1 hour ago, cobalt said:

How can there be a perceptible difference between two perfect flights? Or two perfect anythings, for that matter? The phrase "a distinction without a difference" comes to mind here!

"Perfect" was your word. Your focus in semantics indicates this is an experience you have yet to have.

I have a 5900x and RTX 3090 running at 100% scaling on 4K and Ultra settings. I have very little issues as you can imagine but NYC down low does get dicey at 25 to 30 fps.

I do have AI traffic turned off so that might be the first thing I turn back on with the better CPU performance. 

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder 😀 ! Anyway, a perennial debate in the FS community.

There was an obsession with FPS, years back, which was justified by a not so efficient rendering. A weak FPS meant a choppy simulation. 

In the more recent years (P3D), the programming got better and not so great FPS gave an acceptable simulation smoothness. Hence the contrarian belief that FPS monitoring to search for the highest figure is a waste of time.   

FPS and smoothness are  not disconnected even beyond 25 FPS. There is indeed a difference between 30, 40, 50. A 60 FPS flight is smoothier (excluding stutters which are part of another story).

I concur with Dylan. Happy with 30 FPS, happier with 60. I wish I had them...

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by Dominique_K

4 hours ago, cobalt said:

How can there be a perceptible difference between two perfect flights? Or two perfect anythings, for that matter? The phrase "a distinction without a difference" comes to mind here!

Did you never play any other game besides flight sims at 60 FPS? There's a very clear difference.

I think the greatest irony of the “there is no benefit to more than 30 FPS” crowd here is that you have a decent number of them to begin with, plus presumably some number of others nodding along. But how many of these people are using greater than 1080p resolution?

I’m still using 1080p. I’m used to it and so it doesn’t bother me. Maybe next time I build a system I’d consider going higher, maybe.

Does that mean that my current experience is “perfect”? (What does that even mean?) What it really means is I’m used to 1080p, and so why sacrifice other things (money, performance, etc.) for something I’m not even missing?

What I won’t do is tell someone using 4K that “it’s a fallacy” that higher resolutions look better, and that they should let their “male ego” go and just stick with 1080p. Because that would be nuts!

And yet here we are again, the same crowd telling us that “everyone should be happy at 30 FPS” and then playing semantic games when the inevitable (correct) rejoinder comes that you can in fact see the difference…

James

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by honanhal
720p to 1080p because I can’t count!

I'm going to try VR again. Hope the FPS increase will work there too!

31 minutes ago, honanhal said:

And yet here we are again, the same crowd telling us that “everyone should be happy at 30 FPS” and then playing semantic games when the inevitable (correct) rejoinder comes that you can in fact see the difference…

The funny thing is that this entire debate about 30 vs 60 FPS (or even higher, for competitive gaming) in non-flight-sim gaming has been settled ten years ago already.

1 hour ago, honanhal said:

I’m still using 1080p. I’m used to it and so it doesn’t bother me. Maybe next time I build a system I’d consider going higher, maybe.

Resolution is not only about the sharpness of the screen, it is  also about how much of the cockpit you see without moving the PoV. This is why I went from 1920*1080 to 2560*1440 8 years ago. No regret.  The image is better but there is also more visual real estate (I doesn't mean the screen is larger, I mean you see more of the cockpit).  There is a toll to pay in term of FPS of course but it stays within a reasonable limit considering my style of simming. YMMV.

If I ever build a new rig, I wonder whether the quid pro quo (real estate vs FPS) is still reasonable with 4K.

I never get the circular debates regarding things like FPS. If we are using the sim on PC we can tailor the experiences to suit our individual preferences in balance with what hardware we can afford and what the sim can output?

I personally like to get near as 60 fps as possible as I do notice the difference between that and 30fps. That means in the end, with my hardware set up, sim settings and a monitor displaying at 1440p I hover around 48fps that can dip down as low as 25fps in the most extreme situations but go as high as 60 in the least demanding situations. Do I get more stutters doing it that way rather than a locked 30fps - yes, even using gsync. But that is my preference and I love the sim. If I had a 4k monitor I might set the sim up completely differently because it would be harder to hit the higher frame rates on my hardware so then I might prefer the balance and consistency of a lower fixed fps. There is nothing that is more or less valid when it comes to personal preference in terms of what combination of sim settings I like seeing displayed in front of me, what fps those settings are displaying at and the hardware I chose with my personal budget to attain that combination.

I look forward to hearing about everyone's experiences with the new update to see what improvements people are getting in combination with their own preferences and what hardware they are using. However, if anyone feels the need to tell people that their own preference for how they set their sim up is wrong then you really aren't doing it right.

I have never once in 25+ years of simming checked to see what my fps is. Not once. 

Some great responses here.  Of course, all are valid opinions.

I will be happy with a 30 fps smooth and micro-pause free experience in all conditions; I have that mostly now.  However, you can't tell me people wouldn't be happy with 60 fps rather than 30 if they can get it. 

60 fps transformed P3D for me, and the issue is (especially with a 27 inch 4k screen like mine) when you look sideways at lower levels, the scenery judders past.
As I like to fly low and slow, and bush flying in particular, this is an issue for me.

This isn't the fault of the sim, it is just science!  To ask for an object displayed on a large screen to go from one edge of my monitor to the other in only 30 moves, makes it judder past.  60 fps would alleviate this.

My hope is that with the new optimised MSFS graphics engine, and with something decent like a 3080, eventually, this 60 fps will be achievable in all situations with sensible settings (i.e. I still wouldn't expect 4k native - but maybe 80% scaling which seems good enough with TAA).

Hopefully, graphics cards like the 3080 will be back down to RRP by the Autumn (was it really only £599 to start with! ), but I understand a lot of people are fine with something like an older 1080Ti like mine currently is; the performance is still amazing in a sim like this when you think about it, and the upcoming graphics upgrade will simply make it better.

After all this though, my main concern is still the micro-pausing (not stuttering), it happens to me occasionally when CPU / GPU / and the manipulators (whatever they are) drop to zero for a split second.
Although this seems to be down to scenery areas (as I can repeat it in certain areas) I don't think this is down to complex scenery, as it doesn't happen in London for example.  I think that problem may be another scenery engine problem, like 76T was. 
I am waiting to see if the new version on the 27th fixes this, as I have areas to try straight away - it will be interesting!

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by bobcat999

I will enjoy the sim more, that's what I'll be doing with the performance increase! And the sharper distant scenery textures and fixed tree draw distance will really improve my VFR experience.

On 7/3/2021 at 3:02 PM, kerosene31 said:

I'm hoping to squeeze more time out of my 4 year old PC and video card for now, at least until video card prices come down a bit.  I'm still amazed how well my old PC can still handle the game (granted I don't touch the more complex airliners coming out). 

I'm hoping I can get my 10 year old overclocked i5-2500k to play smoothly until after Christmas, when hopefully hardware prices will have settled to more reasonable levels and I can consider a new build. Until then, it and the GTX980 need to solider on!

At the moment I struggle for a steady 30 fps in heavy scenery areas but I do have my sliders quite far right as I like stuff to look pretty and I use 100% render scale on 1440p as I'm generally set up to do VFR sightseeing. It drops down to 15 fps with an airliner over cloudy New York so a 60% boost would see me hit 24 fps which is a helluva difference, and would see me Vsync locked to 30 fps the vast majority of the time.

If there's any headroom left I will increase scenery distance and tree density, but I think that might be optimistic. My processor only has 4 cores so it's quite possible I won't get near the full 60% benefit touted in previews, and my GTX980 is already worked pretty hard by MFS.

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by ckyliu

As one of those deluded, pitiful souls who in our ignorance find complete satisfaction at 30 FPS, two observations. First, I want all flight simmers to be happy, and for those who yearn for 60 FPS, or even more (80? 120?), best of luck, and may the FPS force be with you. Secondly, this discussion is a great testimonial to how far we have come in a short time. It was not that long ago that the issue was often how to avoid 10 FPS slideshows!

Absolutely nothing wrong with stutter free 30fps, but the sense of motion to my eyes is markedly better at or near 60fps.

it’s kind of like the soap opera effect on TVs - but in a good way👍

 

18 minutes ago, cobalt said:

Secondly, this discussion is a great testimonial to how far we have come in a short time. It was not that long ago that the issue was often how to avoid 10 FPS slideshows!

True indeed! I’ll drink to that.