Sign in to follow this  
oscarduran10

VANILLA FSX FPS

Recommended Posts

Im trying to find out the reason for my low fps in orbx sceneries nd i think that i can trace it back to my fps in a vanilla fsx. My question is how many fps do you guys get on a fresh fsx steam on the friday harbor flight?? Without moving any settings??. My fps were constant 90-100 without panning. And ive seen some people with 200+ fps on a vanilla fsx  thats why im asking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Set NVidia inspector up the right way and limit your frames to 30 in game, if it stays fluid on or just below then you have a smooth sim and that is what counts, you won't see any difference between 30FPS or 200FPS, just to many people get fixated to much on that, I don't even look at the frames and enjoy flying.

Herman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, electricman said:

Set NVidia inspector up the right way and limit your frames to 30 in game, if it stays fluid on or just below then you have a smooth sim and that is what counts, you won't see any difference between 30FPS or 200FPS, just to many people get fixated to much on that, I don't even look at the frames and enjoy flying.

Herman

Frames do matter if youve played fsx at 60 fps then play at 30 or 20 the difference is night and day regardless of smoothness. Plus u didnt even answer my question lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

movies are at 25 frames a second and they are smooth, anything higher you can't notice simply for the reason that you are human, I didn't answer your question because you don't have a problem if you get 95 to 100 FPS, if you would only get 15FPS or less then you would have something to complain about and that is probably why nobody else here gives you an answer.

Herman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that anybody who frequents this site will be using a vanilla version of FSX! But speaking from memory, when I first installed FSX SE I was getting 200+ in the air with an i7 5820 oc to 3.8. With numerous add ons, I now get 15 - 60 depending on location and aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, electricman said:

movies are at 25 frames a second and they are smooth, anything higher you can't notice simply for the reason that you are human, I didn't answer your question because you don't have a problem if you get 95 to 100 FPS, if you would only get 15FPS or less then you would have something to complain about and that is probably why nobody else here gives you an answer.

Herman

You can definitely notice it... a game it NOT a movie, and the differences between film and this are enormous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been simming for 10 years and am running 30FPS limited in game and I use ORBX regions and other stuff and never experienced stutters or an unsmooth flight, not even with the iFly737 and that's more heavy on the frames then PMDG stuff, this is a simulator, not a game, people tend to forget that.

And even then it is impossible to answer this guys question since he doesn't mention any specs what so ever, does he have a high end system or a low end laptop?

Herman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should bear in mind that comparisons with movie and TV frame rates are not really completely relevant in relation to comupter games when we are talking about the reasons behind it and 'what is best' an how our eyes perceive such motion. Because those movie and TV frame rates are for a specific reason...

To clarify this, most movie and TV cameras default to either 23.976 or 29.976 frames per second. Because this is so, you will find people who claim that any computer game will look perfectly fine at 24 fps. and that simply ain't true.

Because...

TV used to be at either 25 FPS (PAL) or 30 FPS (NTSC). The chief reason for that, was those rates synced up well with the 50 Hz refresh rates of European domestic electrical equipment, and the 60 Hz refresh rates of North American domestic electrical equipment. This worked great for black and white TV, but when colour TV came along, there was obviously more data to be transmitted and converted, so the FPS was dropped to 23.97 in Europe and 29.97 in the US, to allow for the colour information to go in there, thus the use of 23.97 and 29.97 frame rates in TV and movies is simply because that rate converts more easily to broadcast television formats. The conversion process involves something called a 3:2 pulldown: A 3:2 pulldown basically takes 4 film frames and maps them to 5 video frames, because a video frame is made of 2 fields, so frames are placed alternately on 2 and 3 fields of the image, resulting in 3 full frames and 2 'pulldown' frames which is why it's called 3:2 pulldown. This doesn't even start getting into progressive versus interlaced video imagery, which I won't bore you with lol.

But what does this have to do with what looks good for a computer game?

When it comes to moving images, there is a bit more to how things look than merely the frame rate. A big thing which prevents movie and TV imagery looking jerky at such frame rates, is motion blur; something you will see if you pause a DVD, where you won't get a lovely clear still image. The blurriness of an image between individual frames is what stops it looking jerky as an overall movie at lower frame rates and is partially  function of frame rate but also of film speed (as in how fast it can expose an image, not how fast it is going through the camera gate). With some burriness, we do not see individually sequenced still images, rather the illusion of movement between those images, so with motion blur, a lower frame rate will not look jerky, whereas it will with no blur between those frames, it certainly will.

So, what can the human eye actually see?

Human eyes can perceive light flashes at well over 400 fps, but detecting a simple light flash is not the same as being able to reconcile a complex image with detail, so it is misleading to imagine one would need to have over 400 fps for a movie to look completely 'real'. Humans also do not look at things and take a series of still images like some kind of Terminator, eyes don't work like that, they instead receive a continuous stream of light which the receptor cones detect as either red, green or blue, this information is electrochemically transmitted to your brain, which then perceives what is 'seen'. But human eyes also do something called 'saccades', which is where they constantly flicker around (rather than looking straight at something as a camera would), effectively taking multiple 'snapshots' which are merged into one perceived image. Not only that, human eyes are also drawn to both light and movement (something a decent film director is aware of when composing a good shot). Additionally, not all women and men have same capabilities when it comes to eyesight. Many women can see far more colours than men (usually a woman can differentiate between about 17 million different hues, whereas the average bloke can see about 12 million different hues). However, men can often perceive more movement in their peripheral vision than women. All this is as a result of evolution from humankind originally being hunter/gatherers, where the blokes were most often the hunters, so they needed to be able to sense movement and depth of field well (so they tended to evolv with more peripheral retina cones, which sense movement rather than colour), whereas women needed to be able to identify colours more accurately than men when harvesting and cultivating potentially poisonous foods, these being identifiable from their colours (so women tended to evolve with better central retina cones, which are the ones which detect colour). That, incidentally, is why about 10 percent of the male population of the world suffer from some kind of colourblindness, whereas colourblindness is incredibly rare in women. And it probably also has something to do with women usually having a better fashion sense lol.

But anyway, back on topic...

With motion blur added, anything over around 18 fps will tend to look okay, and you could probably drop that to around 15 fps without it looking really noticably jerky, so it is fairly common to animate at 15 fps. But with computer games, your screen is redrawing a still (unblurred) image each time (unless your GPU simulates it), thus you absolutely will percieve some jerkiness at lower frame rates on a computer game than with a blurred movie, so a faster fps in a computer game will help to fool your eye into perceiving smooth movement.

However..

When people talk about 100 fps looking smoother than say, 60 fps in their computer game, they are often talking nonsense, because what they are forgetting is their monitor's refresh rate, which is likely to be somewhere between 60 and 85 Hz. Since 1Hz is 'one cycle per sceond', it follows that it is completely impossible for a monitor with a refresh rate of 60 Hz to display anything more than 60 fps.

So long as you can control your FS aeroplane without the jerkiness impacting on your ability to anticipate the necessary control inputs, the frame rate which allows you to do that will be acceptable  in terms of usability, but it might not be acceptable in terms of looking good. So that would be anything over about 15 fps for good control, and probably about 30 fps for a reasonably smooth appearance.

Personally, I've seen the PMDG Boeing 747-400 managing nearly 100 fps on the sim's frame counter at default airports with most of the sliders on high settings, but that fps dropping to as low as 10 when at complex add-on airports, which is still okay for slowly taxying around, but not that great for flying the thing around. So what helps more than anything in a VC, is to turn off the high resolution VC setting in the sim's aircraft display options, since it still looks okay on the lower res setting and does improve the fps considerably, which is probably why the default instrument refresh rate in that PMDG 747-400 is set at 15 fps.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, regen70 said:

I doubt that anybody who frequents this site will be using a vanilla version of FSX! But speaking from memory, when I first installed FSX SE I was getting 200+ in the air with an i7 5820 oc to 3.8. With numerous add ons, I now get 15 - 60 depending on location and aircraft.

See what i mean, you were getting 200+ on the default friday harbor flight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to know how many fps you were getting on a fresh install of fsx in the default flight without changing any settings...if you were to remember of if you recently installed fsx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, oscarduran10 said:

See what i mean, you were getting 200+ on the default friday harbor flight?

No, I was flying over the UK in a default Cessna 172 with settings at Min to test for the terrain.dll crashes which bedevilled FSX SE in the first few months after the initial release.

You could replicate my flight to see what FPS you get though, as has been mentioned, if your hardware is different from mine the comparison might not be very meaningful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking for someone's frame rates is like asking how long is a piece of string. There are so many variables involved even with a vanilla install. There are many factors which have nothing directly to do with FSX. For example: type of CPU and clock speed (major effect), type/brand of GPU and clock speed (lesser effect but still important), motherboard, type and speed of RAM (can be significant), screen resolution, graphics driver, type and number of background apps running. One factor that's often overlooked is that if you use vsync with FSX, then you're never going to get FPS in-game faster than your monitor's refresh rate, even if you have "unlimited" set in FSX. Worse still, you could end up with maximum FPS at half of the refresh rate - it's just the way vsync works.

Whilst chasing high FPS may seem like a good way to determine performance in FSX, as a few people have already pointed out, it isn't. There have been many posts here along the lines of "I'm getting 60 FPS but things still look jerky". For some reason that I can't explain, FSX can look smooth at FPS which would make most other games look like a slideshow. At 30 FPS, FSX looks smooth to me whereas Project Cars looks flickery at anything less than 45. If FSX doesn't look smooth at 30 FPS, then you either have a low-spec system or you have another issue to resolve. Best to turn off the FPS display and make changes until things looks smooth and ignore the frame rates.

With regards to Orbx, I fly primarily in Orbx regions and find that they don't make a noticeable difference to performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With FSX I really don't care about fps so long as the display is smooth and not a blurry mess.  I want fast texture loading and a smooth rendering of the images, whether it's 150 fps or 15 fps doesn't matter, smooth is what counts.  Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2017 at 3:43 AM, Raven9000 said:

You can definitely notice it... a game it NOT a movie, and the differences between film and this are enormous. 

FSX is not a game, it's a simulator. It's designed to simulate the feeling of flight, not replicate it (eg. 60+ FPS).

If anyone is getting 60 FPS in FSX, it's a sign they have more headroom and can turn those sliders up more.

Want to know what the default frame rate cap of a FSX vanilla install? It's 20 FPS.

The most logical answer to why people get so much more FPS compared to the OP is that they have better hardware. I had a large FPS drop (roughly 1/3 my usual FPS) going from a dead GTX 670 to a cheaper GTX 950.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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