47 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

There’s no doubt you can fly at 30fps and enjoy it. This is not like a first person shooter where you’re panning around rapidly almost constantly. That kind of gaming at 30fps is horrible. However, my brother who has played exclusively on a PlayStation for years, thinks 30fps is great, because that’s all he knows. But when he tried the same game on my PC, he was blown away. He couldn’t believe how much smoother everything was. When we play multi-player, I have to log into my PS4 and dread it.  30Fps is horrible in most games.

Anyway, while I wait for a new CPU, I’m flying around at 40-50fps (4K) and it’s largely ok, until I try doing some exploration in the drone... then it gets ugly. And Photogrametry can have my FPS drop below 30 where it starts to feel like a slide show. I need more FPS. 

But 24FPS is all the human eye can see! 😆

3 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

But 24FPS is all the human eye can see! 😆

Please, don't feed the trolls 😉 

Just now, AnkH said:

Please, don't feed the trolls 😉 

sorry...couldn't resist! No water after midnight though!

10 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

But tell me why should i bother playing down at 30Hz while i can have 60Hz?🙂

Well, you asked as it's apparently not obvious yet.  Vsync to 30 translates to two big advantages:  you can fly anywhere on the planet w/ maxed settings (if you have similar hardware as I), and 2, your CPU/GPU are running with roughly double the headroom such that when the payware aircraft arrive you won't be needing to adjust all that much, is my prediction looking at MSFS' main thread.  Having experimented w/ vsync to 60Hz in both P3D and now MSFS I am fully aware of what asking the sims to crank out 60 instead of 30 means to settings affecting visuals.  In the not too distant past, when CRTs were the default display, a vertical refresh rate of 30Hz would be wretched to look at indeed and we would never vsync to 30Hz in that case.  With LED/LCD this not the case.   

The continuous clamoring to get to AND MAINTAIN a frame rate of 60 is just sad to me as it's completely unnecessary in a civilian flight sim.  Quite frankly I play Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands and ended up vsyncing to 30 there as well, once again so I could  use ultra settings.  And even in this oft fast-action FPS 30 is perfectly fine!  

1 hour ago, Noel said:

Well, you asked as it's apparently not obvious yet.  Vsync to 30 translates to two big advantages:  you can fly anywhere on the planet w/ maxed settings (if you have similar hardware as I), and 2, your CPU/GPU are running with roughly double the headroom such that when the payware aircraft arrive you won't be needing to adjust all that much, is my prediction looking at MSFS' main thread.  Having experimented w/ vsync to 60Hz in both P3D and now MSFS I am fully aware of what asking the sims to crank out 60 instead of 30 means to settings affecting visuals.  In the not too distant past, when CRTs were the default display, a vertical refresh rate of 30Hz would be wretched to look at indeed and we would never vsync to 30Hz in that case.  With LED/LCD this not the case.   

The continuous clamoring to get to AND MAINTAIN a frame rate of 60 is just sad to me as it's completely unnecessary in a civilian flight sim.  Quite frankly I play Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands and ended up vsyncing to 30 there as well, once again so I could  use ultra settings.  And even in this oft fast-action FPS 30 is perfectly fine!  

Side bar (off topic)...

Interesting... I’m also a huge fan of Ghost Recon Wildlands.  My current rig renders that at 90fps at 4K on Max settings (about double the FPS I get on MSFS). I’m surprised you need to cap it at 30. But it’s a great game. My only problem with it graphically is the texture pop-in sometimes is very distracting as better textures are often popping in under my feet or when coming off the scope. Do you see that?

6 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Side bar (off topic)...

Interesting... I’m also a huge fan of Ghost Recon Wildlands.  My current rig renders that at 90fps at 4K on Max settings (about double the FPS I get on MSFS). I’m surprised you need to cap it at 30. But it’s a great game. My only problem with it graphically is the texture pop-in sometimes is very distracting as better textures are often popping in under my feet or when coming off the scope. Do you see that?

To be honest I haven't noticed it.  I don't 'need' to cap it at 30 I just happened to leave my Dell 3415W at 30Hz and expected it to be problematic but quickly learned it wasn't so left it there, in fact doesn't affect behavior in any way that matters.   I forget what frame rate I was seeing prior to vsyncing to 30 when I set it up but I can't imagine it would be much different than what you're seeing as the only way that could be different is if you had somethng much stronger than RTX 2070 Super in the box.  Animation is always totally smooth and even the faster sequencs just aren't a problem.  Frame rate obsession is a disease I'm happy to be no part of quite frankly.  GRW is such a phenomenal game do you know if it has any cousins anywhere near that good?

1 hour ago, Noel said:

To be honest I haven't noticed it.  I don't 'need' to cap it at 30 I just happened to leave my Dell 3415W at 30Hz and expected it to be problematic but quickly learned it wasn't so left it there, in fact doesn't affect behavior in any way that matters.   I forget what frame rate I was seeing prior to vsyncing to 30 when I set it up but I can't imagine it would be much different than what you're seeing as the only way that could be different is if you had somethng much stronger than RTX 2070 Super in the box.  Animation is always totally smooth and even the faster sequencs just aren't a problem.  Frame rate obsession is a disease I'm happy to be no part of quite frankly.  GRW is such a phenomenal game do you know if it has any cousins anywhere near that good?

Arma 3 far better than GRW.

This is just one simple example to illustrate the point.  Clearly I'm GPU limited when running unlocked:

Unlocked everything at Ultra:

Same scene vsync to 30 everything at Ultra.  Look at the main thread--it's essentially half the utilization.   And ample GPU room, and smoother too!

7 hours ago, Noel said:

To be honest I haven't noticed it.  I don't 'need' to cap it at 30 I just happened to leave my Dell 3415W at 30Hz and expected it to be problematic but quickly learned it wasn't so left it there, in fact doesn't affect behavior in any way that matters.   I forget what frame rate I was seeing prior to vsyncing to 30 when I set it up but I can't imagine it would be much different than what you're seeing as the only way that could be different is if you had somethng much stronger than RTX 2070 Super in the box.  Animation is always totally smooth and even the faster sequencs just aren't a problem.  Frame rate obsession is a disease I'm happy to be no part of quite frankly.  GRW is such a phenomenal game do you know if it has any cousins anywhere near that good?

The sequel to it “Breakpoint” was a flop at launch and full of bad looter mechanics, but they stripped that all out and it offers a comparable experience now with some aspects like the shooting and graphics being better, while the immersion and campaign story are not as good. But still worth a try if you’re bored with Wildlands. 

On 12/10/2020 at 11:16 AM, ThomseN_inc said:

What's the point of a benchmark when playing @30Hz which pretty much every potato PC can handle?

60Hz on my TV monitor is just burning my retinas for zero benefit in MSFS.
Why should I?
I am looking for smoothness, not FPS.

41 minutes ago, David Roch said:

60Hz on my TV monitor is just burning my retinas for zero benefit in MSFS.
Why should I?
I am looking for smoothness, not FPS.

If higher FPS don't bring more smoothness (and other benefits) i ask myself whats the purpose of 60/120/244/etc Hz Monitors?

60 FPS = smoothness 

120 FPS = more smoothness and better reaction time

244 FPS = even more smoothness and even better reaction time.

This of course requires your System to be able to maintain a constant FPS rate otherwise it won't work.

48 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

If higher FPS don't bring more smoothness (and other benefits) i ask myself whats the purpose of 60/120/244/etc Hz Monitors?

60 FPS = smoothness 

120 FPS = more smoothness and better reaction time

244 FPS = even more smoothness and even better reaction time.

This of course requires your System to be able to maintain a constant FPS rate otherwise it won't work.

 

That sort of depends on who you are.

Yes world class competitive gamers get better results using a 244 FPS monitor in first person shooter multiplayer.

A  casual gamer with good eyesight (generally younger) wlll apparently notice a big difference in shooters at 120 hz but often struggle to see an improvement at 240hz .

Personally though, my 64 year old eyes are lucky to even see the screen on a bad day especially if my sugar is out of whack.

 

I do have a 144hz screen but with my eyes I really do not see much difference to my old monitor at 60 hz ... for me personally,  getting a  240 hz monitor would be like fitting the KERS Formulae One racing technology to my daily drive on the basis that all the current F1 teams use it. though other, especially younger, gamers may see more benefit.

Edited December 12, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

With my 58 year old eyes and needing "readers" to sit at my screen. I have always found my old screen set to 120Hz was so much better that 60Hz and 30hz is just not even worth thinking about to me. You can see what mouse lag is like on my dest top, just move your mouse round in small circular as fast as you can. If you cannot see any difference from 60Hz to 120Hz then an eye test is needed and now with a 240Hz the circular is just full of arrows. I will personally take Hz as high as possible please. At 60Hz you can have as little as 4-6 arrows, looks terrible, 120Hz draws so many more and 240Hz is just all arrows. No mouse lag. I hate to think how many arrow head your screen would draw at 30Hz? 3?

Its all down to how good your eyes are I would think. Each to there own on this one I think.

Edited December 12, 20205 yr by Nyxx

You're probably a young guy playing multiple games on your PC and I hear what you say.
My single aim is to get the best experience I can with flight simulators.
And for that I don't need over 30 FPS, believe me - or not.
😉

40 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

 

That sort of depends on who you are.

Yes world class competitive gamers get better results using a 244 FPS monitor in first person shooter multiplayer.

A  casual gamer with good eyesight (generally younger) wlll apparently notice a big difference in shooters at 120 hz but often struggle to see an improvement at 240hz .

Personally though, my 64 year old eyes are lucky to even see the screen on a bad day especially if my sugar is out of whack.

 

I do have a 144hz screen but with my eyes I really do not see much difference to my old monitor at 60 hz ... for me personally,  getting a  240 hz monitor would be like fitting the KERS Formulae One racing technology to my daily drive on the basis that all the current F1 teams use it. though other, especially younger, gamers may see more benefit.

I truly agree and my personal experience is that my gaming (shooters etc.) benefits greatly with higher FPS. MSFS runs great @60FPS and provides the smoothest experience for me.

But as you said, it depends...

Best