered severely to the left when taking off too. I did calibrate the TM Warthog in XP11. I later discovered I could counter the lef-veering by pulling the joystick to the right when taking off. 

 

The puzzling thing is once in the air C172 is perfect centered. If this is a calibration issue why it only messes up the ground taxing not flying?

All I can say is that your experience isn't universal. I've been enjoying frame rates in XP10 at a minimum of 40fps and it often shoots up to the 80's and 90's over something like a cloud deck. This is with a GTX 970 video card, Windows 10, i7 6700 4.0 GHz, 32 Gig RAM. 

 

Now, that's with careful adjustment of all the various settings. I dial up what's important to me, and dial down the stuff that isn't. I can still run HDR. I'm using SkyMaxx Pro clouds that help a little with frame rate. More importantly I suspect, I'm not going nuts with monitor resolution. My full screen is 1920x1200 and I often fly in a slightly smaller window so I can tab back and forth to Plan-G or just web browse during cruise. I also keep a fairly stripped-down PC, careful with too many background processes running, etc. For me anyway, X-Plane 10 has been perfectly stable delivering 40+ fps. I can't remember the last time I had a CTD. 

 

In the XP11 Beta I'm getting similar 40+ fps  frame rates even with the new eye candy like pbr reflections, which is great. Although it's hard to compare directly, because we only have that stupid quality slider now, where I can't adjust things like number of cars.

 

And guess what... I can crash the beta. All I have to do is choose "Save Default Configuration" on my Thrustmaster Warthog controllers and it will lock up. But hey, it's a Beta and Laminar knows about this multiple USB controller issue. 

you have a system I want some day. I am content with 20-25 fps. My system is half of what you have. With heavier scenery such as FSdreamteam, frames take a major hit. around 8-15. OUCH

 

Perhaps this is a known issue / resolution, I don't know. But, it seems odd that the yoke is by default tilted to the left when your controller is in its neutral position.

I had the exact same after my first calibration. After a week of being annoyed with this (thinking it was probably realist torque LOL) I recalibrated my joystick while in flight: now my calibration suddenly is perfect! I can even fly with my hands off the joystick now.

 

Think there is something wrong with the calibration routine.

The puzzling thing is once in the air C172 is perfect centered. If this is a calibration issue why it only messes up the ground taxing not flying?

This is a know problem with XP: airplanes taxiing on the ground or taking off are simply kind of blown away from the runway. Once you are in the air everything is alright. Has nothing to do with calibration. XP10 already has this problem and XP11 doesn't solve it.

I don't have the XP11 beta for comparison.  As to sim flying versus real, I've always preferred rudder pedals to correct the left drift on the takeoff roll & initial climb (both sim & real).  Never got the right sense of feel with twist grips. If no rudder pedals, then I liked the option of auto rudder in FSX.  Without pedals, a lot of my XP10 single engine airplanes would head off the runway before getting airborne.  With pedals it's been no problem.

 

What the experience should actually be like.......

 

A single engine airplane with the prop rotating clockwise from the cockpit view, should start pulling to the left, as speed picks up. It will do this, fairly quickly once the wheels start rotating. The idea is to maintain whatever rudder pressure is required to track straight down the runway. Once airborne, the same rudder pressure is needed, until airspeed picks up. Then the need will eventually fade. 

 

If torque (wanting to roll left, pushing down on the left wheel) is felt on the takeoff roll.....................this sensation should almost be gone, or be gone, by the time we rotate off the ground. The wing's lift is far outweighing the engines torque, at this point. Exceptions are ..............jamming the throttle to full, with low airspeed, such as a go-around. WWII fighters did a good job of rolling over on their backs, in this situation.  My own airplane, which was more on the high performance end, had very noticeable torque, on a touch & go.  But I never had to hold right stick (aileron) on the climb out.  I have many photo's of takeoffs with both ailerons centered. 

 

Sim planes do vary on realism, as far as left drift goes. Full size planes will vary, depending on power to weight, rudder size, if the engine is also canted in it's mount, etc.  I once asked a WWII B-17 bomber pilot if the plane exhibited any torque with it's four engines. He said no, even though they all revolve the same way.  Another pilot who flew a high powered single prop in Vietnam (Douglas Skyraider), said it's all rudder on the climb out, not ailerons.

Just to add to Larry's post above I should point out the weathervane effect that is also way overdone in XP11 - inherited from XP10 just as it was there...

 

Try to set a quarterly 5 knot wind and taxi with your Cessna 172. You'll find yourself fighting the weathervane tendency. As a matter of fact, the moment brakes are released the aircraft will start to weathervane and align with the relative wind...

 

It's absolutely unrealistic, and I hope ut finally get's addressed in XP11.

 

But no one from LR ever commented again on this subject. Somewhere along the XP10 cycle Ben even questioned Austin about it, but nothing resulted after that...

For flightsimming, 30 fps is usually enough since although movement is rapid you do not need to (and depending on the plane simply cannot) abruptly turn (as for instance required in first person shooters). That said, 60 fps certainly improves the feeling of 'being there' especially with regard to the simulated head movement within the virtual flightdeck, where abrupt movement does indeed occur.

 

Actually there are some situations where a flight sim can have the kind of rapid movement you get in a FPS game. When I'm using TrackIR and flying a landing pattern, I'll quickly glance to the left to see the runway, then back to the forward view. Very quick head motions. You can see that in some of the YouTube streamers who use head tracking. Higher frame rates help with that.

 

We all have our minimum thresholds for acceptable frame rates in a sim. While I'd like to get 60fps full-time, my personal threshold is somewhere around 40-45fps. That's the point where aerodynamic motion in X-Plane feels "liquid smooth" to me, with a sense of buoyancy in the air. It's a big help with landing too. At that frame rate, I get a feeling for the ground effect when flaring just before touchdown. 

 

With my current setup* the frame rate in XP10 never drops below 40fps even with lots of clouds. It's a lot higher over an overcast cloud deck, or flying over water with clear skies. So far, I'm able to get the same in XP11 at what I guess are similar settings, although it's hard to tell with the new GUI.

 

*i7 6700 4.0 GHz, 32 Gig RAM, GTX 970 video running 1920x1200