• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

the more fps the better?

Both my FSX and FS9 are set at 24 FPS and works pretty fine.

FPS IS A BIG MYTH not worth the discussion.

Why ? My Oculist told me that FPS differences over 20 FPS
............CAN NOT BE PERCEIVED BY THE HUMAN EYE.

We are not cats ! ....... We are only Humans.
:eek:
VaporZ
 
Funny thing is that FPS is not a constant. It seems to vary from game to game even in FPS.
Crysis is reported to be perfectly playable and smooth at 25 fps, while other FPS like Halo need to be more in the 40-60 range for it to feel smooth.
 
Lionheart said:
lolol....

On the Beech 300 Kingair, try recompiling your textures to DXT3 or DDS and flip vertically. That might speed frames back up. I think the Kingair runs a few 32bit textures, which hit the system real hard with memory draw...

Bill
Click to expand...
I've never done anything like that, but I guess I can experiment. The props are an issue as well with the classic Acceleration prop disc opacity when viewed from the exterior of the aircraft. There might also be a gauge problem as there are multiple reports of the master caution light remaining lit during flight. I also noticed the left and right bleed failure lights remain lit. The tool tips feature doesn't work either, just shows a black and white box. FSX looks nice out of the box, but MS changing the method of modeling the planes is just so frustrating.
 
stansdds said:
Oh, and after spending hours getting FSX configured to run reasonably well, I'm now confronted with a relative lack of aircraft compared to FS9. Yes, some FS9 aircraft have been converted to run in FSX, but I just tried AFG's outstanding Beech B300 and it does not work anywhere near flawlessly in FSX and there is a frame rate hit when using converted aircraft in FSX. :banghead:
Click to expand...

Yes, you will usually get more of a hit using ported FS9 aircraft over native just because of the way the model is compiled for each sim and the formats. If you took the same model and recompiled it for FSX, usually it will be easier (more efficient?) on the frames.

People tend to associate FPS for gaming goodness because that is usually the case. FSX is about the only game that is actually playable/enjoyable at such low framerates so it's hard to break that stigma if you are a gamer.

People can argue till they are blue in the face about how many framerates the human eye can distinguish, BUT the main reason higher framerates are important in FS is so that when you hit a high detailed, polygon dense area (detailed city with detailed airports with lots of AI traffic and real weather) you DO NOT lose fluidity, plain and simple. This is something MS and ACES need to realize as well and is the source of all our frustrations.

THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING simmers need to take into consideration, EXPECTATIONS, the more you have to render on the screen, the more resources it takes. I wonder how many would actually get acceptable performance out of the sim if we did not have payware, detailed addons to add to it and affect our performance. Could explain why I have a good experience with my old rig, I am very selective as to what I use in my sim.

People tend to get upset when they can't run detailed addons, well think about it for a second, the sim wasn't designed with that particular addon in mind was it? So of course you are going to have some issues going from default to addon on many levels. this is always why I ask about new aircraft and to compare performance to the defaults, to ensure I won't have a problem using it.
 
The question however still is that why the frame rates drop dramatically (12 - 18) when you set a target i.e. 25 or 60 or 40 compared to unlimited. This i find very strange, is there an entry in the fsx.cfg that will tune this. so that at least 20 fps are there at dense areas.

I found that unless youi set the frame rate limiter to unlimited that the fps is above 20 (i use oshkosh as a kind of benchmark for these tests), but if you set the limiter to lets say 40 or 60 the frames drop below 20. Now why is this happening since i was able to reach 25-30 at this airport when is set the limiter to unlimited?

I agree that at these low fps fsx is still fluid in the controls, but you more stutter past the airport than you fly.

kind regards,

Meso

EDIT: maybe it would be nice to have a frame rate minimum adjuster, so you set there a value you want at least. Maybe at the cost of some eye candy in the dense areas, but when you leave that area you get some more eye candy. I know you can adjust the autogen density and the scenery complexity, but over new york for instance you see a lot of toweres, now when you depart there and you fly to a not so dense area you might want to see some more trees without adjusting this setting. just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top