2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

For some, 90% of their flight is nothing other than monitoring systems.

Many are flying GA, helicopters, military or bush flying without using an autopilot.

1 hour ago, psolk said:

And for those 100 airline simmers every aspect of motion in a desktop title that is fundamentally based on motion is better at higher FPS (provided FTV and IQ are not being sacrificed in the process)

Absolutely better, about 0.5% better total experience.  When flying airliners at 60fps, which many to most of us can do these days via FG, going up to 100fps improves the experience by about 0.5%, if that.  

Like I said, we need to stop chasing FPS otherwise nVidia/AMD/Intel are going to continue down the road of “compromises” to get higher FPS.  There is another way, but when consumers can only related to FPS as a metric, there will never be much research into efficiency, optimization, better quality rendering, better AA options, better implementation of light, more accurate reflections, more realistic shadows, less banding, and stop just adding more cores, more VRAM, and more frequency.  FPS hunters aren’t driving progress … they’re driving compromises … proof is the lack of DX13 and being stuck in Dx11 for a decades, and people think Dx12 is “new” … its not, 2015 - 10 years old.

The way nVidia are heading, every PC that wants one of their GPUs will be required to have two PSUs … let’s face it, 5090 melting wires at both connection points … something needs to change.

In other words, we’re sending the WRONG message to graphics hardware providers.

 

 

Edited February 16, 20251 yr by CO2Neutral

3 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

In other words, we’re sending the WRONG message to graphics hardware providers.

 

 

No that should not be the goal. Put pressure on Software developers not taking advantage of Hardware and make better use of it .i.e. MSFS.

Edited February 16, 20251 yr by JBDB-MD80

Give me smoothness every day at a good fps like 60 than theoretically 'higher' numbers that look good on a graph but terrible in the sim when trying to sync with your monitor. 

Been taking a short break from simming to catch up on a game I purchased a few weeks back. Cyberpunk 2077. After running msfs and p3d in what was a smooth 60 fps I am blown away at what ACTUAL smooth 60 looks like. Ultra settings at 4k in a busy fictitious city center with hundreds maybe thousands of people and cars moving on screen and I can pan slow or quick all over the place and it's SMOOTH. No stutters no pauses for loading new areas. Still only just started the game but still. 

It CAN be done. 

11 hours ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

Excuse me but FPS  has nothing to do with stutters. That is a fact. Its more about consistent frame rate and 120 FPS is not going to make you the best game/Sim pilot in the world.

 

Excused. Now go back and read what I wrote correctly. 

10 hours ago, Noel said:

by about 0.5%

Where do you get your percentage points from? Are they calculated from some figures I am missing? 

Edited February 16, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

13 hours ago, Noel said:

Right, and for every 100 simmers sitting in an airbus cockpit at 30K feet there might be 1 simmer doing aerobatics.

The addon market begs to differ. 

5 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

I am blown away at what ACTUAL smooth 60 looks like. Ultra settings at 4k

I run 2024 and it is ACTUALLY smooth, with consistent FPS and FTV.  How can other software, with the same FTV and FPS be smoother?

On 2/14/2025 at 5:18 AM, AnkH said:

As I wrote, your "my sim works smoothly" is exactly the same statement as "my sim runs at constant 70FPS", except your "smooth" is a less precise, more subjective measure. The meaning is the same, so why accusing those preferring numbers to use it as a "status symbol"? 

Because it is-  essentially no one can tell frames per second beyond a certain number anyway so when it’s like “I got 75FPS” it’s totally about the status that the system they paid for is better than others.  Does not make them bad people it’s just the reality of the situation.

13 minutes ago, jspilot said:

I got 75FPS” it’s totally about the status that the system they paid for is better than others.

No it’s really not at all. I get 120 FPS sometimes, other times I get 80. I need higher than 100 ideally for smooth head tracking and to match my higher hz displays. It’s got absolutely zero to do with status. 

7 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

No it’s really not at all. I get 120 FPS sometimes, other times I get 80. I need higher than 100 ideally for smooth head tracking and to match my higher hz displays. It’s got absolutely zero to do with status. 

Cool- for you that’s true.  For 90% of the people playing MSFS it’s not.

12 hours ago, jspilot said:

Cool- for you that’s true.  For 90% of the people playing MSFS it’s not.

Somebody else quoting these mysterious numbers. Where do you derive 90% from? 

Edited February 17, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

I'm happy locked @30 with 1/2 refresh rate. 1080P monitor.

4 hours ago, CFIJose said:

I'm happy locked @30 with 1/2 refresh rate. 1080P monitor.

'Happy' is good.