13 minutes ago, CaptainNick said:

I get in the 50s-60s on my 4k TV. I use Track IR when in 2d, so my first concern was a higher framerate to keep up with Track IR's polling (it is trash below 40's) and then maximizing eye candy but not at the cost of keeping framerates in the 50's. As such, while I have alot of things on ultra, I do keep my LOD's at 100 and have some of the annoying post processing stuff turned off. I set it once and then forget about it. No need to babysit FPS beyond the initial setup. Same thing for VR with my G2. I put the settings to get me the best framerate first, then found a happy medium that allowed great framerate (using the toolkit etc) with decent visuals. Set it once, then I turned all the overlays etc off.

Same experience with TIR above 40 super smooth

26 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Must be a lot of people laughing then, I bet it’s folks using FG with 4X series cards 😄 

Yes, but that's the point. The vast majority of flight simmers are not able to use Frame Generation because they do not have a graphics card capable of the task.

2 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Yes, but that's the point. The vast majority of flight simmers are not able to use Frame Generation because they do not have a graphics card capable of the task.

Let's hope for AMD FSR3 which can be used also by NVIDIA cards with DX11 / DX12 and how that pans out in the near future with MSFS....

4 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Yes, but that's the point. The vast majority of flight simmers are not able to use Frame Generation because they do not have a graphics card capable of the task.

So, then lower settings to get higher fps. A choice between 30fps and ultra or 40+ fps and medium/ high? I’m choosing 40+! 30 fps should be relegated to the past. 

10 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Yes, but that's the point. The vast majority of flight simmers are not able to use Frame Generation because they do not have a graphics card capable of the task.

Indeed Christopher, and proper tuning can tide you over until then, is the point, and pretty much the main point.  Ian likes to completely ignore frame time variance which he can do since he has the hardware to make FTV less critical to the perception of smooth animation.  Put another way if the frame rate was 1000 no one anywhere could perceive marginal to poor FTV, whereas at 34 FTV predominates, unless you're bent on rapid panning of cockpit from side to side, or of course are using Track IR and VR presumably.  Were I using those I assume I would need to downgrade settings presumably.

16 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

A choice

Correct.

8 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Correct.

Still quoting out of context I see 👍🤣

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

So, then lower settings to get higher fps. A choice between 30fps and ultra or 40+ fps and medium/ high? I’m choosing 40+! 30 fps should be relegated to the past. 

I would select 30fps and ultra.

Edited October 25, 20232 yr by Christopher Low

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

Yes, but that's the point. The vast majority of flight simmers are not able to use Frame Generation because they do not have a graphics card capable of the task.

Or - in your case - using a simulator (P3D 4.5) that doesn’t even support FG …

48 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I would select 30fps and ultra.

I would have too, 10-20 year ago. MSFS on medium far surpasses anything we’ve had in the past two decades, and is capable of 40+ at medium easy. 

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I would select 30fps and ultra.

That's because you are used to 30FPS in P3D. When you try 40 FPS you will see the difference is night and day. And I don't even use TrackIR.

Edited October 25, 20232 yr by Alvega

6 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

So, then lower settings to get higher fps.

No need to as has been explained many times.  I prefer the eye candy MSFS offers, so concentrating on FTV will benefit many simmers who do not have the hardware for things such as FG.  You may find TrackIR awful below 40fps, but I never did, prefering the extra eye candy over ultimate smoothness of head tracking.

Really don't understand why you keep pushing your preference on your hardware to those of us on lesser systems.

5 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Really don't understand why you keep pushing your preference on your hardware to those of us on lesser systems.

Me pushing?! Hahaha are you having a laugh?! You and Noel are the ones that keep dredging it up with screenshots and relentless comments back. It’s never ending. 

When I started this topic I had a feeling, it would create a lot of different views.  With my hardware and software I am satisfied to get 35-40 frames, and pretty much get a butter smooth performance, Oh Yeah, I will get 3-5 stutters on my flight for example flying from KOAK to KPSP, flying a PMDG 737-800  Yes, if I lowered my settings, surely would get higher frames, but I like the eye candy and most of my settings are ULTRA and HIGH, with TLOD at 150

We all have different systems and their are so many variables,  my main concern is flying as much as possible  a smooth flight as possible,  Surely would agree if I had  a better system I would definitely would be able to hit 60 or more frames, but so what ???   Remember this is a simulator, not a race car game, or one person shooter.  Finally, the key, is we all have to find that SWEET SPOT weather its 30, or 60 frames.

What I see here is there are 3 types of simmers:

1- Those with "lesser" systems who like to push their sim settings beyond their hardware capabilities, and accept flying with 30 FPS (like Noel, MrBitsFlyer and others)

2- Those with "lesser" systems who prefer to lower their settings and, if needed, fly with sceneries and aircraft that are "lighter" on FPS so they can maintain 40 FPS or more because it's a night and day difference (I'm included in this group with my old I7 4790k and an RTX 2060 Super and that's why I mainly fly GA until I can get a better system)

3- Those with the 4*** series GPU's who don't have any FPS problems and fly where they want and with the aircraft they want with more than 40 FPS or even 100FPS with FG (Like Ian and others and I wish I was on this group too)

So to each their own and let's stop this never ending argument and go flying, shall we?