FS9 Virtual Cockpit

Forum dedicated to Microsoft FS2004 - "A Century of Flight".

Re: FS9 Virtual Cockpit

Postby Lordluud2 » Tue May 20, 2008 1:37 pm

Lordluud, the human eye can't see faster than +/- 30 fps so setting your FS to higher fps is nonsense.

Crash ;)

EDIT: read this and apply it


The human eye can see up to 72 frames, the 30 frames thing is a myth from the old days, then a grahic manufacturer put up a demo of a game, one at 30 frames, the other at 60, and everyone could clearly see the differance. nowadays most games have a specific 72HZ mode, meaning 72 frames per second.

Although the human eye can detect such rates(even higher, try playing BF on 100/150FPS) it is not required for games that arent twitch games(fast response shooters etc). 25/30 frames it perfectly acceptable for flightsimulator, i prefer 30 frames, to get it all a little smoother when panning with a TIR in the VC.


Indeed, I play Battlefield 2, en if I got 80 frames, or 140 or so, it is noticeble. But if everthing stays at 30, I would be happy, but when in outside view, it gets up to sometimes even 80, while in VC it switches back every few seconds to 17 frames, while if it runs smoothly, the VC fps can get up to 40.
Lordluud2
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:21 pm
Location: Cuijk, the Netherlands

Re: FS9 Virtual Cockpit

Postby Harold » Wed May 21, 2008 6:40 pm

The human eye can see up to 72 frames, the 30 frames thing is a myth from the old days

So Cas, you are saying that - as you are from the Netherlands too - you can see our lightbulbs flash on and off fifty times per second?
In the Netherlands or electrical current is 220-230 Volts at 50Hz. That means the current is going on-off-on-off-on-off, fifty times per second.

If you could see that, you'd be having a permanent headache ...

Motion pictures are shot at 24 frames, television is usually 30 so my sim is fine when locked at 30 ;)

Indeed, I play Battlefield 2, en if I got 80 frames, or 140 or so, it is noticeble.

:-?
Last edited by Harold on Wed May 21, 2008 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harold
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 5906
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Usa

Re: FS9 Virtual Cockpit

Postby Sir_Crashalot » Wed May 21, 2008 10:18 pm

My point exactly, Harold.

Crash ;)
Sir_Crashalot
 

Re: FS9 Virtual Cockpit

Postby Lordluud2 » Thu May 22, 2008 3:11 am

Well, seeing lights go on and off is different. I have an 100hz HD-Tv, and we bought that one because a 60hz tv had less quality. They even showed it to us. If you see lines of tekst moving across your screen at 60hz, they are a bit blurry, while at 100hz it's, ehm, smooth...

Just google a bit, you will find out  ;D

Oh btw, if you have 70 or 60 fps, you almost can't see the difference. But let's say 40 or 70fps, it's a big difference.

WIKIPEDIA:

Frame rates are considered important in video games. The frame rate can make the difference between a game that is playable and one that is not. The first 3D first-person adventure game for a personal computer, 3D Monster Maze, had a frame rate of approximately 6 fps, and was still a success, being playable and addictive. In modern action-oriented games where players must visually track animated objects and react quickly, frame rates of between 30 to 60 fps are considered minimally acceptable by some, though this can vary significantly from game to game. Most modern action games, including popular first person shooters such as Halo 3, run around 30 frames a second, while others, such as Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, run at 60 frames a second. The framerate within most games, particularly PC games, will depend upon what is currently happening in the game in terms of CPU and GPU usage.

A culture of competition has arisen among game enthusiasts with regards to frame rates, with players striving to obtain the highest fps count possible. Indeed, many benchmarks released by the marketing departments of hardware manufacturers and published in hardware reviews focus on the fps measurement. Modern video cards, often featuring NVIDIA or ATI chipsets, can perform at over 160 fps on graphics intensive games such as F.E.A.R. One single GeForce 8800 GTX has been reported to play F.E.A.R. at up to 386 fps (at a low resolution).[citation needed] This does not apply to all games: some games apply a limit on the frame rate. For example, in the Grand Theft Auto series, Grand Theft Auto III and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City have a standard 30 fps (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas runs at 25 fps) and this limit can only be removed at the cost of graphical and gameplay stability. It is also doubtful whether striving for such high frame rates is worthwhile. An average 17" monitor can reach 60 Hz, meaning that any performance reached by the game over 60 fps is discarded. For that reason it is not uncommon to limit the frame rate to the refresh rate of the monitor in a process called vertical synchronization. However, many players feel that not synchronizing every frame produces sufficiently better game execution to justify some "tearing" of the images.

It should also be noted that there is a rather large controversy over what is known as the "feel" of the game frame rate. It is argued that games with extremely high frame rates "feel" better and smoother than those that are just getting by (referred to as "buttery smooth" by devoted gamers). This is especially true in games such as a first-person shooter. There is often a noticeable choppiness perceived in most computer rendered video, despite it being above the flicker fusion frequency (as, after all, one's eyes are not synchronized to the monitor).

This choppiness is not a perceived flicker, but a perceived gap between the object in motion and its afterimage left in the eye from the last frame. A computer samples one point in time, then nothing is sampled until the next frame is rendered, so a visible gap can be seen between the moving object and its afterimage in the eye. Many driving games have this problem, like NASCAR 2005: Chase for the Cup for Xbox, and Gran Turismo 4. The polygon count in a frame may be too much to keep the game running smoothly for a second. The hardware is not able to render the higher polygon count at the same frame rate as other, less graphically complex games.

The reason computer rendered video has a noticeable afterimage separation problem and camera captured video does not is that a camera shutter interrupts the light two or three times for every film frame, thus exposing the film to 2 or 3 samples at different points in time. The light can also enter for the entire time the shutter is open, thus exposing the film to a continuous sample over this time. These multiple samples are naturally interpolated together on the same frame. This leads to a small amount of motion blur between one frame and the next which allows them to transition smoothly.

An example of afterimage separation can be seen when taking a quick 180 degree turn in a game in only 1 second. A still object in the game would render 60 times evenly on that 180 degree arc (at 60 Hz frame rate), and visibly this would separate the object and its afterimage by 3 degrees. A small object and its afterimage 3 degrees apart are quite noticeably separated on screen.

The solution to this problem would be to interpolate the extra frames together in the back-buffer (field multisampling), or simulate the motion blur seen by the human eye in the rendering engine. When vertical sync is enabled, video cards only output a maximum frame rate equal to the refresh rate of the monitor. All extra frames are dropped. When vertical sync is disabled, the video card is free to render frames as fast as it can, but the display of those rendered frames is still limited to the refresh rate of the monitor. For example, a card may render a game at 100 FPS on a monitor running 75 Hz refresh, but no more than 75 FPS can actually be displayed on screen.

Certain elements of a game may be more GPU-intensive than others. While a game may achieve a fairly consistent 60 fps, the frame rate may drop below that during intensive scenes. By achieving frame rates in excess of what is displayable, it makes it less likely that frame rates will drop below what is displayable during stressful scenes.

QUOTE:

In example, NVIDIA/3dfx put out a demo that runs half the screen at 30 fps, and the other half at 60 fps. The results? - there is a definite difference between the two scenes; 60 fps looking much better and smoother than the 30 fps.

I rest my case  ;D

oh yes, I now have 2gig of extra RAM, running even faster, so I have 3gig now, but no difference...
Last edited by Lordluud2 on Thu May 22, 2008 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lordluud2
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:21 pm
Location: Cuijk, the Netherlands

Re: FS9 Virtual Cockpit

Postby Harold » Thu May 22, 2008 4:57 am

You don't need to prove a point to me, Luud. It's fine ...

oh yes, I now have 2gig of extra RAM, running even faster, so I have 3gig now, but no difference

If you add RAM make sure it has the same timing as the RAM that you already have. If you buy fast RAM and ADD it to the RAM you've already installed the faster RAM will adapt to the slower RAM. It is probably 'faster' if you remove the 2 512mb sticks you have and replace them with the s 1GB stick ...

A wise man once told me ... oh, Hi Nick ;)
Last edited by Harold on Thu May 22, 2008 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harold
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 5906
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Usa

Re: FS9 Virtual Cockpit

Postby Lordluud2 » Thu May 22, 2008 5:22 am

You don't need to prove a point to me, Luud. It's fine ...

oh yes, I now have 2gig of extra RAM, running even faster, so I have 3gig now, but no difference

If you add RAM make sure it has the same timing as the RAM that you already have. If you buy fast RAM and ADD it to the RAM you've already installed the faster RAM will adapt to the slower RAM. It is probably 'faster' if you remove the 2 512mb sticks you have and replace them with the s 1GB stick ...

A wise man once told me ... oh, Hi Nick ;)


Well, the old RAM sticks where 533mhz while the new ones are 833mhz. But, I can let them run in Dual Channel, but I haven't done that yet, because I aint gonna mess with my pc...  ;D So, taking the two 512Mb sticks out would increase performance..?
Lordluud2
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:21 pm
Location: Cuijk, the Netherlands

Re: FS9 Virtual Cockpit

Postby Harold » Thu May 22, 2008 7:08 am

I don't know the formula for calculating this but I had the same about a year ago (two non matched pairs of RAM) and Nick told me this ...

*if I remember correctly*

Your new RAM needs to 'communicate' with your old RAM, and as your old RAM does not speak '833', your new RAM wil run at 533 Mhz, not 833 Mhz.

Some one more knowledgable than I can probably explain it a lot better, but that is pretty much the essence of the story.
Last edited by Harold on Thu May 22, 2008 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harold
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 5906
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Usa

Previous

Return to FS 2004 - A Century of Flight

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 226 guests