Simviation Forums

Hi,

Is there any way to measure performance of FS-2004? I mean the FPS rate. Is there a "testing mode", or - simply - the FPS rate displayed on the screen during flying?

Thanks!

latet

 Shift + Z, and Shift + Z again

Also anything over 50 is a wate...since your eyes see about 50 fps

Actually, the eyes can't tell the difference between anything higher than 25 FPS, which is why most people lock frams at this level.  :)

Cheers.

Actually Jr, I have read that anything over 17 or 18 FPS is wasted.  I have had my FS 2004 locked on 18 FPS since the first day I bought it.  

Heya Robster,

Absolutely true.  I have read on this forum (and others) that the frame rate that the human eye can interpret is 16-25 FPS.  That's why I have mine locked to 18.  Sorry I wasn't more specific.

You have some awesome stats on your PC rigs.  You have two Graphics cards on your Alienware?

But - why would it be a waste to play with higher FPS (lock the fps higher in the target fps setting)? A waste of what? Would the FS9 decrease quality of the image to maintain (or get closer to) target FPS?

BTW:
I really *do* see the difference between 25 and 40 fps.


Thanks,

latet

Heya Latet,

You're right.  FS 2004 uses more computer resources to display higher FPS settings.

The film industry uses a standard of 24 fps, so I find it highly unlikely that ANYONE would notice a difference between say 30 and 60.  (Using arbitrary numbers, because I'm not pointing at any one person in particular...this topic comes up constantly.)

Fluid motion is fluid motion.  Physiology is physiology.  Your eyes are made the same as everyone elses.

The film industry uses 24 fps just beacause it is fluid enough (for most people), but still it is not as fluid as it can get.  Have you not heard about modern TV's which offer "motion compensation" to about 50 fps? That looks cool, believe me.
I don't think my eyes are different, but I know for sure that I start to feel real fluidness over ~40 fps.

latet

A debate which has gone on for years, I'm not going to go into it again.  lol

True Latet.  Your top-of-the-line HD Plasma TV's these days can produce 40-50 FPS.  But here we are talking about FS 2004.  If you are like Mad Robster and have awesome PC systems (that even NORAD or NASA would be jealous of) you will have no problem displaying 40-50 FPS.  Your computer stats aren't listed, so I can't tell.

Most of us, however, don't have SETI type systems or IBM's Cold Blue.

There is an actual process to figuring out what each person's average frame rate is. Just because you are locking it to 25, does not mean you are saving any resources. It really has nothing to do with what the human eye can take in.
Here is a different and "real" perspective on setting up your target frame rate:

Since each person's PC runs at different speeds, each person's target frame rate varies.
By taking off from the default Seattle Airport (heavy airport with heavy scenery), and cruising to 2500ft (pc will still render ground textures), fly 1/2 way between Tacoma & Seattle (the city), Pause the sim. you need to toggle through each internal view recording your frame rate at each setting. Taking the overall average of this will give you your "target Frame rate.

Mine varied from 45 to 100. My average or target frame rate is 51. My sim runs super smooth at 51. There is no reason to set it to a lower setting! In a sense that would make it "restricted" as to what it really wants to run at. It has nothing to do with what the eye can see, it has to do with what your sim wants to run at.

Dave

I did something similar to what Fly2e explains a long time ago and found that my PC had an average overall FPS of about 24.  I don't have the best system by today's standards (I'm waiting for my IRS refund before I can install new upgrade hardware).  If your PC can handle 40-50 FPS then I'm jealous.

I'll just have to plod along at 18 FPS for awhile longer.  Sigh.

I mean, what if you use around 35 fps, is that bad? should I (we) lower it, or what?