Look at the frame rates.

[mgovernali]

Hello everyone. I just built myself a new rig exclusively for flight simming.
Here are the specs:

ASUS PT6 DELUXE MOTHERBOARD
CPU I7-920 OVCK to 3.0 GHZ
12 GB Corsair dominator RAM
2X 320 GB WD VelociRaptor 10,000 RPM HD (one for the OS, one for FS)
1000 WATTS ANTEC PSU
RADEON 5970 1 GB VIDEO CARD
WIN 7 64 BIT HOME PREMIUM
32 inch VIZIO HD-1080p MAIN SCREEN
+ 15 inch lcd for GPS.

I have all the details to max, the picture is incredible and I am getting FPS I have never seen before. FS9 gives me 145-150 i have seen 172 at times.
FSX gives me 65 with spikes of up to 80.
I am in smooth sailing heaven. Th clouds look incredible.

i just ordered the e-dimensional 3D glasses. I will let you know how they perform.
thank you.

[mgovernali]

some more FPS pics.

[defaid]

Looks as though it works really well! I don't think I've seen such high framerates in a screenie before. I get the impression that 65 in FSX is pretty good too.

What did it cost?

And, while I'm dreaming about replacing my old steam-powered box, what FPS do you get in cockpit view, approaching a well populated & busy airport, in bad weather and with lots of panels open?

Mine tops out at 80, and will drop to about 17 - 18 in the scenario I just asked about...

Regards,
D

[loperzok]

my frames are 40 to 60 but i have rex clouds hd,hd sky zinertek water and setting full i have 40 to 60 frame rates

[archerflyer]

Those are great pics! Just so that you folks know- when you go see a movie at your local movie theater (and shell out your hard-earned $9 to do so lol), you are seeing 24 frames per second. 24 fps is typically what how movies are so presented.

Thus, your additional hundred to two-hundred fps, although a hell of a performance characteristic, is probably taking away from resources that could be elsewhere devoted to your FS flying experience (scenery painting, weather, autogen speed, etc.). Sure, if your pc has the horsepower, awesome...but why not use the resources where they will not be simply squandered or unseen & not perceived by the human eye?!

Blue skies!

Dell Studio XPS 9000
Intel i7-920 (8MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz)
12GB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs
nVidia GeForce GTS 240 1024MB
750GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
Win 7 Home Prem., x64 system

[tommchowat]

I thought it was 32fps for movies... that's why I set my FS9 to run at 32 ;)

[alastairmonk]

Hi Tom,

Excluding fully digital movies (like Avatar) which may well run at 32fps (I don't know), traditional "film" movies do run at 24fps.

Interestingly, when shown on TV (at least in the UK) the same films are shown at 25fps, which is why the running times are often a little shorter ! A 2 hour film would be a touch under 5 minutes shorter.

Arguments have been made that MSFS is not the same as film, and a few extra FPS can be noticed, but the above argument is sound. At more than 30-50fps no extra smoothness would be detected and limiting frame rates would allow the extra capacity to be devoted to scenery improvement.

Alastair

[n4gix]

Not this old wive's tale again. Computer graphics engines are not shutter based systems, and are capable of redrawing the screen as often as their internal clock refresh rate.

If your monitor has an 80Hz refresh rate, you will see at most 80 complete frames drawn per second.

There's little point in sending more complete frames to your video card to process than your monitor is capable of displaying.

[archerflyer]

In the end, it's not about what your monitor or graphics card / engine does or can do, it is about what the human eye is capable of perceiving...pure and simple. More then 24 - 30 or so fps is not "seen" by the eye and is therefore simply squandered (wasted) resources.

To Tom: I also lock my frame rate at 31 fps in FS9.1 :)

Blue skies!

Dell Studio XPS 9000
Intel i7-920 (8MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz)
12GB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs
nVidia GeForce GTS 240 1024MB
750GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
Win 7 Home Prem., x64 system

[archerflyer]

Here is the a better way to phrase it (note the term fps is gone):

In the end, it's not about what your monitor or graphics card / engine does or can do, it is about what the human eye is capable of perceiving...pure and simple. More than 24 - 30 or so *images* are not "seen" by the eye and are therefore simply squandered (wasted) resources.

To Tom: I also lock my frame rate at 31 fps in FS9.1 ;)

Blue skies!

Dell Studio XPS 9000
Intel i7-920 (8MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz)
12GB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs
nVidia GeForce GTS 240 1024MB
750GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
Win 7 Home Prem., x64 system

[mgovernali]

Sure, if your pc has the horsepower, awesome...but why not use the resources where they will not be simply squandered or unseen & not perceived by the human eye?!


..I don't think you and I need to worry about sqaundering performance.. when you get this kind of performance there is enough to go around fs a couple or three times.. so that you know hoever, I am very well aware of the limitations of the human eye. I normally run my fs locked at 60 which matches my screen refresh rates. Cheers.

[mgovernali]

..you guys all make very valid points. So that you know, I do not normally run the sim at unlimited frame rates, this was a simple performance test. As many of you, I have never seen over 100 frame rates myself, the most i ever got before was 72.

Although this machine has enough horsepower to run fs 3 or 4 times over, I lock my FRs at 60 which matches my monitor Refresh rates.
I am very aware of the limitations of the human eye which cannot discern anything over 32 FPS. in my experience 20 fps is the very acceptable minimum to have a decent sim experience, but 25 is usually the norm for all around smoothness.

I have REX as well and all the eye candies installed too, I love the FlyTampa series airports and I have 7 of them.
As far as cost,.. I own a computer store in Calgary Canada. the parts cost including case, cpu, MB, water cooling, PSU, ram, dvd drive, HDs, Vcard was around $2,800.

The 32 inch monitor which is the best i have ever seen was a floor model on sale for 440 (reg 780).

Cheers!!

[mgovernali]

Not this old wive's tale again. Computer graphics engines are not shutter based systems, and are capable of redrawing the screen as often as their internal clock refresh rate.

If your monitor has an 80Hz refresh rate, you will see at most 80 complete frames drawn per second.

There's little point in sending more complete frames to your video card to process than your monitor is capable of displaying.

I agree with you 100% that is why my frame rates and my screen rez are locked at 60. But I wanted to make a comment on your rig. You are running 8 Gigs of Ram, you are aware of course that your CPU and mobo is "Triple channel" which means it is designed to run and will perform much better with 3-6-9-12 gigs of ram?
just a comment.

[pivek]

What good is it having such an expectacular rig running FS2004? ; if that is the case I understand that FS2004 is unable to render better graphics, up to a certain threshold, regardless the super powers

[archerflyer]

I agree that, beyond a certain point, FS2004 from several years ago now, renders much of the potential of a kick-ass machine of 2010 redundant. However, for me, it allows me to completely and totally 'max' out each and *every* one of my sliders in my FS9.1 settings without sacrifycing a single fps- in any condition, even when flying in the middle of Aerosoft's "Manhattan" & in conjunction with complex weather, cloud formations, wind, new 19m terrain mesh for FS2004 by FSGenesis, etc.

Blue skies,

Dell Studio XPS 9000
Intel i7-920 (8MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz)
12GB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs
nVidia GeForce GTS 240 1024MB
750GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
Win 7 Home Prem., x64 system

[mgovernali]

I agree with you 100% Archer. we do know well that fs needs 30 fps or so to run decently. but the extra horsepower simply allows you to experience the sim in it's full glory. We do not realize how much better it looks when at it's full potential, aliasing its non existing, you can set all sliders to the max. 100% traffic, any addon airport with full traffic. REX HD, Zinerteck water, photoreal everything and still lots of power to spare.

The thing that I like the best are the clouds, usually clouds are the most taxing on any system, with a machine such as this not only they look incredible but you can pan any way you like with incredible smoothness.
cheers.

[pivek]

I see the point clearer now.. Thnx guys for enlightening my ignorance :)

[defaid]

Hello all,

I couldn't help myself... just have to pitch in too!

I think there's some confusion over framerate and refresh rate:

In the UK analogue television framerates are 25FPS but the screen (if the phosphors were to respond instantly) refreshes at 50 Hz. Each frame is scanned twice; first the odd lines then the even (or possibly the other way around).

The human brain is fooled into seeing smooth motion when an image changes faster than 25 - 30 times a second but will still register a flickering image (static or moving) below about 75 - 80 Hz.

Try turning your monitor's refresh rate down to 25 Hz or 30 Hz and then tell me you can't see your stationary desktop wallpaper flickering. Boost your monitor's refresh rate to 80 Hz for a week then once you've got used to it, drop it back to 60. When your eye scans the approach plate on your lap you'll see the monitor flickering in the corner of your eye.

Eye strain and the associated headache is reduced with a higher refresh rate.

Having said that, you're right- 150 FPS will never show through at a 80 Hz refresh rate. You might as well save the resources for other tasks and lock to your monitor's refresh rate...

Regards,
Dave
;)

[mgovernali]

Thank you Dave for the informative message.
But I believe you are missing the point here, there is no need to "save resources" in a system such as this, you can run 5 FS9s all at once, so you might as well maximaze all the eye candy and then some.
Just for fun, the other day I wanted to see how many videos it could play simultenuosly.
I went on youtube and started opening videos, leaving each running in it's own browser and open the next... I got to 27 simultenous videos and no sign of sloving down, I could prolly go to 50 but I got tired of it...

it's all good!!