Frame Rate Limit not working in titel screen

[dresoccer4 113]

I have fps limited to 60fps but at the main menu its crushing out over 100fps and burning up my laptop. how do you get msfs's own frame rate limiter to actually work while in the menu system?

[Jetset408 108]

Wish I knew. There is no need to code it to use that much constant power in the menu screen, especially when one has to wait days (in my case) for software updates to download and install. In this day and age of trying to be green (in terms of energy consumption), its bordering on irresponsible in my view.

[dresoccer4 113]

1 minute ago, Jetset408 said:

Wish I knew. There is no need to code it to use that much constant power in the menu screen, especially when one has to wait days (in my case) for software updates to download and install. In this day and age of trying to be green (in terms of energy consumption), its bordering on irresponsible in my view.

It's literally melting my laptop and making it almost unplayable. My CPU/GPU is working harder in the menu screen than in-sim. What the heck?

[MrFuzzy 1,841]

30 minutes ago, dresoccer4 said:

I have fps limited to 60fps but at the main menu its crushing out over 100fps and burning up my laptop. how do you get msfs's own frame rate limiter to actually work while in the menu system?

60 fps is the max refresh rate of your display. So if it's 144 Hz, 60 will be 144.

Having said that, you can also limit the framerate with external tools such as Riva Tuner and the nVidia control panel.

[dresoccer4 113]

49 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

60 fps is the max refresh rate of your display. So if it's 144 Hz, 60 will be 144.

Having said that, you can also limit the framerate with external tools such as Riva Tuner and the nVidia control panel.

"60 fps is the max refresh rate of your display" - well THAT'S definitely not confusing lol

[Ixoye 1,568]

1 hour ago, dresoccer4 said:

I have fps limited to 60fps but at the main menu its crushing out over 100fps and burning up my laptop. how do you get msfs's own frame rate limiter to actually work while in the menu system?

The V-sync and frame limiter in game are labeled for TV monitors that run in 60 hz, 60 equals your monitor’s refresh rate, 30 half your monitor’s refresh rate and 20 a third, I run my monitor at 75 hz and set limiter to 30, that give me a lock at 37.5 fps, half my monitors refresh rate, and it works great, my experience is that it works better to use the in game V-sync and frame limiter than in Nvidia panel when you know how it works.

[xenonsk 104]

I think that he's talking about MSFS menu. For example, when you download update.

[Jazz 791]

This is one of those things that really irritates me. I don't hang about long in the menu screen of msfs because it doesn't take long before my 6900XT starts reving up and outputs so much heat that I need to open a window and frankly, there's no need for it. Why some deveolpers do this is beyond me and it's unacceptable. I don't want my expensive hardware being boosted up like this simply trying to render a menu and it's moronic hanger backdrop at 20,000 fps. It's beyond pointless. Many games do this. Post Scriptum is one that I recently noticed doing it when it's parent game "Squad" allows you to limt the menu framerate specifically to prevent it. This wouldn't be so bad but sometimes you can be waiting half hour to join a server there and the entire time you card it just buring through power and converting it to heat. By the time you get in the game you are sat in your pants eating ice cream.

Making the graphics card work the hardest when you are picking your options is ridiculous.

Developers take heed....consider this a digital slap and back off the power draw in the menus. Limit the fps to 60 or less, for crying out loud.

[Blat14 34]

Yes the frame rate limits in the sim are confusing, they should be shown as 100%, 50% & 33.33% of your monitor refresh rate, not 60, 30 and 20.

I don't know about AMD GPU's but for Nvidia cards just use the NVCP to limit your fps and have Vsync on in the NVCP you won't have any problems in the menu's then.

I have mine limited to 40fps and my 2070 Super card barely gets above 55C in the menus and about 45-50 whilst flying.

Also leave the power management mode set to optimal power not on prefer maximum.

 

[Jazz 791]

2 minutes ago, Blat14 said:

Yes the frame rate limits in the sim are confusing, they should be shown as 100%, 50% & 33.33% of your monitor refresh rate, not 60, 30 and 20.

I don't know about AMD GPU's but for Nvidia cards just use the NVCP to limit your fps and have Vsync on in the NVCP you won't have any problems in the menu's then.

I have mine limited to 40fps and my 2070 Super card barely gets above 55C in the menus and about 45-50 whilst flying.

Also leave the power management mode set to optimal power not on prefer maximum.

 

I would like to respond to this suggestion, if I may?

Personally, I can and do limit my FPS in the AMD driver but I'm not lowering it enough to stop this happening in the menu and I shouldn't have to limit my in sim experience just to limit what it does in the menu. Neither should anyone else. 40 FPS is ugly, jarring and unacceptable to me when flying. I have put up with such frame rates and less for decades and now the hardware exists for me not to. I could limit it to 60 and stop it doing it but again, when in the sim this frame rate is not enough for me. My frame rate limit is currently 100 for the sake of consistancy in MSFS. If I have it higher or off I can get spikes into 120-130 and I notice them so I limit to 100 and when flying about I can get a wonderfully smooth 80-100 Free-Sync experience and as soon as it drops below 60ish I know immediately and if that's what I wanted, I would have bought a cheaper graphics card.

The solution to this is to either never allow the menu frame rate to go over something sensible or give me a slider to control the menu frame rate as Squad does.

In the menu my GPU usage goes to 100% and my card starts sucking all the watts it can. It NEVER does anything like this in the sim. Never. It's absurd. What's the point in rendering a 3d hanger behind a menu screen anyway? I didn't even see that it was rendering that hanger until I started looking for reasons as to why my power draw and GPU usage was so outrageous when just browsing options. And the amount of rendering power that hanger is demanding makes it behave more like a benchmark.

Frankly, it's rude.

[Blat14 34]

13 hours ago, Jazz said:

40 FPS is ugly, jarring and unacceptable to me when flying. I have put up with such frame rates and less for decades and now the hardware exists for me not to.

Strange that you see this, at 40fps it is perfectly smooth for me. I can let my GPU go to it's maximum and it will acheive over 60fps in the air but it looks no different to 40fps to me.

Yes it would be nice if you could just leave the settings at what you want to fly with, but for those that are complaining that they are getting excessive temperatures whilst downloading updates, limiting your fps will stop this.

It's very quick to do and you can change it back once the downloads are installed.

Going back to your perception of fps below 60fps  being unaccpetable  I'm wondering if there is some other factor that's making you see this.

 

I will give you an example,  a few months ago I overheard someone in the works canteen talking about flight simulator, I didn't really know the guy as he works in a different dept. to me.

Anyhow, I got chatting to him about MSFS and he was moaning about how he'd spent a fortune on getting a new PC with a 3080 GPU and one of the fastest intel CPU's then available (can't remember the model)

He said he was struggling to get around 30fps in some situations and was hoping to get at least 60fps.

I told him I was getting a very smooth performance form my Ryzen 3700X, 2070 Super setup and it must be something with his settings.

Ended up inviting him over to see my PC running MSFS and he was astonished. He had a fly around and was convinced I was getting well over 60fps and in fact after he saw my monitor was running at 120Hz he seemed to think it was 120fps 🙂

When I showed him it was at a limited 40 he found it hard to equate with what he was seeing. He said that under 60fps on his setup it appeared very flickery and with lots of screen tearing etc...

In the end I went round to his place to look at his setup and it was indeed horrible to look at. After getting him up to date with chipset drivers from the M/B manufactures site (didn't look like any had been installed, I'm assuming WIndows installs some default?)

Changed his power plan to a performance one that was installed with the chipset drivers, going into his Bios and enabling his Ram to run at 3200 which it was rated for, but was set at 2400 for some reason)

I then put on the latest Nvidia driver that was available at the time (I was still an advocate of 457.30 back then) but thought his 30xx series card would be better off with a more recent driver.

I then tweaked up the NVCPL settings and got him running at a steady 40fps limited like my PC (albeit in 4K on his machine and 2K on my setup).It was flickering horribly at that fps but that turned out to be his Freesync monitor which would't cope with fps lower than it's refresh rate which was a minimum of 60. Turned off the fresync and now he's happily flying along at a steady 40 fps with no stutter, screen tear or flickering.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jazz 791]

6 minutes ago, Blat14 said:

Strange that you see this, at 40fps it is perfectly smooth for me. I can let my GPU go to it's maximum and it will acheive over 60fps in the air but it looks no different to 40fps to me.

Yes it would be nice if you could just leave the settings at what you want to fly with, but for those that are complaining that they are getting excessive temperatures whilst downloading updates, limiting your fps will stop this.

It's very quick to do and you can change it back once the downloads are installed.

Going back to your perception of fps below 60fps  being unaccpetable  I'm wondering if there is some other factor that's making you see this.

 

I will give you an example,  a few months ago I overheard someone in the works canteen talking about flight simulator, I didn't really know the guy as he works in a different dept. to me.

Anyhow, I got chatting to him about MSFS and he was moaning about how he'd spent a fortune on getting a new PC with a 3080 GPU and one of the fastest intel CPU's then available (can't remember the model)

He said he was struggling to get around 30fps in some situations and was hoping to get at least 60fps.

I told him I was getting a very smooth performance form my Ryzen 3700X, 2070 Super setup and it must be something with his settings.

Ended up inviting him over to see my PC running MSFS and he was astonished. He had a fly around and was convinced I was getting well over 60fps and in fact after he saw my monitor was running at 120Hz he seemed to think it was 120fps 🙂

When I showed him it was at a limited 40 he found it hard to equate with what he was seeing. He said that under 60fps on his setup it appeared very flickery and with lots of screen tearing etc...

In the end I went round to his place to look at his setup and it was indeed horrible to look at. After getting him up to date with chipset drivers from the M/B manufactures site (didn't look like any had been installed, I'm assuming WIndows installs some default?)

Changed his power plan to a performance one that was installed with the chipset drivers, going into his Bios and enabling his Ram to run at 3200 which it was rated for, but was set at 2400 for some reason)

I then put on the latest Nvidia driver that was available at the time (I was still an advocate of 457.30 back then) but thought his 30xx series card would be better off with a more recent driver.

I then tweaked up the NVCPL settings and got him running at a steady 40fps limited like my PC (albeit in 4K on his machine and 2K on my setup).It was flickering horribly at that fps but that turned out to be his Freesync monitor which would't cope with fps lower than it's refresh rate which was a minimum of 60. Turned off the fresync and now he's happily flying along at a steady 40 fps with no stutter, screen tear or flickering.

 

 

 

 

 

I've been doing this a very long time, buddy. I know how to set everything up and low frame rates are ugly to me. I can't even play on my mates consoles. He doesn't know what I'm talking about and what my problem is but the 30 fps of those things on TV's is unbearable to me. The new ones should be better but the last generation was intolerable.

In my 30 years of playing with flight sims the single largest factor for immersion for me is frame rate and frame times. A high farme rate with smooth timings and no stutters is absolutely the number one critical factor in convincing my mind it's real. More than graphics etc. I will compromise everything else first. I could set my rig up to your smooth 40 and you and most would be happy. I however, would not. Not anymore. Most people simply don't seem to see what I see, which is fine, but it's jarring to me and always has been and now hardware is at the point where I no longer have to put up with it for the most part. Keeping my frame rate in my freesync range keeps everything great although I do see ugliness that most will not if it drops below 60 but is still in rage so I keep it above there for the most part. Easy to do in MSFS with little compromise because it runs so well. P3D is harder to work with but not too bad these days.

Anyway, that's not what this thread is about. I brought up what I brought up because it was related to the problem discussed in the thread. A problem that simply shouldn't be there. I have no desire to derail the thread into another discussion about low smooth frame rates, v-sync, free-sync, he said, she said.

But I appreciate your help😉