1 hour ago, cobalt said:

Perhaps you should direct this to the OP. Personally I think that in terms of the intense, at times overheated, focus on this topic, it is an obsession, but that is just my opinion. 

You are right, those who are still using 30FPS are obsessed with telling those who have moved on how unnecessary it is and that we can't even see what we are looking at anyway... 

Case in point, this thread wasn't started by someone obsessed with getting 120 FPS asking why everyone else isn't...   

If an obsession is defined by intense at times overheated discussion then this whole site is obsessed 😂

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by psolk

1 hour ago, psolk said:

If an obsession is defined by intense at times overheated discussion then this whole site is obsessed 😂

I couldn't agree more. It is indeed.

7 hours ago, AnkH said:

What if I tell you now that when I play CS2, my ping to the server is never above 4ms? Which equals 250FPS...

Now you're going down the path of misdirection?  You skipped over the entire predictive logic that all games that operate on when they interact with other players via a game service on a server ... why?  Because it also invalidates your supposition?

So you believe that your ping will always be 4ms 24/7?  It will not be, it changes with load and switches outside your control.

You also believe that a ping is a measure of game application server code response?  A ping request is responded to by the OS - TCP/IP protocol configured on the server and has nothing to do with game application code running on the server, it's the fastest and most primitive of responses a server can perform.  A server (pending how it's balanced) will run web services coded by the game developer(s) to support processing of data to/from the server.  The game service might be managing 100 or 1000 or more connections and will not be getting back to you in 4ms because it has to do a lot more processing, add on top of that the connection is most likely encrypted/secure (one hopes) which is another layer to slow things down.  This is why predictive logic/code exists in game services.

You posted the video that contradictions yourself, not me.  I agree with the video you posted.  Sure "cope" away with more FPS than you can't react to.

You still avoided the very basic evidence of plotting of FPS over time when vSync is off?  Does this look "smooth" to you:

 

It's clearly NOT smooth ... if it were it would be a flat line at a given frametime.  So if you're running 120-240 fps with a graph similar to above with frametime all over the place but think it's "smooth", that's because you can't detect the changes (my entire point).

So yes, you are obsessed with FPS.  I'll take a flatline 75 FPS, anything above that is pointless.  I get that you "feel" it's smoother, but that just emphasizes my point.  I'm not debating that if you analyze the frames one by one (stop motion) and overlay at 120 vs 60 you'll see the difference, but you've created a pointless test.  According to your stance for a 3D shooter, you'd would need 18,000 FPS in order to "feel" the bullets being fired from your weapon.  Do you see a bullet?  Do you think you could dodge the bullet?  Can any game accurately calculate the physics of a bullet travelling at those speeds in a small 3D pixel space?  

By your definition, we would need PC hardware capable of operating at 18,000 FPS and game servers and connectivity able to operate at 0.0000003ms.  We don't, hence the predictive code in the absence of data (kinda like fake frames of DLSS/FSR).

I'm not trying to convince you, heck no, nVidia, LG, Samsung, etc. are more than happy to take your $$$ to appease your FPS obsession.  If that works for you great, but it doesn't change the limits of humans, game servers, bandwidth, latency.

 

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by CO2Neutral

7 hours ago, cobalt said:

Is anybody here actually enjoying flying anymore in this incredible simulator, as opposed to (borrowing the title of this thread) obsessing over FPS in the forums? Just wondering. 

Well, I am in fact able to squeeze in a bit of flying. In between obsessing over FPS and performance that is. 

 

7 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Now you're going down the path of misdirection?  You skipped over the entire predictive logic that all games that operate on when they interact with other players via a game service on a server ... why?  Because it also invalidates your supposition?

So you believe that your ping will always be 4ms 24/7?  It will not be, it changes with load and switches outside your control

Well, actually I hate discussions with someone who has proven himself to have difficulties to understand basics, as shown in the thread about the publication you simply did not get. Here it is the same, you bring the argument of the ping which is always above 8ms in your case as an explanation why more than 120FPS are useless, then I contradict with the notion that my ping is always below 4ms and you start again arguing that this is most probably not always the case and changes over time. Then you come with the argument of input to output being 120ms for trained people and because of this, you do not need that much FPS anyway, because nobody can see single frames when above 60-70FPS anyway. I contradict that it is not about seeing single frames, but about the perception of a smooth sequence of digitally rendered images and you come back with the statement that your Cyberpunk CapFrameX capture is "clearly not smooth" but perceived as "smooth" because you cant see single frames or the changes (fluctuations) of FPS. 

Dont you see that you talk bull here? Every argument we discuss about you turn around that it suits your ridiculous approach of seeing single frames. You pick the one sentence about the headache out of the video ignoring the very next sentence telling that the brain has mechanisms to avoid those headaches by adding some sort of "motion blur". You ignore the FACT that many, many players using monitors with refresh rates beyond 120Hz and playing with FPS beyond 120 WITHOUT getting a headache, you simply ignore this fact because you misinterpret the single sentence in the video. 

And it goes on and on and on. You clearly show for each text and video we discuss subpar capablitiy of understanding written and spoken text, yet you come here all the time pushing out your so called knowledge that is based on total misunderstandings of basic concepts. If people tell you, you start arguing yourself deeper and deeper into contradictions and you do not even realize it. Embarassing. 

So, maybe to much text is overwhelming you, for this I repeat my core statement: people chasing FPS are basically chasing the SAME thing as people chasing smoothness. But FPS are a precise measure while "smooth" is not. End of the story.

Some introduced the FTV into the discussion, which is of course key for the perception of smooth. And yes, the FTV factor is basically independent of FPS numbers, but only above a certain threshold and this threshold is entirely individual and NOT scientifically fixed to a max. FPS number as you continue to claim. Look at the reports from those who switched from a setup with very good FTV at around 30FPS to a setup with very good FTV at around 60FPS. All, absolutely everybody will agree that the latter is even a tad "smoother" (or more fluid as some note). If your monitor supports it and your setup is capable of, very good FTV at around 120FPS would be another step up, whether you get it or not. 

Last, I am still waiting for you to answer basic questions. 

1. did you go on testufo? Can you clearly say that you do not see any difference between 60 and 120FPS? I start to get the impression that your monitor simply has only 60Hz and you cant properly check it, but you do not admit it here...

2. What do you say about those professional eSport players not hitting a tractor when playing e.g. at locked 60FPS, notably with a game (CS) that runs beyond 300FPS and as such, they get the perfect FTV at locked 60FPS? Why? How can they react so fast when FPS is not playing a role and they have issues reacting comparable when FPS are only at 60? 

3. The video I posted clearly shows that a human eye does not function like a camera and yet you come back with this ridiculous hard limit where above nobody can see a difference while many, many statements, tests, videos and publications show otherwise. Why do you stick to your bold (and wrong) statement?

7 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

It's clearly NOT smooth ... if it were it would be a flat line at a given frametime.  So if you're running 120-240 fps with a graph similar to above with frametime all over the place but think it's "smooth", that's because you can't detect the changes (my entire point).

So yes, you are obsessed with FPS.  I'll take a flatline 75 FPS, anything above that is pointless.  I get that you "feel" it's smoother, but that just emphasizes my point.  I'm not debating that if you analyze the frames one by one (stop motion) and overlay at 120 vs 60 you'll see the difference, but you've created a pointless test. 

Well, exactly, this IS the entire point Sherlock, just without your ridiculously wrong cutoff at 75FPS... Without a hard limit (FPS cap), you need more FPS to achieve the same level of "smoothness". Finally you got it. It was not ME bringing the discussion about single FPS into play, it was you arguing that nobody can see single frames if shown only for 8ms or and thus everything above a certain threshold is pointless. And it was not me creating a pointless test but examples shown WHY the perception of "smooth" can be even increased if FPS go beyond your magical threshold, which you basically agree but then quickly deny again... Sadly, without sitting next to each other, no real test can show this, but I bet a huge amount of money that I would be able to tell you if something you show me is running at constant 75FPS with perfect FTV versus something running at 240FPS with perfect FTV. It is VISIBLE, and if you are personally unable to see it, good for you, but dont try pseudoscientific arguments to tell others they are also not able to, because they are...

On 2/19/2025 at 2:52 PM, CO2Neutral said:

They are/were stroking their ego … or just wanting more because they know they’ll get less … to suggest any human (trained or not) can identify and react to new information (a frame) presented to them every 8ms is beyond absurd.

 

Exactly correct.  When I had my new PC built by Jetline PC systems the guy from the company specifically went over this with me.  He said that if anyone outside of players using their computer for high level PC gaming competition in the first person shooter realm is trying to chase FPS over smoothness they are completely wrong.  He equated it to how much difference within reaction time and it was something absurdly small like .1 or .2 second difference in how quickly the image is generated beyond 45FPS give or take.  I’m sure my friend on this thread will say I’m making this up too but that’s cool.  It’s about smoothness for flight sim- not FPS.

9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

So yes, you are obsessed with FPS.  I'll take a flatline 75 FPS, anything above that is pointless.  I get that you "feel" it's smoother, but that just emphasizes my point.  I'm not debating that if you analyze the frames one by one (stop motion) and overlay at 120 vs 60 you'll see the difference, but you've created a pointless test.  

You attach a frametime measurement from Cyberpunk 2077 and talk about smoothness only, while one of the major points in shooters is latency. And contrary to your calculations, the time it takes from a mouse input to seeing the effect on screen takes 3-5 (real) frames, depending on the engine, double that for FG. And at 75 Hz with FG these latencies can be felt quite drastically like a rubberband between moving your mouse and the actual panning seen on screen.

This is a major reason for why framerates way above 75 Hz make sense, especially for competitive players. I'm too old to really profit from this, my aim is too bad to profit from framerates above the 60-100 range.

In MSFS this matters a lot less - you won't crash your plane because panning your fov feels sluggish. Unless you use VR or a head tracker, but IIRC we can agree that this is a different topic. 

I can perceive all of this, but for me (personally, on a screen without head tracking) the zone of diminishing returns starts somewhere around 60-80fps. When panning quickly, however, I can still make out an improvement in the smoothness of motion at higher framerates, I just don't really care.

I totally get that some people prefer higher settings over higher fps, as the perception of fluidity differs a lot among individuals. This is all about perception, and this is by nature a very subjective topic.

I just don't think it's intellectually honest to argue that anything above 75fps is unnecessary while clearly ignoring major points.

On 2/18/2025 at 12:40 PM, Ianrivaldosmith said:

For example, research conducted by the U.S. Air Force revealed pilots could often effectively interpret visual information at speeds significantly higher than 60 or 90 FPS. The research was for building a flight simulation system capable of delivering stable 120 FPS performance to match the pilots' high visual acuity and processing speed.

They’re even using flight simulation as a test case! 
 

Unless of course they were/are just stroking their ego… 😁

The article you quoted actually says the human eye does not see FPS but instead relies on smoothness.  Very cool how you take one quote and use that so I’ll do the same.  
 

Also, none of us flight simmers are training to become Navy pilots.

My issue with those defending your point of view is the elitist attitude that suggests you have to have the high end super computer to enjoy flight sim.  That’s simply not true and when you really come down from your perch and consider that you might see why their is value in me and others saying you can achieve a great experience in flight simming without a NASA level super computer.  I have for years and it’s only until recently that I’ve been privileged enough to have a really nice computer.  Are the visuals better- absolutely— but it’s not required. 

12 minutes ago, jspilot said:

Exactly correct.  When I had my new PC built by Jetline PC systems the guy from the company specifically went over this with me.  He said that if anyone outside of players using their computer for high level PC gaming competition in the first person shooter realm is trying to chase FPS over smoothness they are completely wrong.  He equated it to how much difference within reaction time and it was something absurdly small like .1 or .2 second difference in how quickly the image is generated beyond 45FPS give or take.  I’m sure my friend on this thread will say I’m making this up too but that’s cool.  It’s about smoothness for flight sim- not FPS.

You're missing the point that latency from mouse input to screen visibility is about 3-5 longer than render time, depending on the engine. 45 fps feel genuinely sluggish when you're playing a fast-paced shooter. 

That said, it's a very subjective matter, and I don't think your flying skills get better above 45fps, except maybe in some of the racing scenarios. Other than that, it's a personal preference, and a trade-off between image quality and framerate.

(excluding the case of VR and headtrackers, with them a sufficiently high framerate is a must)

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by pstrub

25 minutes ago, jspilot said:

It’s about smoothness for flight sim- not FPS.

And another one whose thinking ends to early. Hopeless it seems. But still (again): smooth and FPS are linked. You can not say it is smooth without having a very subjective number of FPS behind. And this number is not the same for anyone in here, what is so hard to get this? Even in your post you use FPS (although completely wrong). If your PC guy says that 45FPS are enough, what the heck leds you then the conclusion above? If it is NOT about FPS, how can you say X FPS are enough? Start thinking please...

Or else I turn this argument around: I say that totally constant 25FPS is enough. Your PC wants to sell you a more expensive rig if he insists on 45FPS, nobody needs this. You get the hint? You would be the first now telling me that no, 25FPS is not enough and you can easily see the difference between 25 and 45FPS... well. Yes, you can...

18 minutes ago, AnkH said:

And another one whose thinking ends to early. Hopeless it seems. But still (again): smooth and FPS are linked. You can not say it is smooth without having a very subjective number of FPS behind. And this number is not the same for anyone in here, what is so hard to get this? Even in your post you use FPS (although completely wrong). If your PC guy says that 45FPS are enough, what the heck leds you then the conclusion above? If it is NOT about FPS, how can you say X FPS are enough? Start thinking please...

Or else I turn this argument around: I say that totally constant 25FPS is enough. Your PC wants to sell you a more expensive rig if he insists on 45FPS, nobody needs this. You get the hint? You would be the first now telling me that no, 25FPS is not enough and you can easily see the difference between 25 and 45FPS... well. Yes, you can...

This is not about 45FPS being what works best for certain people( that’s literally a number I pulled from thin air.). What it’s about is the assertion that chasing FPS is what makes MSFS better.  It’s all subjective as you pointed out- correctly— and that’s exactly my point too.  But, there is a point at which FPS caps out in terms of usefulness and beyond that point, chasing FPS to come onto threads like this to state “well I get 120 FPS so my PC is the best” is exactly about satisfying some aspect of ego or being able to say I’m the best.  It’s just not even required.  The minimum specs on MSFS can still provide a solid experience for people and why should their experience be invalidated by this assertion that FPS is to be glorified.  
 

Listen- to each their own.  If it’s important for some on here to get glory for their computers than have at it- but deep down inside- they know they don’t really need such high FPS to run this sim and get enjoyment from it.

4 minutes ago, jspilot said:

chasing FPS to come onto threads like this to state “well I get 120 FPS so my PC is the best” is exactly about satisfying some aspect of ego or being able to say I’m the best.

So, and what if I say it is the exact opposite? That people with mid-range hardware constantly look for an "excuse" why they do not "need" such high FPS? You accuse people for pushing those numbers out for their ego to be confirmed and this thread here is all about why this is NOT the case (some for sure do). You say yourself that "there is a point at which FPS caps out in terms of usefulness" and that is 100% correct. BUT this point is individual, depends on the monitor on how you are used to high FPS numbers etc. It is ENTIRELY subjective, yet people like you come here to lecture others about this "point at which FPS caps out" is somewhere at a defined FPS number and everybody saying that he needs more FPS to achieve a fluid and smooth sim is talking bull because it is only for ego reasons. Think about it...

33 minutes ago, AnkH said:

So, and what if I say it is the exact opposite? That people with mid-range hardware constantly look for an "excuse" why they do not "need" such high FPS? You accuse people for pushing those numbers out for their ego to be confirmed and this thread here is all about why this is NOT the case (some for sure do). You say yourself that "there is a point at which FPS caps out in terms of usefulness" and that is 100% correct. BUT this point is individual, depends on the monitor on how you are used to high FPS numbers etc. It is ENTIRELY subjective, yet people like you come here to lecture others about this "point at which FPS caps out" is somewhere at a defined FPS number and everybody saying that he needs more FPS to achieve a fluid and smooth sim is talking bull because it is only for ego reasons. Think about it...

I’m not lecturing anyone- I’m saying that there is an element of ego stroking when you are getting such FPS numbers that exceed what is actually required.  If someone can make a valid assertion for why FPS in the 100’s is needed for them than that’s cool and to each their own.  But you know as much as I that that is not actually the real reason some on he have reacted with such defensiveness to my assertion.  They want to be able to say their computer can do these levels of FPS because they enjoy being able to say that.

The obsession for to have and encourage you for to have and accept low fps, yes, that is an obsession.

In the end, we all have different thresholds that are acceptable to us with respect to framerates and stutters. I used to get some quite nasty stutters in P3Dv4 with the same PC, but those have almost completely vanished in MSFS 2020, and at significantly higher detail levels. That alone is enough to put a smile on my face I do not have to make excuses for accepting lower framerates on my 2015 specification PC. I just genuinely do not care. On the other hand, there are guys who simply cannot accept anything less than 60fps at any time, and are prepared to sacrifice detail to get it. There is nothing wrong with that, but I am so glad that I am not in that club. It would stop me from being able to render super detailed airports in all of their graphical splendour, and that is what is unacceptable to me

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by Christopher Low