2 replies to this topic

[flybynumbers]

Intel Core i7-4770 Haswell Quad-Core 3.4GHz LGA 1150
Samsung 840 EVO Series MZ-7TE500BW 500GB 2.5in SATA III Internal SSD Single Unit Version
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti
ASUS Z97-PRO WI-FI AC ATX LGA1150 DDR3 3PCI-E16 4PCI-E1 CrossFireX/SLI SATA3 USB3.0 HDMI
Corsair vengence blue 8GB 2x4GB DDR3 1600 CL9

FSX
FTX orbx global base pack

Cessna 172
8000 ft

FSX default display settings
-fps set to unlimted
-water effects turned down to medium-low.

FSX.CFG (default)

No hardware such as yoke, rudder pedals connected.

Around the city/airports...ie Vancouver, Los Angeles, Honolulu, St. maarten I get about 300 fps.

I will having this setup so will report back to the hit on frame rates.
http://www.pilotmall...ight-simulation

Edited by flybynumbers, 21 October 2014 - 06:33 PM.

[Iain_]

Really quite pointless considering humans can't see more than about 24fps.

[Buziel-411_RED]

Iain_, on 22 October 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Really quite pointless considering humans can't see more than about 24fps.

That is completely untrue, and unfortunately I see this myth repeated on flight simulator forums more than anywhere else.

https://frames-per-second.appspot.com

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

http://www.30vs60.com

https://www.google.c...=ssl#q=fps myth

No offense, but if you can't see the difference then you have some kind of visual impairment. What is true is that most monitors can't display more than 60 FPS, although older CRTs and more expensive 120/144Hz monitors can display higher FPS, and the difference between 60 and 120 is quite noticeable.

To the OP, that is pretty impressive, although with more add ons it will unfortunately fall. Near stock FSX is pretty easy to run, it is the add ons that kill frames.

Edited by Buziel-411_RED, 22 October 2014 - 12:38 PM.