5 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I believe @scotchegg likes this particular analogy.

Comforting to know my distaste for ill-fitting car analogies has been noted😅

400 HP... Laughable.  My Crossover has that and is faster 0-60 than my race car which has 70 HP less but is 10 seconds a lap quicker...  It's laughable that's the analogy, a dual motor Tesla has 450HP and we are getting into the 500-1,000 HP category now 🙂

So If my race car leaves the West Coast at noon and my crossover leaves the East Coast at noon when will anyone give a cr*p?  

Correct, Never!!  Don't bring a car analogy to a flightsim fight 😉 

5 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Before I got my new PC I ran at about 33fps. Following guidance from @Noel I got my FTV stable. I was very happy with the smoothness.

I was in a thread where @Ianrivaldosmith pointed out a much higher FPS was smoother - didn't really believe it.  

If you didn't really believe that you were ignoring the reality the role low frame rates plays despite excellent frame pacing is playing. Take that down to 20fps and there would have been no doubt. You, like me, had not seen 33fps with a super low FTV and that was golden for its time.  By the same token there is a point of diminishing returns where you're trading some element of IQ to accomplish 120fps at least with current hardware.   That is only 60fps doubled which is easy to do in 2024 unless you have competing loads coming from various addons which most users have.   I am able to run the Longitude including using TAA and all of the other ultra sharpening algorithms to produce best ever IQ and no ghosting of glass cockpit characters but that is limited to around 80FPS-fg, which is amply sufficient to offset the role of frame rate in the perception of smoothness with all scenarios here including rapid panning.  Plus, DLSS4 doesn't play well with some cloud renderings in 2024 but it's a non issue in 2020. And here's something:  in 2020 DLSS4 + DLAA is much easier on performance compared to TAA.  But in 2024 DLSS + DLAA is essentially identical to TAA performance-wise.   Hence, TAA is more attractive again in 2024 and gets rid of ghosting/smearing.

 

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by Noel

I tune my settings to achieve an FPS of 60-65 with FG. As I mostly fly airliners with ATC addons, I'm happy with that. Right now, I'm testing a new AutoFPS build to see how it handles locked FPS. Thus, it is incredibly useful to monitor FPS and frame time variance to see how the sim performs. If I get stutters, I know that my settings are too high. Usually, that means that I need to reduce the TLOD, amount of AI traffic, or both. 

Once I'm happy with everything, I don't need the performance overlay anymore. Am I obsessed with FPS then? I might very well be. So be it 🙂

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by Cpt_Piett

15 hours ago, AnkH said:

You still dont get it

No you don’t get it and I’m not interested in controlling the conversation.

You talking about perception of “smooth” and not actual consistency of time to present an image.  

When you see a graph showing fluctuations of 90-120 FPS over a given duration because Vsynch is off that is NOT a smooth graph (endless evidence presenting this).  You perceive it as “feeling smooth” because your brain can’t distinguish anything above 75 FPS or so.

Now back to actual human recognition and ability to respond, fastest trained humans are 100-120 ms from input to output … 120 FPS is 8ms per frame.

5 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

No you don’t get it and I’m not interested in controlling the conversation.

You talking about perception of “smooth” and not actual consistency of time to present an image.  

When you see a graph showing fluctuations of 90-120 FPS over a given duration because Vsynch is off that is NOT a smooth graph (endless evidence presenting this).  You perceive it as “feeling smooth” because your brain can’t distinguish anything above 75 FPS or so.

Now back to actual human recognition and ability to respond, fastest trained humans are 100-120 ms from input to output … 120 FPS is 8ms per frame.

🥱

10 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

Now back to actual human recognition and ability to respond, fastest trained humans are 100-120 ms from input to output … 120 FPS is 8ms per frame.

As I said, you dont get it. It is not (and was never) about perception of single frames. It is about the perception of the motion in a sequence of digitally rendered and thus, in contrast to a movie captured by a camera, a sequence of super crisp single frames and how you perceive this sequence of images. 

Your input to output repetition has nothing to do with this. 120ms is the full time from an action (e.g. someone running in front of your car), the perception of your eyes, the processing by your visual cortex, the action induced by this processing (e.g. pushing the brake pedal). BUT: even those 120ms can be reduced drastically if you are already aware that something might happen. That is why you learn to be "ready to brake" in certain situations when driving a car, because it reduces this lag drastically. 

But we are not talking about this, we are talking about how those sequence of digitally rendered crisp clear images are processed by your eyes and your brain and this is a complete different story (and you do obviously still dont get it). 

Some education: 

Yes, the background for both videos are fast pacing shooters but it still applies to any other game (or digitally rendered image sequences).

Just check once a video of a professional eSport player, e.g. one playing Counter Strike with a AWP sniper rifle. The 60FPS of youtube are not even enough to cover up the movement of those players, and they move around with a keyboard and a mouse. Where does your correct but completely unrelated input to output measure of 120ms play a role there? Exactly, nowhere...

Now go and tell those players that they should downgrade their rigs to run at 60-120FPS because anyway nobody can process a single image shown for less than 8ms... FACEPALM...

1 hour ago, AnkH said:

BUT: even those 120ms can be reduced drastically if you are already aware that something might happen.

You've shifted to "prediction" this is an entirely different topic.  Every multi-player game ever made uses "predictive" algorithms, they have to because there is no way the server can operate 100+ clients at the same time across a network.  Entirely different topic and nothing to do with FPS and more to do with server code (which can vary significantly).  My latency to a local server is 12ms, will vary throughout the day between 8-14ms ... so please explain to me how one can magically respond faster than the server can process a simple ping?

Most "cheats" in these games are coded to fool the predictive algorithms used by the server.  But again, you've shifted into the world of "predictive". 

Did you watch the video you posted?  He demonstrated exactly what I've been trying to convey to you?

Thank you for posting this video as it explains exactly why high FPS has diminishing returns and can actually trigger headaches, again did you watch the video?

What's with the facepalm?  That only emphasizes your being unobjective and emotional.

 

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by CO2Neutral

25 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

My latency to a local server is 12ms, will vary throughout the day between 8-14ms ... so please explain to me how one can magically respond faster than the server can process a simple ping?

Interesting, from 120ms input to output we now suddenly talk about how someone can magically respond faster than 8ms, which equals 120FPS. What if I tell you now that when I play CS2, my ping to the server is never above 4ms? Which equals 250FPS...

But again you ignore the fact that it is not about response time or input to output, but about perception? Did you see the ghosting example? How it is reduced even when comparing 144FPS vs. 240FPS. What is your opinion or statement regarding this? Dont you think that this is visible to the trained eye? 

Overarching this discussion is your bold statement that more than 120FPS is useless, because nobody can see an individual frame shown for less than 8ms and all I am saying that it is not about that in the discussion about smoothness, fluidity and how many FPS someone consider as good enough. 

And if you would not nitpicking a single statement out of the video you would have noticed that he also explains why people can still easily cope with MORE than 120FPS. But you purposedly ignored this part it seems. I do not get an headache when more than 120FPS are shown on my monitor, and now? All those eSport professionals using 240Hz monitors with 240FPS also do not get headaches, why? 

You are just winding yourself around the fact that your bold statement posted earlier in this thread is just plain wrong. 

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. 

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by cobalt

33 minutes 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. 

Lot's of us who are using DLSS, FG and even lossless scaling and no longer have to worry about FPS are having the best time of our simming lives combining the level of detail available today PLUS the FG techniques to give us higher detail with better performance than we've ever had... 

So increased detail + increased performance(Fluidity/obsession)= happy simmer (for 5 minutes until we find the next thing to complain about)    

On 2/19/2025 at 11:56 AM, Ianrivaldosmith said:

It’s got nothing in comparison whatsoever and this analogy is, quite frankly, rubbish. 
 

The operative word used by the OP in this thread is "obsession". I compared one kind of obsession with another from years gone by -- a perfectly valid analogy in that context.

55 minutes 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. 

When I am on a long leg in sim, I often open up this forum to browse and post, so yes, plenty of flying going on 😃

3 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

You perceive it as “feeling smooth” because your brain can’t distinguish anything above 75 FPS or so.

Is this still based on that flawed study you keep referring to (for anyone interested)? The study that acknowleges it was limited by it's own testing equipment, a 75hz screen? the same study that cites another publication where the human eyes was able to recognise images at 6ms?

I surely hope you're still not adamant about that. Though based on our last conversation, I reckon you are.

1 hour ago, AnkH said:

You are just winding yourself around the fact that your bold statement posted earlier in this thread is just plain wrong. 

Nice to see you're back trying to convince them otherwise but, honestly, what you said in the last thread didn't work. I really doubt you'll change their mind here.

 

1 hour 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. 

Everyone here clearly is, though as discussed its shown that some appreciate their simming experience at a higher fps if their rigs can attain it. Is it absolutely necessary? No, but it makes the experience a lot more enjoyable for them. I think it's unfair to call it an "obsession" when it clearly offers a better experience to those who prefer to sim at a higher fps. It is also disingenous to call people obsessors when they buy the best of the best but the poor optimisations of sims don't offer a high fps experience they were expecting.

1 hour ago, Lucky38i said:

 

 

Everyone here clearly is, though as discussed its shown that some appreciate their simming experience at a higher fps if their rigs can attain it. Is it absolutely necessary? No, but it makes the experience a lot more enjoyable for them. I think it's unfair to call it an "obsession" when it clearly offers a better experience to those who prefer to sim at a higher fps. It is also disingenous to call people obsessors when they buy the best of the best but the poor optimisations of sims don't offer a high fps experience they were expecting.

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.