April 28, 200719 yr Fraps shows you the average framerate while FS X shows you the current fps. Hence the difference. You can edit a specific FSX-cfg so FS X will show you the average framerate (instead or also, just what you want: there is a link on this forum somewhere to a blog that shows you all the things you can see when you press Shift-Z, which is a lot!)
April 28, 200719 yr >Fraps shows you the average framerate while FS X shows you>the current fps. Hence the difference. You can edit a specific>FSX-cfg so FS X will show you the average framerate (instead>or also, just what you want: there is a link on this forum>somewhere to a blog that shows you all the things you can see>when you press Shift-Z, which is a lot!)More importantly, adding the min/average/max scale also introduces the scale which is actually more important than the instantaneous fps - the percentage variation. Big percentage (no matter what the fps is set to) = display problems.The following article is related to the imminent arrival of the new generation of 100hz LCD displays, but contains some technical explanations as to why the fps is actually pretty meaningless, except in the general performance sense, and how the interraction of the in-game fps and the monitors refresh and update rate has NOTHING to do with old cinema technology.http://www.behardware.com/articles/641-1/1...-afterglow.htmlAllcott
April 28, 200719 yr >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.Sounds more like a refresh rate than a frame. :()Noel Noel System: 9900X3D Noctua NH-D15 G2, MSI Pro 650-P WiFi, G.SKILL 64GB (2 x 32GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR5 6000, WD NVMe 2Tb x 1, Sabrent NVMe 2Tb x 1, RTX 4090 FE, Corsair RM1000W PSU, Win11 Home, LG Ultra Curved Gsync Ultimate 3440x1440, Phanteks Enthoo Pro Case, TCA Boeing Edition Yoke & TQ, Cessna Trim Wheel, RTSS Framerate Limiter w/ Front Edge Sync. Aircraft used in MSFS 2024: Fenix A320, Aerosoft CRJ, FBW, WT 787X, I-Fly 737 MAX 8, Citation Longitude.
April 28, 200719 yr Thanks for the link Allcott, it was a good read. The article demonstrates, in my reading, that the sim FPS is only part of the equation and that motion is a major aspect of the perceived display fluidity. This all begs the question of how to measure FSX performance in terms of optical perception. I guess that most users have a need to find out if their flightim performance is the best that can be gleaned from their hardware and software setup. If one runs a straight benchmark it can be compared with others results and equipment setup against the same benchmark. However, the number of variables in a flightsim are so many that it has been nigh on impossible for users to ask themselves if their equipment is giving the best performance possible in flightsim and is it satisfactory.There can be little doubt that users will continue to run threads in the forum solely under the FPS performance banner even though, as suggested, FPS is only a bit player in the perceived performance equation.John John Rig: Gigabyte B550 AORUS Master Motherboard, AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT CPU, 32GB DDR4 Ram, Gigabyte RTX 2070 Super Graphics, Samsung Odyssey wide view display (5120 x 1440 pixels) with VSYNC on.
April 29, 200719 yr Personally, I wish I had never learned the ctrl-z keystroke combo, as I have thereafter been on the treadmill of upgrading and tweaking (and blaspheming).:-mad :-fume :-grr :-hangIf only I could just STOP NOW and enjoy flying. Jeff Jeff Hunter
April 29, 200719 yr 24fps works in movies because each frame features everything that happened in that 1/24th of a second (okay there's shutter time and stuff, but for the purposes of this discussion this figure will do). If something moves quickly than this motion is captured as a blur.A game running at 24fps depicts 24 distinct freeze frame images per second. That's why 24fps isn't really smooth enough for a game - at least a game where a vehicle may have moved several metres in that time.Frame rates of 60fps are desirable because there isn't the motion blur that fools our eyes when watching movies. We need a higher number of freeze frames per second to get anything like the same smoothness that 24fps movies give.That said, I'm totally happy with 30fps if it's fixed. It's frame rates fluctuating that annoy me.
Create an account or sign in to comment