20 minutes ago, Bill A said:

Speaking on frames... if I use Riva Tuner to lock my frames to 30 do I use the sim and place it at 50% monitor? Plus in NVidia control panel so I set vertical sync to Use 3D applications settings? I currently have it set like this

NVidia Control Panel: max frame rate turned off, Gsync monitor enabled, Use 3d application

In the Sim: Vsync on, 50% monitor refresh

Riva Tuner: frames locked at 30

 

Want to make sure Im not duplicating some settings.

If you have gsync, why are you locking your frames at half vsync and do rivatuner additionally? Does gsnyc not work?

1 minute ago, rka said:

If you have gsync, why are you locking your frames at half vsync and do rivatuner additionally? Does gsnyc not work?

Well I have a Viewsonic vx 2757monitor, dont think it has G-Sync, but I turn on Monitor Technology to "G-Sync Compatible". Maybe I should turn that to "Fix Refresh"

30 fps is good enough if looking straight forward in cockpit, but when panning around it's awful.

38 minutes ago, MySound said:

Because claiming having a steady 30 FPS is better than having a steady 60 FPS is just - like Noel says - goofy nonsense. I don’t care if he limits to 30, 15 or 5 FPS. But getting 30 FPS in a modern game with a high end GPU and processor is just - meh.

What if you were able to run at a steady 30fps with increased detail levels? Is that not worth the trade?

43 minutes ago, MySound said:

Because claiming having a steady 30 FPS is better than having a steady 60 FPS is just - like Noel says - goofy nonsense. 
 

I don’t care if he limits to 30, 15 or 5 FPS. But getting 30 FPS in a modern game with a high end GPU and processor is just - meh. 
 

I can accept if someone says „I can’t see a difference between 60 and 120 Hz“. But if someone doesn’t see the difference between 30 and 60 FPS - he should contact a doctor. 
 

But as I learned that most people here get pension - well. I am not surprised. 

Locking at 60 is the ticket for me anyway.  MSFS keeps the FPS  pretty constant, about 70 without VSYNC.  Way different than FSX.

sp

39 minutes ago, Ixoye said:

30 fps is good enough if looking straight forward in cockpit, but when panning around it's awful.

I agree but when I unlock my frames I get micro stutters even though when panning it seems smoother yes

7 minutes ago, Bill A said:

I agree but when I unlock my frames I get micro stutters even though when panning it seems smoother yes

The #1 reason I choose not to lock at 30fps.

sp

FPS killed this hobby for me a few years ago. I was spending more time chasing frame rates than flying.

Now I just have FPS restricted to 60fps. When I fly I switch all overlays OFF as it is distracting. I expect occasional dips in FPS when I fly into larger airfields or through bad weather. I keep my MSFS settings on the recommended (HIGH) and leave all the other graphic options alone.

No tweaks, no registry fiddling, no GeForce experience and all is well 🙂

Edited September 27, 20223 yr by TrafficPilot

2 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

Locking at 60 is the ticket for me anyway.  MSFS keeps the FPS  pretty constant, about 70 without VSYNC.  Way different than FSX.

sp

Bingo!

There's something about this new MSFS engine where even low FPS are still flyable and smooth.

FSX was a nightmare especially after tacking Flyinside VR to it.

4 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

What if you were able to run at a steady 30fps with increased detail levels? Is that not worth the trade?

Sure it is which is why this blanket gotta have 60fps is fine if that's what matters to you.  There is NO WAY you're going to run the PMDG 738 at full out maximum settings and do any better than 36 or 38fps in the toughest terminals to fly into or even out of w/ my system, and I value the rest of the sim beyond simply having a little better panning and really that's all it is, a little better panning.  Do you realize how few pixels on a 34" 3440x1440 screen go by per frame at 30fps when you're viewing scenery a even 150 feet away it's just so few relative to the physical motion on the screen.   Panning at 30FPS is dandy.  When I can run all of that at a guaranteed 60fps then sure, that component will become practical.

I just flew into KPHL with max settings getting between 45 and 50Fps.

Even sitting quite close to my 1440p screen, I could detect absolutely no hitches, stutters etc, and felt zero lag when panning around to look outside or study my instruments.

Obviously, I could easily reach 60fps with high-end settings, but in that regard, yes, I'm willing to give up a bit of FPS to have the full visual Monty.

But; if I was getting only 30FPS with the resultant sluggishness/lag I feel when panning at that framerate, then no, I would not willing to give up that much unless I was absolutely forced to.

17 hours ago, bigifooti said:

It's one big marketing trick that utilises the capitalistic confusion between the meaning of "needing" and "wanting" something. 

So no one needs 100+ FPS that Nvidia just teased. A lot of people want that now, and are expressing it as if it's a need. 

I think, as said before, need for flightsim is smoothness and realism. You could lower all the setting to the absolute lowest and have a lot of FPS and smoothness but the picture isn't to real anymore. You could up the setting and get a real realistic image but than FPS left the room. 

There is this sweetspot (for me); 30fps and no lags or stutters, LOD of about 200 and clouds on ultra. I just need to safe up some more money to get that...

For VR I can understand there is a technical need for 60(?) FPS, otherwise you're dizzy, which you don't want (therefor a need). 

Believe or not FSX was the root cause of my "throw more firepower at flawed software" syndrome. Back then In 2012 I remember going from a GTX 560 and i5 to anxiously buying the latest 690 GTX and i7, in hopes it meant I could finally run FSX at full sliders, autogen, traffic and all. Oh was I quickly heartbroken😂🤣 

Years later I was thinking MSFS would be the same of needing to throw top firepower to squeeze the most performance out of unoptimized software.

MSFS is so much better as I'm still running my 1080ti/8700k hardware with smooth beautiful results, without a heavy need for upgrading to the latest and greatest.

As for VR realistically and due to its nature of hardware load and native stereoscopic 3D rendering no one is keeping a constant 60 FPS minimum all over the globe of MSFS with high to ultra settings.

You may be getting 60-90 FPS flying over Texas but 30-40 going over problematic places like LA, NYC, Toronto, Miami & Paris then throwing custom LOD addon scenery into the mix.

A locked stable 30-45 FPS is surprisingly smooth in VR even without ASW/reprojection techniques. The biggest thing in VR is avoiding stutter and jerky reprojection borders while panning ones head from side to side.

Edited September 28, 20223 yr by blueshark747

14 hours ago, Bill A said:

Well I have a Viewsonic vx 2757monitor, dont think it has G-Sync, but I turn on Monitor Technology to "G-Sync Compatible". Maybe I should turn that to "Fix Refresh"

It has freesync if the gsync option is available. Try only setting gsync to on and vsync to 100% in msfs and see how it feels for you. This way your freesync range would be used optimally. 

Depending on the actual monitor, this may yield very good variable framerates without tearing. It might also just become a flicker fest. Gsync compatible is a bit hit and miss.