I've been gaming since the Atari 2600 and commadore 64 days and have played most consoles, settling with a PC as my primary rig. I've always looked for smoothness in my games. If the game didn't stutter then I considered it fine. Never noticed a difference in the higher FPS counts to be honest. CPU/GPU heat has become my primary concern like some of you on this thread. I use a FPS limiter locked at 30 so it keeps the computer cool. Me and my wife game and two computers can really heat up a room so we need whatever advantage we can get.

A couple of thoughts:

• There comes a point when chasing higher FPS is indeed not yielding any notable results but if that's what someone wants to do then why not let them.
• I can absolutely tell the difference between 20, 40 and 100 FPS and this whole "the eye can't process more than 30" myth was debunked a while ago. Otherwise there would be no point for TV and screen manufacturers to invest money into R&D and release models with 120 or 240hz refresh rates.
• My screen can run 165hz but I agree that once you pass 60 the difference becomes much less notable than the jump from 30 to 60.
• I have a G-Sync screen and the minimum threshold for that to kick in is 49 FPS.
• Many addons require at least 30 FPS to function properly. Try running the Fenix with 15 FPS, the display just become a laggy mess. When using time acceleration with things like the Fenix or the PMDG it also requires a minimum FPS value.
• I use native Framegen and the minimum value I aim for in MSFS24 is 30 "true" FPS so that my output is 60 FPS. That ensures that all my addons work properly (the Fenix display stutters happen when the "true" FPS value is low, even if the output after Framegen is 100 FPS) and the G-Sync works on the post-Framegen value, so with 60 I have sufficient headroom to the minimum 49 FPS to ensure that it's a smooth experience even in demanding scenarios.
• When I turn off FG and run 30 FPS it's like watching a black & white movie vs a 4K colour one, it's really no comparison in terms of how smooth 60 is with a G-Sync. Locking to 30hz doesn't make it any better either.

15 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

For smoothness you need to be focussing on FrameTime - the time between each displayed frame remaining consistent.  Great post by @Noel a while back, but I haven't the time to search for it right now. Calling @Noel 🙂

RTSS' 'front edge sync' along with a G-sync display yielded the best frame time variance of all locking methods available.  I noticed a smoothness never appreciated previously with this BEFORE I even knew what FTV was.   Here was my original post on this:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/628655-ultimate-smoothness-at-modest-frame-rates/#findComment-4899096

Low FPS of course is easily noticed when there is enough motion to reveal individual frames and also of course very low FTV doesn't address that. For example during panning when you're just a few virtual inches from the inside surfaces of an aircraft cockpit, the faster it is the more obvious it is.  But as all who continue to use 30FPS know because it's the best they can muster relative to the settings they prefer the outside view pans just fine because with the relative distances involved the number of pixels per frame while taxi or flying are low enough not to be perceived.  Put another way it's mostly panning that reveals lower FPS.

8 minutes ago, Noel said:

RTSS' 'front edge sync' along with a G-sync display yielded the best frame time variance of all locking methods available. 

I agree, I also use this, but with frame generation. I still did not get how I can limit the "real" FPS with an external tool, e.g. currently when I use a limit of 60 in RTSS, this results in 30 real FPS within MSFS and only then frame generation is applied to fullfill the 60FPS RTSS limit. No idea if it would make any difference, but it would be nice to once try a limit before FG is applied. It should result in even more stable fps, no?

7 minutes ago, AnkH said:

I agree, I also use this, but with frame generation. I still did not get how I can limit the "real" FPS with an external tool, e.g. currently when I use a limit of 60 in RTSS, this results in 30 real FPS within MSFS and only then frame generation is applied to fullfill the 60FPS RTSS limit. No idea if it would make any difference, but it would be nice to once try a limit before FG is applied. It should result in even more stable fps, no?

RTSS wasn’t working with native frame gen the last time I tried it to limit fps in msfs2024.

Yeah, everything is so much better than a smooth/solid 24 fps on the previous simulators. Yeah. Can't go back to those. Everything is better: smoother, fps, how it looks and less mods needed, less scenery needed, no hours of orthotiles getting fixed, headtracking is smoother.....

My only main issues are Photogammetry looking melted half the time and the occasional but really annoying stutter/pause.

AutoFPS, FG have spoiled us to where now when we get a pause/stutter its pretty annoying. At least for me.

 

41 minutes ago, Noel said:

RTSS' 'front edge sync' along with a G-sync display yielded the best frame time variance of all locking methods available.  I noticed a smoothness never appreciated previously with this BEFORE I even knew what FTV was.   Here was my original post on this:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/628655-ultimate-smoothness-at-modest-frame-rates/#findComment-4899096

Low FPS of course is easily noticed when there is enough motion to reveal individual frames and also of course very low FTV doesn't address that. For example during panning when you're just a few virtual inches from the inside surfaces of an aircraft cockpit, the faster it is the more obvious it is.  But as all who continue to use 30FPS know because it's the best they can muster relative to the settings they prefer the outside view pans just fine because with the relative distances involved the number of pixels per frame while taxi or flying are low enough not to be perceived.  Put another way it's mostly panning that reveals lower FPS.

Trying this again. My only issue is that I cannot select msfs 2020 or 2024 as its exe is under "admin" privelages even though I already am the admin..

50 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

AutoFPS, FG have spoiled us to where now when we get a pause/stutter its pretty annoying. At least for me.

Avoiding AutoFPS/FG/Lossless Scaling has saved me the trouble of worrying about the odd little stutter. The comparison between MSFS 2020 and P3D where stutters are concerned is like the difference between day and night, so it is already a massive improvement.

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by Christopher Low

1 hour ago, Sonosusto said:

Trying this again. My only issue is that I cannot select msfs 2020 or 2024 as its exe is under "admin" privelages even though I already am the admin..

Not sure what you refer to as RTSS' global settings work with no reference to any app I believe it works with all running 3D apps unless you enter an exclusion which I did for BATC at their suggestion to try to resolve stuttering AI traffic. 

I believe very low FTV is an indicator of lack of what we might call 'microstutters', whereas bigger/longer stutters will not be improved by this except perhaps when there is big overhead afforded, for example when locking at 30FPS native and doubling with FG, as others settings allow, like this:


  Setup like this:

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by Noel

7 hours ago, AnkH said:

As I wrote, your "my sim works smoothly" is exactly the same statement as "my sim runs at constant 70FPS"

Disagree.  Smooth = consistent timing in the rendering of frames.  FPS is a measure of how many frames are rendered per second and doesn't require timing consistency ... over the course of 1 second some frames could render in 8ms, some 33ms with a total of 60 frames render in 1 second ... which is NOT what they eye/brain wants to see to interpret as "smooth" because the frame timing varies (doesn't matter if it's 30, 60, 120, 240).  As you increase FPS it's more likely you are going to see larger variants in timing from frame to frame ... it make be less noticeable when frames fluctuation from 4ms to 8ms because the brain simply doesn't pickup on it, but it's still not "smooth".

As pointed out by Ianrivaldosmith how much "motion" you trigger will be a factor in the perception of "smooth".  If you fly large commercial type aircraft like say 747, 787, etc. (or even smaller aircraft) and you aren't doing rapid movements (a normal situation), a consistent 33.3 ms frame render will be "smooth" and it will feel smooth exactly the same as if at 60 FPS, 120 FPS, 240 FPS.  

If you fly acrobatic aircraft or use VR or use TrackIR and do a lot of rapid motion, then you'll probably want 60 FPS or more (IF your hardware can never take longer than 16.6ms to render a frame).  

Is the eye/brain actually recognizing every 240 frames rendered per second?  No, not even close.

4 hours ago, Blueline308 said:

, GPU makers and the like to code better, develop better and move the gaming industry forward

I like hardware to be pushed forward also, BUT DLSS isn't really improving rendering performance, it's using historical frame to predict a future frame to show using the historical frame as a base ... it's not a real render.  IMHO, that's sort like tossing in the towel on actual performance improvements to come up with a compromise just so people get higher FPS.  It's essentially duping the FPS hunters.

Ray Tracing is another technology poorly implemented yet highly touted.  RT makes a reflections look unrealistic, yes they look dynamic and give the wow factor, but they don't represent how reflections look in the real world ... way over the top reflective.  

DLSS, FSR, RT are technologies that I don't find as "moving forward" ... certainly are NOT technologies used in Movie quality CGI.  I have a hard time identifying compromises as advancement in rendering performance.  When RT is OFF, the 5090 is only about 15% faster than a 4090.

3 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

RTSS wasn’t working with native frame gen the last time I tried it to limit fps in msfs2024.

Works fine in 2024.

45 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

will be "smooth" and it will feel smooth exactly the same as if at 60 FPS, 120 FPS, 240 FPS.  

 

Is the eye/brain actually recognizing every 240 frames rendered per second?  No, not even close.

You are right about the smooth part, all I am saying that it is equally linked to FPS, as you have proven by your post. But wrong is the fact that 30, 60, 120 etc. FPS will all look equally smooth if frame times are absolutely constant, this is just plain wrong: testufo.com go ove. there and look for yourself. If you perceive the tests at 30, 60 and 120FPS as equally smooth, you should visit a optician.

And you should not try to see our vision (eye and brain processing visual inputs) as a machine, it is not. You do not have to perceive 240 frames individually to see a difference vs. 60 FPS, given the monitor refreshrate is 240Hz or more. There were tests with fighter pilots correctly recognizing a plane shown for as little as 1/250th of a second btw. Of course, if the same pilot would have presented 250 planes within a second, he would not have been able to see and recognize all of them, but that is not the point of high FPS anyway...

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

As pointed out by Ianrivaldosmith how much "motion" you trigger will be a factor in the perception of "smooth".  If you fly large commercial type aircraft like say 747, 787, etc. (or even smaller aircraft) and you aren't doing rapid movements (a normal situation), a consistent 33.3 ms frame render will be "smooth" and it will feel smooth exactly the same as if at 60 FPS, 120 FPS, 240 FPS

100% agree.  And this is also a function of pixel density and even viewing distance.  As we all appreciate we are often panning in the VC and this immediately betrays the difference between 30, 45, 60, 100 FPS, it's that motion thing at point blank range to the interior surfaces of the VC that reveals the difference.  But if you didn't pan, and chugged along at 30FPS with exquisitely low FTV looking out the window at scenery 1/2 mile away you won't notice any difference between it an higher frame rates because they look identical...relative to viewing distance, pixel density of course.  If you had a 36" 480p display you'd notice it for sure 😉

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by Noel

4 hours ago, Sonosusto said:

Trying this again. My only issue is that I cannot select msfs 2020 or 2024 as its exe is under "admin" privelages even though I already am the admin..

Run RTSS before MSFS, then run MSFS and when MSFS runs, press the ADD button on the RTSS while holding CTRL. Then select Flightsimulator.exe

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by Lange_666