Just my .02 but I completely agree with @AnkH here.  I know what @Noel is saying and to a certain extent I understand that if you stare out 1/2 mile into the horizon you may not see a difference between 30/60/90/120 FPS with = FTV However 

Even with the same FTV 30/60/90/120FPS will all produce very different results as soon as you look at anything but the horizon.  Panning is obvious however with = FTV 30/60/90/120 FPS all produce a different experience and the difference is obvious the second you look at "anything" in motion...    That means the ground speed, cloud speed, instrument display refresh, AI speed, the speed of runway lights as you pass them, animations like wing flex, turbulence all happen much differently at higher FPS in addition to "unlocking" the sim and the system to drive much higher setting AT higher FPS with = FTV.   I don't understand trying to conserve system resources so long as you are within the safe operating thresholds.  I run my equipment as hard as possible no different than my cars LOL and the only thing I have to account for is heat.  I have never had a component fail due to being pushed even over the course of years so I don't understand "conserving" system resources.

Now granted the difference between 30 and 60 is the greatest, I can't really tell 60-90 but when I watch everything I described above at 120FPS after FG at X2 from 60 FPS it all appears much more fluid, much more life like and a much closer perception of speed to the real world.  When you couple that with being able to INCREASE settings to almost full right with TLOD at 375 and OLOD at 175 it is a complete sim changer.   I mean watching the 777 wings dance in heavy turbulence at 120FPS AND stable FTV with the clouds genuinely producing a sensation of speed as you pass them is hard to compare to 30 FPS even with FTV accounted for.  

I don't deny 30 with equal ftv can look smooth but there is a perception of speed that increases as does the FPS. 

It's no different than a race sim.  the same FTV at 30 FPS is always going to feel slower than 60 FPS or 120 FPS.  The speed of "everything" increases.

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by psolk

1 hour ago, psolk said:

Even with the same FTV 30/60/90/120FPS will all produce very different results as soon as you look at anything but the horizon....

It's no different than a race sim.  the same FTV at 30 FPS is always going to feel slower than 60 FPS or 120 FPS.

You've lumped everything from point-blank range at a side window frame of your plane all the way out to the horizon with nothing in between, no difference in perception?   The reality is when you're flying along at 5K AGL looking straight out the side window at a high rise 1/4 mile away that high rise moved a grand total of 0.2" in one second on your display.  Out at an object 10 miles away it's moved 0.001 inches.  (Just guesses to make the point) There's a giant difference the farther you are from the object and you're ignoring that in this overview.  And in a race sim you're running at high speed right next to the outside ground world.  Not so up in the air, drastically different, at least when off the ground.  And when you're taxiing the speed factor is greatly reduced.   Now if you taxi around a racetrack in an airplane at 200mph, sure 😉.

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by Noel

28 minutes ago, Noel said:

You've lumped everything from point-blank range at a side window frame of your plane all the way out to the horizon with nothing in between, no difference in perception?   The reality is when you're flying along at 5K AGL looking straight out the side window at a high rise 1/4 mile away that high rise moved a grand total of 0.2" in one second on your display.  Out at an object 10 miles away it's moved 0.001 inches.  (Just guesses to make the point) There's a giant difference the farther you are from the object and you're ignoring that in this overview.  And in a race sim you're running at high speed right next to the outside ground world.  Not so up in the air, drastically different, at least when off the ground.  And when you're taxiing the speed factor is greatly reduced.   Now if you taxi around a racetrack in an airplane at 200mph, sure 😉.

To be fair, no one said anything about looking at a high rise from 1/4 mile away however since you brought it up, that same high rise when you pass over it on final approach at a greater sense of speed is certainly better for immersion.  Watching AI pass that same highrise on approach it will pass with a greater sense of speed.  So you are talking apples to my oranges as what I said was

1 hour ago, psolk said:

That means the ground speed, cloud speed, instrument display refresh, AI speed, the speed of runway lights as you pass them, animations like wing flex, turbulence all happen much differently at higher FPS in addition to "unlocking" the sim and the system to drive much higher setting AT higher FPS with = FTV. 

Then there is that whole aspect of takeoff and landing where a greater sense of speed provided it doesn't impair fluidity absolutely leads to greater immersion.  So yeah, maybe you don't taxi around at 200 mph but I departed this morning at 184 kts and last I checked takeoff and landing were pretty big parts of the flight... I like how you went from 5k AGL to taxi but never mentioned takeoff or landing LOL...

I think you knew what I was expressing as well but if you want to argue the premise based on a high rise from 5K then so be it.  I would say a sense of "speed" is quite important to flying and a better sense of speed in the sim leads to a better sense of immersion... 

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by psolk

19 minutes ago, psolk said:

I think you knew what I was expressing as well but if you want to argue the premise based on a high rise from 5K then so be it. 

My only point was to emphasize speed and relative distance have huge roles to play and as a consequence of that there are scenarios, like the one I used as an example, where the difference between 30FPS w/ sterling FTV to 60FPS w/ sterling FTV would not be discernable...until you panned, etc.

30FPs is so P

26 minutes ago, psolk said:

I would say a sense of "speed" is quite important to flying and a better sense of speed in the sim leads to a better sense of immersion..

100%. This is the point I always try to make. MSFS at 100FPS on a G-sync display is stunning. The sense of motion/speed is really quite something. Even more so when on final approach, when the buildings are passing by, even the the high rises 🙂 

4 minutes ago, Noel said:

My only point was to emphasize speed and relative distance have huge roles to play and as a consequence of that there are scenarios, like the one I used as an example, where the difference between 30FPS w/ sterling FTV to 60FPS w/ sterling FTV would not be discernable...until you panned, etc.

Sure, if you sit there at 5k AGL and stared straight ahead at an object on the ground without moving the view vs everything I described...     

9 minutes ago, Noel said:

where the difference between 30FPS w/ sterling FTV to 60FPS w/ sterling FTV would not be discernable...until you panned, etc.

Interesting you say 'until you panned', users of trackIR are always panning on final, even small movements. And I wonder how this will play out with the new physics based camera that is coming out soon. Flying the pattern, scanning the sky, looking out the left windows and back to the front repeat repeat repeat. Now that requires high FPS for the motion alone. 

I understand where you are coming from with the 30 FPS locked, but as the youngsters would say that is so last gen! the second you look/pan around, the 30FPS shatters the belief of flying. It is simply not fluid enough. Sure at cruise you don't notice, but on take off and approach? 100% I do notice.  

 

PS 30 FPS was great in the days before virtual cockpit's. Since then, its been an almost uphill battle to get greater FPS. Now we have reached that with the help of FG, man, why anyone would want anything less than 60 now beggars belief, especially with all the new high hz monitors released and releasing. Even my TV is 120HZ! 

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

3 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

30FPs is so P

100%. This is the point I always try to make. MSFS at 100FPS on a G-sync display is stunning. The sense of motion/speed is really quite something. Even more so when on final approach, when the buildings are passing by, even the the high rises 🙂 

This, and it has nothing to do with "chasing FPS" but if you can achieve it without sacrificing FTV AND increasing your setting simultaneously then it is absolutely sim nirvana.  

FPS is simply a metric but if you want to compare then you need a baseline system like an XBOX.

dd

4 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Interesting you say 'until you panned', users of trackIR are always panning on final, even small movements.

I said until you pan because that is when the diff between 30 and 60FPS becomes apparent.

4 hours ago, psolk said:

if you can achieve it without sacrificing FTV AND increasing your setting simultaneously then it is absolutely sim nirvana.  

That's where I've been for a while and why adding performance-demanding apps matters.  

12 hours ago, AnkH said:

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

But I said more than that ... it's tied to motion.  If I'm at 33000 feet looking down at the terrain below travelling at 500 KTS or so the rendered scene is barely changing, 30 FPS, 60 FPS, 120 FPS, 240 FPS and it will look and feel the same. 

Now if I'm at 500 feet traveling at 500 KTS then even 240 FPS isn't going to capture every frame relative to the 1m resolution world, you'd need to be around 500 FPS or higher and like I said, there is no way a human brain could actually identify each frame ... when someone fires a bullet do you see it?  Only Neo in the Matrix can do that and he's just a computer program 😉

 

Edited February 15, 20251 yr by CO2Neutral

10 hours ago, psolk said:

It's no different than a race sim.

Race sims typically don't operate 6 miles away from terrain below.  I do agree that the more motion relative to field of view can easily exceed 240 FPS, 500 FPS, 1000 FPS, but so what, the human brain can't identify what was in all 1000 frames per second ... so the FPS hunt from that perspective is pointless ... what are you actually seeing and responding to?  Like I said above, do you see a bullet travelling after it's been fired from a gun?  No, but if you capture motion at 16,000 FPS at a fixed position then slow the footage down to 30-60 FPS you can 😉 

Edited February 15, 20251 yr by CO2Neutral

12 hours ago, AnkH said:

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...

So what exactly is the point if you can't recognize what was in the frame?

FPS "Frames per second" counting is for shooter games that counts for every frame. MSFS is perfectly fine at a steady 60 FPS and not intense at all as long as it is a smooth consistent experience. VR users would probably benefit for the extra frames though.