.

Really kk? I thought it was a percentage drop in FPS. But again, having always had a lower FPS I would not have been able to make that same distinction.

.

.

What you can see is a number being displayed (by one means or another) on the screen by (another) piece of code that calculates the frames per second. But this number has a 'refresh time', just like any other counter or meter for PC activity. It can only show you so many updates on the screen per unit of time, and those updates can only 'sample' the actual frame rate (or whatever we're counting). By that time, the actual value being displayed has not only changed, but (in all likelihood) actually is on the upswing from a very low dip.

So, by the time the number you see on screen shows say, 20, it's already likely dropped well past 20 and is 'catching' an updated calculation of a number that's changing. The problem with these counters is they are not (and by nature, cannot be) instantaneous.

The reason I know this is easy to see: Look at the screen (or even better, slow down a recording**) and watch what happens during that half-second or so stutter. If (for example) FPS is given as 60, that means in one half-second, there should be 30 frames. However, what you see during that half-second is typically no change in what's being displayed, and that's as closed to being zero as it gets. I have copies of many videos that illustrate this quite well, and it never makes any difference how high the frame rate was to begin with, the effect is always the same: During that stutter, the effective FPS is 0 (or very near).

** Edit: I caught h#ll around here for slowing down videos to quarter-speed to look at stutters...but it had nothing to do with watching a whole video at slow speed just to find one (and that's totally stupid to suggest). What I was doing was, when I had seen a stutter (playing a recording in real-time), I then went back, slowed it as much as I could (quarter speed) just to see what was actually happening in that half-second or so. And what was happening was...well, nothing. For that (literal) split-second, the frame rate of what was actually being rendered on the screen was absolutely, undeniably zero (or very close to it). And this is not because of recording, either, for the record. I know that, as well, because of other observations.

PS: If you want a very simple way to envision this, consider: If someone's only getting 5 FPS, they're probably never going to even notice the stutter because it looks a lot like everything else they're seeing. That more or less proves right there that a (significant) interruption in frame rate is more noticeable the higher your FPS is...at least, to a basic assessment.

.

too ............... much .................................. information ................................ brain ............. saturated

.

LOL Sorry...here, do this: Make a recording of your own nice new monster of a system. Record some stutters. Then, use a video player that allows you to slow down the reply (YouTube has this, if only to one-half and one-quarter speed). When you watch the video, even if you don't get huge stutters, just do a basic estimate of how much time passed while the same image stayed on the screen.

Same imagine on screen = zero frame change = zero frame "rate" per unit time (FPS). It may be true that you have 100FPS average most of the time; but if we look at the stutter by itself, your frame rate is zero for that half-second or so. That means it dropped from 100 down to (effectively) zero, which (just going off the 5FPS example I made above) should show which is going to be more noticeable. Again, someone getting 5 FPS probably wouldn't even notice it

Hopefully that's easier to digest.

.

That will have to be an early morning endeavor for this fellow, when I'm much brighter and fresher. By this time of day I'm more at the Gump point. "Momma always said: stutter is as stutter does."

.

Of course. Me, too.

Keep in mind, as I said: I have videos saved (not mine, recorded by others here) that show quite clearly what I'm referring to. So you don't have to do your own, just if it helps you see what I'm talking about...I'm quite sure it's easy to observe on any system, but I have some if there's any trouble getting your own.

Here's a kind of giveaway, from your earlier quote:



This is essentially what I'm saying: You wouldn't have been able to make that same distinction, because you're running at a lower frame rate...in other words, the change (drop in FPS) - although you do notice it - is less of a deviation from your typical frame rate, making the change less of a part of the whole and thus less noticeable.

Another analogy: Would you rather have $30 and lose 10, or have $120 and lose 100? Either way, you wind up with $20, but I believe it's fairly reasonable to suggest most people would be more pi$$ed about losing $100 than about losing $10. It's a question of how much is lost from the whole, much the same as the FPS discussion; a bigger change is more noticeable.

You may have "less" notice of the new items stuttering at 30 FPS than 60 FPS, but then you have to live with all the stuttering that goes with 30 FPS too since 30 FPS is inherently less smooth than 60 FPS.

By all the tests out there that show the "average" person sees between 55 to 70 FPS sitting down (I guess that why most monitors standard is 60 FPS), when you start dropping below that, you can pick up the normal stuttering in the game from the low FPS and not just the occasional stutter from the new items being added.

There is no direct relation between lower FPS and stutter. They are two entirely different things.

Factually, movies are *still* shot at 24FPS in almost every case, and there's no stutter, because the frames occur at exactly the same rate.

This proves, beyond any doubt, that low frame rates do not automatically mean stutter, nor is stutter more likely at lower frame rates.

Again, two entirely separate, different things with no direct relationship, whatsoever.

You can have 20FPS with zero stutter, and you can have 200 FPS with terrible stutter. The perception of stutter is directly tied to variance in the frame rate, not the frame rate itself.

.

And yet for decades commercial movie projectors have run at 24 FPS and those films on the big screen look smooth to the human eye. Even the new digital projectors, which can run at 48FPS, are simply flashing each original frame twice, in an effort to smooth things further, though I cannot really tell the difference myself.

EDIT: simultaneous post with kk's.

.

Wait a moment, movies are shot at 24 FPS and look smooth because they use "motion blur", not because they are constant speed. You better do some more research on that one.

If a low FPS was so great, then why are monitors made for 60 FPS and not 30 FPS, (those would be a lot cheaper too). Two, if low FPS was so great, then why are manufactures making monitors that run faster and faster and video card makers making better and better video cards to enable these monitors to run faster. And three, if slower FPS was so great, you would not have people buying these faster and faster monitors and cards because they would not want or need them for their games.

Sorry, but your low FPS argument does not stand up to the real world on this one.

.

To the issue of the hiccups/micro-stutters in WOFF, (and honestly, most other sims for that matter), to me it looks more like a loss of frames than stopped frames. When I look at the issue caught in videos, at the point of the "stutter" it looks like the things in motion jump ever so slightly, not stop. I believe there are frames that simply are not being rendered at all and if this is the case than it makes sense that the more frames missing the bigger the "stutter". If this is what is actually happening, I wonder how it interprets at different FPS rates. Your eye is still trying to see that plane moving in front of you at 100 miles an hour, and if in the process you are suddenly missing say, 15 frames at once at 150FPS, vs 4 frames at once at 40FPS, is there a visual difference? It's still a 10% loss at one specific spot in the projection.

EDIT: Just saw your last post PR. Can't answer on the motion blur aspect, I would have to delve into that one myself. Thanks.

.

I will not argue that CFS3 has "stuttering", it has had this for a long time, and will get worse and worse in the future the more we add to the game (be it planes, ground items or further viewing distance). But to run the game "slower" to cover these new item stutters defeats the purpose of 60 FPS that you normally see on a monitor. Plus, why did you purchase you 2070 video cards to run faster if your old video cards ran the game fine at 30 FPS ???

That is not why movies are shot at 24FPS. Movies are shot at 24 FPS primarily for financial reasons. There simply isn't enough benefit in higher frame rates to make the costs of changing worth it, since the motion is plenty fluid for almost anyone at 24FPS.

(EDIT: I would add that, the few times people tried to create movies at higher than 24 FPS, it didn't work well or go over well...people not only don't need it, they didn't like it)

So: Movies shot at 24FPS because they just don't need to be faster. The standard remains because it's good enough for the public perception and there's no automatic stutter at 24FPS.

Monitors are not measured in FPS. You're now talking about refresh rate, which has no inherent connection to frame rate (otherwise, why was Gsync ever necessary, if the two were the same thing?).

Another reason higher and higher refresh rates have come along is the same as higher and higher resolutions: Manufacturers want to sell more, and people buy into it, even when the actual value is questionable (ray-tracing thus far, or 4k gaming).

There's a metric ton of real world evidence, unless you're motivated to selectively ignore it.

You Gentlemen are forgetting the most important aspect of it all - the joystick input. I’ll take 30 FPS with an occasional hiccup (that’s what dogfighting is for me now) over the “smooth” 10 FPS. Dogfighting at a constant, stable and stutter-free 10 FPS is unplayable.
Also, I can notice a stutter a the aforementioned 5 FPS, because I’d be looking at it 100% of the time.
What I wouldn’t notice is the smooth frame rate.

.

PR, I upgraded my system to enable it to handle more things at once in the WOFF world without getting unplayable by late 1918. The faster FPS for me is just an added bonus. My tired old eyes still cannot see a difference between 30FPS or a 130FPS.

To the "motion blur". Aren't we still achieving the same thing, just doing it digitally here. Move enough incrementally different frames to trick the eye into seeing motion where none really exists? No different than the old flip cards we used to make as kids. And I will concede that higher FPS makes for a smoother transition, but only to a point as far as our eyes are concerned. So I am not sure there is an actual real world benefit to FPS rates of 100+. But I am open-minded and really do want to understand if there is.

.

Can't speak for everyone, but I have a 1080ti currently. I bought it because I play other games at times, and even other flight sims that can actually take advantage of it's ability. Only alternative is...what? Changing GPUs every time I want to run this sim?

Nobody's saying a higher frame rate isn't better. I'm saying higher frame rates don't automatically mean no stutter, nor do lower frame rates inherently mean you will have stutter.

I'm also saying, factually, the drop in frame rate is more noticeable when it happens during higher frame rates. As I said, someone getting 5FPS isn't likely to notice stutter at all.

Yes, I'd have to agree there is a "floor" to it, and of course, my examples were only really to illustrate the point. I believe anything below about 25 or 30 frames becomes untenable in any "action" environment.

.

This topic always delivers lively debate, but I am going to tap out now and go enjoy my new build, stutters be damned.

.

Lou (for when you do rejoin): The problem with the whole motion blur argument, in my mind, is that every display technology I'm familiar with has specific settings/features to reduce or eliminate motion blur (if they mention it at all, that is).

Now, if motion blur were somehow what is used to make lower frame rates more acceptable, why on earth would all the TVs and monitors tout 'motion blur reduction' as a feature? (Hint: They wouldn't. What they very likely would do, though, is the marketing people would insist on slapping labels all over everything saying "We have motion blur, and that means you don't need more than 24 FPS!!!")

Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never seen such language on a TV, monitor, or projector (I own two) anywhere. What I have seen is "motion blur reduction" and so on.

The point is, (I believe) motion blur is considered undesirable in displays - perhaps as opposed to movie projectors/screens (hence the settings/features to reduce/eliminate it), and has nothing directly to do with either stutter or lower frame rates. I would readily concede there may be indirect relationships between all these factors, inasmuch as they are all part of what we see. But I don't think there are direct connections in every case, as it seems has been suggested here.

Also, I must respectfully disagree concerning the frame drop matter: As I explained above, for the duration of the stutter, the actual "FPS" is zero. And it doesn't matter - from what I've seen - how high or low you started, it still goes to zero for that split-second. In fact, I am convinced by the evidence I've seen that it wouldn't matter what your frame rate is, when it 'pauses', your frame rate is briefly zero. The explanation I offered earlier about what is displayed on screen is what I think causes the perception it's a percentage or some other non-zero number; it's simply because the numbers being displayed have to be calculated and displayed, which takes time itself and is not instantaneous. So, what is displayed may appear to be a percentage, but (if it were possible to measure/display instantaneously) you'd see "0" in the FPS counter display (or graph, or whatever other recording means) for the duration of the pause. In other words, it doesn't drop to 20, 30 or whatever and stay there, it drops to zero. I hope this makes sense.