2 minutes ago, MySound said:

For me too, thats why I have a 120 Hz OLED and FPS limited to 120.

Am I a troll? Well, maybe I have just better eyes.

Whoever doesnt see a difference between 20 and 40 FPS should maybe consider to visit a doctor.

What about 30 and 40? What about 30 and 35? Or 35 and 40? If you can spot the difference you should give Marvel Universe a call. 

 

Just now, St Mawgan said:

What about 30 and 40? What about 30 and 35? Or 35 and 40? If you can spot the difference you should give Marvel Universe a call. 

 

It's actually quite possible to spot the difference when you're at that low amount of frames. Fire up RTSS and change the FPS in real-time, you'll see the difference when panning. Even going from 30 to 36-38 ish is quite a stark improvement because then you hit the threshold where there's just enough frames for the pan to be smooth enough. Think some people just don't care enough or have the technical insight what to look or feel for. You don't need to be some kind of super human to feel it. You can see, even in this thread, some people find 20FPS good enough. Think most people would would find that absolutely awful to fly at, then you can always just lower the bar and pretend everyone who feel the difference is just making it up. 

23 minutes ago, Sethos said:

It's actually quite possible to spot the difference when you're at that low amount of frames. Fire up RTSS and change the FPS in real-time, you'll see the difference when panning. Even going from 30 to 36-38 ish is quite a stark improvement because then you hit the threshold where there's just enough frames for the pan to be smooth enough. Think some people just don't care enough or have the technical insight what to look or feel for. You don't need to be some kind of super human to feel it. You can see, even in this thread, some people find 20FPS good enough. Think most people would would find that absolutely awful to fly at, then you can always just lower the bar and pretend everyone who feel the difference is just making it up. 

At 30fps, panning around the cockpit is exactly as smooth as it is at 40. On my system. With my eyes. Identical. 

46 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

You mean people with a different opinion? 🙄

Not at all,

Some people have no option but to limit a lower fps due to not having the latest and greatest hardware and it may help them have a better experience in MSFS, it happens a lot that those who do this get bashed for stating it helps them. At the end of the day we are all here because we have a passion for aviation and not to fight with other enthusiasts. Posting in any forum can be like sending a text message, meaning it can be completely taken out of context.

1 minute ago, St Mawgan said:

At 30fps, panning around the cockpit is exactly as smooth as it is at 40. On my system. With my eyes. Identical. 

Well, that's a you problem. One does not need to be a wizard to see a difference in a massive 33.33% extra frames on your screen. Some people just don't have the eyesight or perhaps have trained their brain over many years of using high refresh / framerates to spot the difference. As I said, some people in this thread are using 20FPS and others are even arguing most couldn't spot the difference between 30 and 60 in a blind test, which to me is just crazy. Could spot that in a heartbeat. 

6 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Well, that's a you problem. One does not need to be a wizard to see a difference in a massive 33.33% extra frames on your screen. Some people just don't have the eyesight or perhaps have trained their brain over many years of using high refresh / framerates to spot the difference. As I said, some people in this thread are using 20FPS and others are even arguing most couldn't spot the difference between 30 and 60 in a blind test, which to me is just crazy. Could spot that in a heartbeat. 

A 'me' problem?  What does that mean? 

I would guess and guess only that the FPS chasing crowd is justifying paying way too much for hardware to run MSFS😁

It's personal choice, but I'm on Seb's side when he said you don't really need more than 30FPS. I was on that side before he even said it, because usually you want more FPS when you have animated characters and fast action, which you don't have in the simulator.

I also predicted something else Seb warned about: those who chase high FPS will eventually experience a gradual reduction in their achievable frames; they did a lot of optimisation to create headroom for all the future features people have requested and they already planned, which has given users much higher FPS, but once new features are implemented, frames will start to drop off again. So his comment about "30FPS should really be fine" was a bit of a cautionary tale.

Edited August 1, 20223 yr by March Hare

1 hour ago, RJC68 said:

Not at all,

Some people have no option but to limit a lower fps due to not having the latest and greatest hardware and it may help them have a better experience in MSFS, it happens a lot that those who do this get bashed for stating it helps them. At the end of the day we are all here because we have a passion for aviation and not to fight with other enthusiasts. Posting in any forum can be like sending a text message, meaning it can be completely taken out of context.

So why call them Trolls, when it’s quite evident they aren’t? 

1 hour ago, St Mawgan said:

At 30fps, panning around the cockpit is exactly as smooth as it is at 40. On my system. With my eyes. Identical. 

As soon as one starts to use any headtracker the advantage of higher FPS becomes apparent. Because it is not just about perceived smoothness, but also input lag reduction. Then the difference between 30 and 40 FPS is pretty substantial.

12 minutes ago, Ohmsquare said:

As soon as one starts to use any headtracker the advantage of higher FPS becomes apparent. Because it is not just about perceived smoothness, but also input lag reduction. Then the difference between 30 and 40 FPS is pretty substantial.

Ah ok, I don't use a headtracker. 

36 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

So why call them Trolls, when it’s quite evident they aren’t? 

Ok poor choice of phrase !

38 minutes ago, Ohmsquare said:

As soon as one starts to use any headtracker the advantage of higher FPS becomes apparent. Because it is not just about perceived smoothness, but also input lag reduction. Then the difference between 30 and 40 FPS is pretty substantial.

Yup, 40 minimum. Next step up with TrackIR is 60. Because 50 isn’t smooth as trackIR operates at 120hz. 

14 hours ago, reignman40 said:

I cap my frames at 45 through RivaTuner. It is a nice balance between frames and GPU temps. 

I tried Riva for capping in P3D and MSFS, as well NVCP's limiting controls.  Both of these options were clearly worse in terms of smooth, stutter-free performance even at the same frame rate, then by using Vsync.

4 hours ago, MySound said:

Whoever doesnt see a difference between 20 and 40 FPS should maybe consider to visit a doctor.

I'd very much like to secretly be present in that consultation 😉