How long will it be before PCs will run FSX at 100FPS?

In how many years will PCs be able to run FSX with all addons, settings and features on maximum while maintaining 100FPS (maximum) FPS? Will this even be possible at all? Or maybe it's possible now on high end hardware?

How's your FSX running and what hardware/FSX settings do you use?

Also, I really hope a new FSX is released in the next few years but that probably won't happen. For how long will you guys use FSX until it's really out of date?

I am running it with alomost full settings because of my computer(see specs below).

I have tweaked the fsx CFG file by changing the upper frame rat limit to 0 an the texturebandwithmult to 90, and got an increase in fps. Hope that helps.:D

I don't think fsx will ever run at 100fps unless somebody comes up with a super patch.

You will probably have to wait until someone comes up with a CPU running at 100 GHz clock rate, with correspondingly fast RAM, motherboard and GPU.

Jorgen

Honestly I don't care that I can't get to 100 fps.

Mine is smooth, that's all that matters.

Doesn't matter what frame rate the PC and FSX can generate - where's the monitor that can refresh itself at 1 KHz? Hasn't been built yet.... and where's the eye that can see more than 30-40 FPS?

Jorgen

In short words -

1. He didn't.

2. Even IF he was able to, you simply wouldn't be able to see any difference.

Jorgen

It would take a rebuild of the FSX code. P3D is the way to go if frame rates are what is most important to you. People who cannot live with video tape frame rate of 30 are not being realistic. Even the old film frame rate of 24 is pretty good in just about any game.

-Pv-

Allrighty then.

Got it.:cool:

Hasn't been built yet.... and where's the eye that can see more than 30-40 FPS?

Just about everywhere, actually. Human eyes can easily perceive far more than 30 FPS.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

And some examples:

http://www.30vs60fps.com

http://testufo.com/#test=framerates

Not to mention things like people getting headaches from the flickering in fluorescent lighting, or sore eyes from a few minutes of viewing a 60 Hz CRT monitor. Our eyes are quite sensitive to light.

Having said that, due to the slower nature of most activities in flight simming, high frame rates aren't a necessity the same way they are in faster paced games.

I think high frame perception is an urban legend. Fluorescents blink at 60. What bothers people is not the 60hz blinking but the unnatural color spectrum not to mention the buzzing transformer. When they go bad, they can blink very very slow. Close your eyes and the image of light will stay on your retina for several seconds. The idea that changing frames at 60 Hz can overcome image persistence does not make sense. Your retina would have to release the image nearly 60 times a second to really see the effect. There is a BIG difference between perceiving the illusion of MOTION associated with changing frames, another with watching a still image using the same changing frame rate. Still another knowing there are cycles of changing light producing the effect and people convinced they are seeing something.

-Pv-

Nice on the rig! Congrats on your set up. I love my Go Flight Stuff that I have, never fly with out it. :)

Love the FB Johnny. First pic I saw was the C-17 troop ship. My daughter flew from Germany to Travis in a cargo C-17. Just her and her five year old running ape all over the inside! He had a blast. And she couldn't hear a thing. Lol. They're Air Force.

I've never bothered monitoring frame rate in all the years i've had FSX, but for the purpose of this thread i've just run some tests with most of my settings around 'Very high' (not Ultrahigh) and got these approx readouts at the 'Unlimited' frame rate setting-

Over open ocean- 110 fps

Over countryside- 70 fpm

Over New York city- 30 fps

I find 30 fps is quite smooth enough.

Incidentally can somebody explain what 'Unlimited' is for? Does it mean the computer is free to choose its own rate? If so, why doesn't everybody use it?

Here are my PC specs, the shop who built it for me told me it's a 'high end' gaming/simming PC, does that sound about right?-

PSU: cx600m

M/board: H87

Processor: I5 4670 3.4 Ghz

RAM: 16Gb 1600 ram

Hard drive: 240 Gb SSD

Graphics: GeForce gtx 770

Optical: DVDRW

Other: 1tb drive

O/S: Win 7 SP1 64-bit

I've never bothered monitoring frame rate in all the years i've had FSX, but for the purpose of this thread i've just run some tests with most of my settings around 'Very high' (not Ultrahigh) and got these approx readouts at the 'Unlimited' frame rate setting-

Over open ocean- 110 fps

Over countryside- 70 fpm

Over New York city- 30 fps

 

I find 30 fps is quite smooth enough.

 

Incidentally can somebody explain what 'Unlimited' is for? Does it mean the computer is free to choose its own rate? If so, why doesn't everybody use it?

 

Here are my PC specs, the shop who built it for me told me it's a 'high end' gaming/simming PC, does that sound about right?-

PSU: cx600m

M/board: H87

Processor: I5 4670 3.4 Ghz

RAM: 16Gb 1600 ram

Hard drive: 240 Gb SSD

Graphics: GeForce gtx 770

Optical: DVDRW

Other: 1tb drive

O/S: Win 7 SP1 64-bit

I use unlimited. Basically it's no set rate so it'll fluctuate. Downside is, it can lead to blurry scenery.

I agree with those who say framerates are mostly meaningless. But for what it's worth (and screenshots are available in case anyone doubts), I just built a new rig just for simming so I'm just setting it up and do NOT have any HD mesh or landclass installed. On a new, clean install of FSX, most all sliders pushed, the default 737 over ocean with default weather gave me over 450 fps with a 4790K Haswell Devils Canyon (not yet overclocked) at a stock 4.4GHz. Admittedly there is no autogen to suck cycles, no AI, no ground detail, water set to "medium," scattered puffy clouds with 80 mi. cloud draw distance. On the ground at KSEA during taxi, fps is over 100.

I am also installing X-Plane and have spent most of my time adjusting settings for that sim, so FSX is mostly what Microsoft set by default during installation, but I'll get into FSX tweaking in the next week or two. What's evident is that FSX is almost totally CPU speed dependent. I did have one video driver crash (nVidia 344.75) when flying and I reset the autogen slider to max which is why that is one notch back. Haven't had time to try that again and resetting autogen during loading. 4GB on the VRAM card on an EVGA GTX 970 Superclocked.

For me, with the huge advances being made with X-Plane 64-bit, that is my sim of choice. FSX and P3D are old 32-bit code which is bumping up against RAM limits and is becoming increasingly out dated. On the down side, X-Plane is deficient in seasonal scenery changes and ATC. Both are being worked on, and the 64-bit community is growing.

Even IMAX movies only run 24 frames per second.

Film and TV frame rates aren't handled quite the same as those on a PC. Plus, some recent movies, like the Hobbit, are filmed and played at 48 FPS.

I know, if there would be

Intel Core i9 6674X @ 150 GhZ

128 gb ram @ 5000 mhz

GTX UltraTitan360 Ti

30000rpm HDD

u should be fine !

Even IMAX movies only run 24 frames per second.

Movie and television productions will have significant amounts of motion blur due to the type of cameras used, which greatly eases the effect that would otherwise be visible.

As an experiment, I would suggest anyone who has a setup that can run at 60fps in FSX to simply pan the camera around the VC of any aircraft, and then repeat that with a 30fps (or lower!) cap. I think that you should be able to tell the difference easily when you can direct the camera, as opposed to the movement that occurs in a movie or video.

The major takeaway is that computer games don't have any "motion blur" so tiny gaps in rendering times can appear as 'stutters'.

Anyone here old enough to remember children's "flip books?" These are stacks of drawings that you can 'flip' with your thumb to create the illusion of motion. The same principle applies, since it is impossible to 'flip' at a constant and repeatable speed, and the 'motion' appears to stutter.

Even better, how about the old hand-cranked stereo-opticons, such as this antique?

Film and TV frame rates aren't handled quite the same as those on a PC. Plus, some recent movies, like the Hobbit, are filmed and played at 48 FPS.

The reason for 48 fps is that real film was double shuttered as it went through the projector, which gave the effect of smoother motion on screen, basically the one frame was shown twice in a row before moving to each subsequent frame.

In today's digital world, the only way to get that smoothness on screen is to run at 48Hz. HD PAL runs at 50Hz Progressive 1080p and HD NTSC runs at 60Hz Progressive 1080p.

100 fps would be a bit much, I'd rather run at 60fps progressive on a 4k monitor than have 100fps which the eye really won't pick up due to persistence of vision.