41 minutes ago, techman said:

Stop that immediately. There is clearly a difference between 30 fps and 120 fps in MSFS and if someone doesnt notice that he should clearly visit the eye doctor asap. 

what do you mean Stop that immediately , Im allowed to have an opinion and say.  {Stop that immediately comment } comes across as anti free speech and no one can comment on stuff you disagree with

I just don´t want a Fenix thread turning sideways due to personal preferences (aka "wrong opinion") on a well discussed topic regarding FPS. Its annoying. 

In my case helped switching rendering to CPU. Even though I have Nv3080 Ti, GPU got saturated in complex areas. Switching rendering to CPU increased CPU load but sim is smooth as I was used to. 

 

Rado

Using both the Frame Gen Mod, MSFS AutoFPS, Reshade v6.01 and the new Nvidia App with RTX Dynamic Vibrance activated. I'm on the MSFS Beta with 300+ GB of mods in the community folder (which I never remove when updating) I'm getting between 40/60 FPS in the updated Fenix (which by the way is quite amazing). My specs are below and you can check out my daily streams for confirmation, Oh, and I forgot to mention I also use ISLC v1.0.3.0

 

 

1 hour ago, techman said:

I just don´t want a Fenix thread turning sideways due to personal preferences (aka "wrong opinion") on a well discussed topic regarding FPS. Its annoying. 

Wrong opinion says who you?????????????? I know its annoying when I post something and you don't agree with. Ill make sure I get approval by you in the future

Edited March 6, 20242 yr by jason74

@jason74 and @techman

As one of the moderators on here is keen on saying - 'opinions can't be wrong'.  They are personal beliefs based on knowledge gained and your personal judgement on that knowledge.

However, facts are facts (which can be modified over time as we gain more information or a better insight of course), and these facts should be used to challenge beliefs if they plainly appear to be wrong, to the benefit of all involved hopefully.

Now, as for facts, my old eyes can very easily determine the difference between 30 and 60 FPS (I could never go back to 30 now), and recently, I was surprised to see the difference with 120 fps even (not on my system ). 

The statement that the human eye can only perceive 30 fps is incorrect, and should be challenged as much as the earth is flat.  The link given by Bnash00 on page 2 is well worth a read.
Whether you are happy to accept 30 fps in your simulator, due to hardware limitations or personal choice, is a different matter.

But in any case, as Techman has stated, this old and tiresome argument should not derail the thread about the Fenix performance.  It might be better taking it to PM if you want meaningful discussion on the separate subject of the limitations of the human eye.  

 

Edited March 6, 20242 yr by bobcat999

As a personal opinion, I know there is no agreed fps standard, and peoples PC's have vastly varying standards of performance, but I know a lot of people with what are considered as 'latest generation' machines (4080/90 series Nvidia, and Intel 13700-14700+, or their AMD equivalents) can hold 60 FPS in general (without frame generation) at 4k and ultra settings (I certainly can), so anything that falls below that standard should be looked at to be optimised if possible, as that will now become the outlier and will hold the simulator back when in use, no matter how well optimised the other products are in the simulator.

This has happened on occasion, and in my case, Landmarks Chicago (from Orbx by by Drzewiecki Design) was singly responsible for tanking performance on my PC (when flying in the area of course).
Now, due to reports of this from other users, Drzewiecki managed to correct this poor performance by putting work into optimising their version 2, and FPS is now fine, without significantly affecting the overall look of the product from what I can see (well done Drzewiecki by the way).

Now, should we accept a lower performance from gaining the benefit of a product as complex as the Fenix is another question, but due to feedback, I am sure Fenix will be looking at it if they can, within the limitations of the sim architecture and the computing power they need to call on to get everything done they way they want in the Airbus of course.

 

 

Edited March 6, 20242 yr by bobcat999

1 hour ago, bobcat999 said:

Now, as for facts, my old eyes can very easily determine the difference between 30 and 60 FPS (I could never go back to 30 now)

I agree with you Bob. Doubling fps makes a huge difference in the simming experience. But I doubt there will be any consensus on this anytime soon 😅

Also important of course is smoothness vs stutters. 60fps can be choppy as hell if things aren’t optimized. Frame time variance plays a huge part in this, and usually the problem is with high / inconsistent main thread frame times.

Edited March 6, 20242 yr by Cpt_Piett

He is right regarding the obsession with fps though. I have not checked my framerate a single time in MSFS since I installed it last November. The performance on such a mediocre PC is so impressive that I have never needed to!

3 hours ago, SierraHotel said:

Using both the Frame Gen Mod, MSFS AutoFPS, Reshade v6.01 and the new Nvidia App with RTX Dynamic Vibrance activated. I'm on the MSFS Beta with 300+ GB of mods in the community folder (which I never remove when updating) I'm getting between 40/60 FPS in the updated Fenix (which by the way is quite amazing). My specs are below and you can check out my daily streams for confirmation, Oh, and I forgot to mention I also use ISLC v1.0.3.0

Thanks for confirming, Sierra Hotel. I have a couple of questions:

- How did you set up displays in the Fenix app (alternate rendering/use CPU/display sync)?

- And are those 40 FPS with the FG mod on? I get several stutters at 40 FPS...

39 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

He is right regarding the obsession with fps though. I have not checked my framerate a single time in MSFS since I installed it last November. The performance on such a mediocre PC is so impressive that I have never needed to!

As the captain said just above your post, smoothness is probably more important, or at least lack of choppyness or stuttering.  Frame times are a great measure as he mentions.

Some people actually like measuring the performance of their PC though and optimising it, as much as using Flight Sim itself.  
I have seen this from the early days of FS and since PC's were used for gaming, and once again it is their choice to do that as much as people decide between 30 fps and 60 fps.  A lot of them are PC hobbyists and want to get their bang per buck.

If I feel things aren't quite right, I tend to look into it without getting too obsessed, but one sure way of checking it is to see if it is holding the 60 fps I aim for, because that is what I have had previously. 
If I feel it is out of whack, that is an indicator to me if things are fine, or if I am imagining it.    

If people don't want to get involved in all of this and they are happy with performance, then all is good also.
 

Edited March 6, 20242 yr by bobcat999

14 hours ago, jason74 said:

Lots of people are obsessed with really high FPS , the human eye does not notice over 30 FPS .

This is an old myth that's as old as flight sims.  This would be true, were the human eye digital; sampling frames.

As the human eye is something of an analogue device, no-one can ever claim any frequency limit over which the human eye can't sense further frequency.

Because the human eye senses light on a perpetual basis - not to any given "frames per second".

Of course there are sensible statements that can be made - I doubt there's much noticeable to the human eye between 2000 and 3000 FPS.    But if we're down in the 30s area, there's just no scientific way of empirically proving whether someone can discern between 30 FPS and 120 FPS.    ... personally, I'd say they can. (Opinion).

Edited March 6, 20242 yr by JYW

3 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

@jason74 and @techman

As one of the moderators on here is keen on saying - 'opinions can't be wrong'.  They are personal beliefs based on knowledge gained and your personal judgement on that knowledge.

However, facts are facts (which can be modified over time as we gain more information or a better insight of course), and these facts should be used to challenge beliefs if they plainly appear to be wrong, to the benefit of all involved hopefully.

Now, as for facts, my old eyes can very easily determine the difference between 30 and 60 FPS (I could never go back to 30 now), and recently, I was surprised to see the difference with 120 fps even (not on my system ). 

The statement that the human eye can only perceive 30 fps is incorrect, and should be challenged as much as the earth is flat.  The link given by Bnash00 on page 2 is well worth a read.
Whether you are happy to accept 30 fps in your simulator, due to hardware limitations or personal choice, is a different matter.

But in any case, as Techman has stated, this old and tiresome argument should not derail the thread about the Fenix performance.  It might be better taking it to PM if you want meaningful discussion on the separate subject of the limitations of the human eye.  

 

Well Said Rob !

I think the other thing people do not consider is monitor size. I have flown with a 55 inch Sony X90K for over a year now and when I first got my 4090 I tested various resolution/FPS combos to see what worked best. After running at 100Hz, 97fps & GSYNC I can definitely see a big difference if I go back to 60fps, on a big screen like this it just is not smooth when I pan the camera no matter what I do. Running the TV at 100Hz or 120Hz with fps to match is night and day different as you have witnessed yourself. It brings in a level of smoothness I had never witnessed before.

I have said this many times before that the single most important thing you can do is make sure you have a balanced system to get the best results. I built my current PC about a year ago with a 3090 and that and the 12700K seemed a perfect match. When I brought my 4090 last August I was a little nervous that a CPU upgrade would be needed, I was wrong ! I took the time to test and document what works and was very happy running at 100Hz (More GPU Headroom) with fps locked automatically at 97. Recently I experimented again with locking frames with RTSS in an effort to improve the FTV, It didn't work before but now it does and man does it make a difference. I found that I can actually reduce my fps to 80 and the FTV is so consistent the level of smoothness is incredible. Sure I have seen the odd minor stutter that could be scenery/server related but they are so few and far between half the time I might not even be looking at the screen when it happens. I spent the whole day yesterday in the Fenix V2 flying all over Europe with FSLTL, the lowest I saw my fps drop too was 70 sitting at the gate at Heathrow. Once in the air I was immediately back to 80fps and a TLOD of 300.

With a single big screen I could never go back to 60fps, FG & GSYNC all the way !!!

Amen, Hallelujah & God Save The King LOL 🙂

 

Did a long flight yesterday without full stop landings, only touch n' go's. FPS 75-80 the whole time (using AutoFPS). Route: LFPO-EHRD-EHAM-EGKK-EGLL-EGCC-EGPH-ENBR-ENGM

7 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Did a long flight yesterday without full stop landings, only touch n' go's. FPS 75-80 the whole time (using AutoFPS). Route: LFPO-EHRD-EHAM-EGKK-EGLL-EGCC-EGPH-ENBR-ENGM

Maybe now we need a sperate thread for CapFrameX screen shots 🤣