How do they know their current fps?

[Guest]

Everyone brags or complains about their fps. How do they know their current fps? Are they guessing? I set my target frame rate to unlimited, and don

[Guest Adrian Wainer]

"Shift" and "Z" keys combined will cause frame rate to display.for a PSU upgrade to suit today's hardware, a 450 Watt PSU is a bit on the small side, a modular cable system PSU in the 550 to 750/800 Watts range would be more flexible and a better long term investment. Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

[Murmur 3,941]

>Everyone brags or complains about their fps. How do they know>their current fps? Are they guessing?SHIFT+Z.>Since the eye cannot see faster than 24fps, why is higher rate >better?The story that the eye cannot see faster than 24fps is a myth. It can detect the difference between much higher frame rates, though most people are satisfied with 30-35 fps.>Would I get a higher frame rate if I lower my screen resolution?>(currently set at 1400x900)Well, it depends: only if the GPU is the bottleneck. That may be your case, since the 6150LE is not very powerful, so you can probably gain some FPS lowering the resolution.Marco

[Guest radivil]

Higher frame rates look smoother for some reason. I can tell the difference between 24, 60, and 120. Up at 120, it looks too fluid and looks fakey (the uncanny valley at work?)

[RFields5421 1]

Since the eye cannot see faster than 24fps, why is higher rate better?This is based on an old film movie projector ratio.However, while the movies showed 24 still photo frames in one second to create the illusion of movement - the projector also displayed 24 black frames per second while the shuttle moved the film to the next position.Film movies are 48FPS - 24 black and 24 pictures.US television is at 30FPS, however, each frame is only displayed 50% at a time - alternate lines - you actually have 60 frames per second, making up 30 images per second.

[Kabs 0]

Not to hijack the thread, but does anyone know the frame rate of the human brain. By this, I mean how fast can the brain interpret a scene. Is is the squirrel I see outside my window as I type this message really still there, or has it been gone for the past 5 seconds while my brain was processing the information?

[boshar 6]

No one even knows if what we see is realy there anyway so why bother?What we see are impulses from our eyes procesed by our brains. Our brains like to add and subtract some information every now and then to make the picture fit to what we expect, know and like.Maybe life sis just a big dream and nothing is 'real'Who knows?Another glas of wine anyone?

[RFields5421 1]

Depends - what is your IQ?How good is your prepherial vision?How good are your eyes? Are you wearing glasses? Is the object in the focal center of the glasses, or outside the area covered by the lenses.Humans, and apparently all animals, don't see in frames.Frames are the projection of still images in fast sequences to simulate motion.Humans process changes in imaging continually, and not an entire image each time.

[Guest]

>I set my target frame>rate to unlimited, and don

[Kabs 0]

I agree with everything you are saying except the part about viewing in frames.When the human eye receives light from a seen, a reversible chemical change of a substance (I think it is called rhodopsin) on the retina occurs. The chemical change then causes an electrical impulse to be sent to the optical center of the brain through the optic nerve. After a very tiny fraction of time the chemical reaction involving the rhodopsin is reversed and the eye is ready for another photon. This amount of time can be considered as a frame since during this time any light hitting the retina does not cause any electrical impulses (because the retinal chemical has been altered) to be sent to the brain to create an image.this is kinda like a video camera where the technical specs indicate that the camera can capture at xx frames per second. If it takes the camera 0.5 secs receive and process the light information before it is ready for some more information, then the camera is only capable of 2 frames a second.kabs

[Guest allcott]

> Since the eye cannot see faster than 24fps, why is higher>rate better?>>This is based on an old film movie projector ratio.>>However, while the movies showed 24 still photo frames in one>second to create the illusion of movement - the projector also>displayed 24 black frames per second while the shuttle moved>the film to the next position.>>Film movies are 48FPS - 24 black and 24 pictures.>>US television is at 30FPS, however, each frame is only>displayed 50% at a time - alternate lines - you actually have>60 frames per second, making up 30 images per second.>Not so. The film projector is merely a display device. The computer has first to CREATE the image, via calculation - then display it. The reason you limit frames is to allow the CPU to use the spare capacity to render. There is no comparison between fps in a computer game and the speed of celluloid past a light source. The closest similarity to that is the refresh rate of the monitor. And LCD's are locked at 60 or 75 Hz usually. There are simple arithmetical reasons for limiting the fps to a multiple of the refresh rate. Anything beyond the refresh rate is, quite literally, wasted.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rateAllcott

[yellowjack 28]

This is an old nut. The important aspect, often overlooked in these discussions, is not the FPS but the movement per frame. Park your aircraft so that a hangar wall is directly in front of the cockpit then look through at the wall. It doesn't matter if you are clocking 10 FPS or 100 FPS the eye will perceive the same picture because there is no movement and thus cannot tell the difference in frame rate. However, go and park at the end of a runway and watch a fast jet landing from a right angled view and you will need a very high frame rate to see smooth and fluid motion. I guess that the fluidity of motion cannot go below 1 pixel per frame due to the limitations of our current technology. If all picture elements in all views changed by 1 pixel per frame we would all be happy. I feel however, that this Holy Grail is a pipe dream for flightsims in my lifetime.So what we are after is fluid motion and not FPS per se. In most respects FPS is not a suitable measure but I guess it is all we have.Thus FPS needed for a good flightsim experience will vary depending on the observed view so let's not focus too much on the retention time of retinal images. The development of technologies such as 3D cockpits and Trackir devices put greater demands on a flightsim performance because the observed view movement is generally less to the front than the side of a cockpit. John.

[RFields5421 1]

Please re-read the quote from the original post.That perception / understanding / myth - is based upon the mistaken information that film shows only 24 images, called frames, per second.The Wiki article is very good on gaming and computers but woefully incomplete on FRAMES PER SECOND.Frames per second was originally a measure of physical distance of a length of film to be pulled past a camera to expose the film.24 FPS was in the low end of the range in which smooth motion could be perceived by people watching film.The 24 FPS standard was chosen for several reasons - none of which were related to the ability of humans to 'see' frames.The main reason 24 FPS was standardized was to control costs.By setting upon a common standard, film could be purchased, developed, edited and shown by a standard rate per foot off film.Mechanical devices could be designed to both record images and project images at a speed which was a good balance between perceived motion and risk of damage due to the claws which hold the film static in place during exposure and projection.24 FPS met the needs of the film makers for a minimal acceptable quality - and the needs of the accountants and theater owners to control the cost of film and equipment.The ability of humans to see more or less than 24 FPS has nothing to do with those decisions.

[tf51d 284]

>>I set my target frame>>rate to unlimited, and don

[yellowjack 28]

This is interesting I just completed my last flight with unlimited FPS set after I parked I saved the flight.After reading your note I had a thought and jumped back into FSX and reloaded the flight where I left off only this time I had Fraps running and displaying the FPS in the top right hand corner of the screen whilst the FSX FPS counter was displaying on the top left of the screen. Whilst the FSX FPS counter was leaping all over the place Fraps stayed pretty steady with little variation. In this particular case I was seeing the FSX counter go from 22 to 43 very quickly whilst the Fraps counter varied slowly over the mid thirties and I guess the variation was due to air and ground traffic as I was just sitting there in a dark cockpit.This begs the question regarding the accuracy and impact of the instrumentation. For example does the frame counter itself have a negative effect on FSX performance(can it use a second CPU or does it subtract from the cycles of the CPU that FSX is trying to use). From the first flightsim until now there has been a need for a decent flightsim benchmark and still we are without such a tool.