2 hours ago, jspilot said:

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

I am not on a perch nor am I elitist. If I were it’s highly doubtful I would visit Avsim! 
 

However what I am is a simmer since 1990 and I have used 30FPS locked Right up until xplane shifted to Vulcan, I believe if memory serves me right during XP11, and what that did was unlock performance to enable higher FPS. It was at that moment I realised that higher FPS (linked to higher HZ) gives a better sensation of flight. And this is a flight sim, and that’s what we all want. Higher FPS matter, just as much as FTV. 
 

Also you don’t need a ‘high end super computer’ as you put it, to achieve this. Hence the reason frame generation was invented. ALL of the technology these days is aiming for higher FPS, we have higher HZ monitors AND TV’s. If 30 FPS was fine, then why would they bother. 
 

The sense of feeling of flight is much more apparent at 120FPS/HZ with a good FTV than it is at 30FPS. My eyes don’t deceive me. Nor do my senses. It’s a fluidity of motion that simply can’t be achieved at 30FPs, and the UFO test proves this. 

1 hour ago, jspilot said:

I’m saying that there is an element of ego stroking when you are getting such FPS numbers

For the third time in this discussion, no there isn’t. Just because somebody owns something nice doesn’t mean they’re stroking their ego. Someone drives past you in a nice car, is that the first conclusion you come to? Someone walks past you in an expensive jacket, that the first conclusion you come to? I hope not, otherwise it just seems to me like you have a case of the green eyed monster. 

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

4 hours ago, peloto said:

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

You think 75 FPS is low?

6 hours ago, AnkH said:

And another one whose thinking ends to early. Hopeless it seems.

You'd probably get more support for your "feelings" if you avoid your emotional attacks because you don't agree ... if "smooth" is a feeling to you then great, that's your feelings/perception.  If you want to chase FPS beyond 75 then go for it, if it makes you "feel" better then great.

BTW, telling others to answer your questions when you avoid their questions, doesn't improve your stance.  I did watch those videos posted and agreed with them ... and it was more than just that high FPS gives headaches.

With the quest for higher FPS comes "fake":

A good analysis of higher FPS in exchange for lower image quality ... just what I don't want from my GPU.  But there again, I'm not a professional gamer so 75 FPS with all the "compromises" turned OFF will be everything I need or want.

 

On 2/13/2025 at 7:34 PM, Ron Attwood said:

Man after my own heart. But you're wasting your time. People, and they won't be posting on here, will still swear blind they can see the difference between 100fps and 110fps. Leave 'em to it mate. 😁

It is partly 'seeing' the difference (less blurring  of objects on screen at higher Hz and FPS), it is more 'feeling' the difference in fluidity of movement.

I ran at 33fps for four years, and the SIM was smooth.  That doesn't stop 60fps being smoother still and 120 smoother still.  

 

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by MrBitstFlyer

9 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

If you want to chase FPS beyond 75 then go for it, if it makes you "feel" better then great.

I'd pay money or even bet money in a double-blinded test restricted to actual NORMAL use of the flight sim, that is to say not some kind of esoteric test to tease out the diff between say 75fps and 120fps.  It's an obsession, meaning a focus on something out of sync with reality, given more value than it deserves.   Just my take, of course ;o)

120FPS:   Fake Placebo Smoothing 🤣

Oh I kid the obsessed have at it whatever flies your plane

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by Noel

I've never looked at what FPS I get.

I do tune the sim to a get graphics that I find acceptable but i just judge the results by what I see on the screen.

My FPS figures might be what some users would call appalling or they may be awesome judged by the same users, I honestly have no idea.

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

You think 75 FPS is low?

Yes and no, it depends in many factors, circumstances and personal necessities, capabilities and preferences etc., all valids, and opinions and preferences not better or worse than other, but no an obsession hahaha, 

"noun

the domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc."

 

I have 50-60 in VR, and I would love to have 120fps for a better experience with all in ultra, though I am not obsessed with that hahaha.

1 hour ago, Noel said:

that is to say not some kind of esoteric test to tease out the diff between say 75fps and 120fps.

If ones system is capable of 120fps with FG at the settings desired, why use 75fps as a stop point?  As fps gets higher on a display capable of the required Hz, the image is more fluid and clearer.   120fps is only mentioned because that is the limit with FG that todays systems can manage.  Those with the new 50 series NVidia cards may be capable of more fps, so why not use that power for even greater fluidity in the sim?

There is a noticeable difference in realism between 60fps (no FG) and 120fps (with FG).  Personally, the slight artifacts I see are more than worth that extra fluidity.  I don't use these settings for anything other than increasing realism to the experience - ego doesn't come into it as some have suggested.

I had a blast flying in 2020 at 33fps for four years.  I can now have a more realistic blast at 120fps, so any suggestion one should stop at XXfps just seems plain odd to me and is a waste of available resources..

36 minutes ago, peloto said:

I have 50-60 in VR, and I would love to have 120fps for a better experience with all in ultra, though I am not obsessed with that hahaha.

Your not obsessed with it because your hardware isn't capable of it.  when you next upgrade and can achieve 120fps, I bet you won't stay with 50-60.

1 hour ago, Rusty Spanner said:

I've never looked at what FPS I get.

Ok, doesn't mean you are not trying to increase it.

1 hour ago, Rusty Spanner said:

I do tune the sim to a get graphics that I find acceptable but i just judge the results by what I see on the screen.

Tuning the sim includes increasing FPS whether you look at the numbers or not.  Your perception of smoothness and realism will include increasing FPS.

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

A good analysis of higher FPS in exchange for lower image quality

I agree chasing FPS by dropping image quality or to get higher on a table may be our idea of a waste of time.  Personally I find those that go fishing to be very odd people, but I understand we all get excited about different things.

I want realism in my flightsim.  I want the best graphics I can get in my flightsim.  I was happy with 33fps for four years, because that is all I could get with ultra settings (ultra more important to me than fps). Now I can get 60fps with ultra settings, or 120fps with ultra settings plus FG.

There is no way I would use FG to get 120fps if it drastically reduced my settings to achieve it - too much lost just for the fps.  However, my perception of FG with DLSS 4 is very slight artifacting to some instrument digits.  TAA causes smearing to plenty of objects on screen and causes trails behind other aircraft.  Therefore, FG is worth it for the extra FPS because I gain fluidity in the sim as well as increased clarity when panning my view or making sharp turns.

Personally I couldn't give a word not allowed if this extra fluidity comes at 60, 75 or 120 fps.

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by MrBitstFlyer

8 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

If ones system is capable of 120fps with FG at the settings desired, why use 75fps as a stop point? 

We have identical PCs.  You are absolutely dialing back some level of IQ as a trade for more frames.  You chose ghosted/smeared GC characters.  You chose a lesser quality of DLSS4 when you chose Quality over DLAA.  You chose TLOD of something well under the 300 I use which on the ground gives me the best detail in the Front Range from where I sit in tarmac.  And in the end in a double blinded test I do not believe you could tell the difference more than half the time when using the sim in any normal way.  Further, you will absolutely use more electricity and for what?  More "smoothness"?  YOU stated you were so blown away by "33FPS" way back when that was the best you could do when you appreciated the role of FTV in the perception of smooth animation.   All that said, if absolutely everything is maxed for IQ and also you have sufficient headroom to accommodate transient spikes in demand, sure increase your frame rate and use more power.

1 minute ago, Noel said:

We have identical PCs.  You are absolutely dialing back some level of IQ as a trade for more frames.

No, I am not.  Everything is on ultra, absolutely every setting that doesn't go higher than high.  I 100% would not trade IQ for FPS.

 

3 minutes ago, Noel said:

You chose ghosted/smeared GC characters.

As opposed to smeared objects in the terrain or trails behind aircraft by using TAA.  This is a personal choice, because a tiny amount of smeared digits is a better payoff for me when considering overall image quality.

 

4 minutes ago, Noel said:

You chose a lesser quality of DLSS4 when you chose Quality over DLAA.

You agree there is little difference between 75 or 120fps, and I say there is very little difference between DLAA and DLSS Ultra Quality that I use.  If I can't detect any difference between the two, why choose DLAA?

8 minutes ago, Noel said:

You chose TLOD of something well under the 300

I use AutoFPS for 100 TLOD at ground level and 400 TLOD at 2,000ft.

9 minutes ago, Noel said:

Further, you will absolutely use more electricity and for what?  More "smoothness"?

No, more fluidity.  

 

10 minutes ago, Noel said:

YOU stated you were so blown away by "33FPS" way back when that was the best you could do

Yes, when that was the best I could do.  Now I can do better, so I do!

 

11 minutes ago, Noel said:

All that said, if absolutely everything is maxed for IQ and also you have sufficient headroom to accommodate transient spikes in demand, sure increase your frame rate and use more power.

The increase in fluidity I get at 120fps is a joy to behold and increases my enjoyment of the sim no end. I have a 240Hz monitor with VRR so I don't notice the odd spike at 120FPS.  Just about every setting in the sim is a compromise to achieve what is important to us.  If I don't notice the odd spike (which I will only see over a very dense area like Los Angeles), why drop something else?