homepage

Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable?

Posted By: Tycoon

Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/10/20 02:29 AM

I just built a new pc recently and I did some overclocking on the cpu and tried the ultra setting. On my old cpu it would destroy my fps so I was happy to see I was getting 60-70 fps, but there was heavy stutter that made it feel like 15? not sure exactly what's going on, it isn't trakir.
Posted By: lederhosen

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/10/20 10:04 AM

perhaps with "Mission Editor" as it removes most if not all aircraft that you would never see or meet if you stay on assigned patrol route.
With the Woff "ultra" settings there will be hundreds of aircraft all up at the same time that are absolutely miles away from you that you would never see.

ps, this sim is based on a single core PC from the stone age.
Posted By: Panama Red

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/10/20 11:58 AM

Each step up in the Regional Air Activity enlarges the circle of planes flying in the game, until it covers almost the whole front at the Ultra setting.

Once you go beyond Light, in the Regional Air Activity setting, there are planes flying in the game that are well beyond what you will ever see or fight, but the CPU must keep up with the calculations of all these unseen planes so it drags your FPS way down.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/10/20 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Tycoon
I just built a new pc recently and I did some overclocking on the cpu and tried the ultra setting. On my old cpu it would destroy my fps so I was happy to see I was getting 60-70 fps, but there was heavy stutter that made it feel like 15? not sure exactly what's going on, it isn't trakir.


RAF_Louvert has recently built himself a genuine monster of a machine, with measurable top-end performance...I've mentioned this thread to him and I'm hoping he'd be good enough to share his own input on the subject here.

A few thoughts of my own:

I generally discourage looking at it like high frame rate automatically means smooth performance. It simply does not, and it's been a pet peeve of mine that some people continue to promote such misleading ideas. (Note I'm not saying that's what you're doing at all. This is not directed at anyone in particular, so no offense is intended to anyone; I am speaking generally.)

You can factually have 100FPS and still see choppy performance. What makes things smooth is the even distribution of those frames with respect to time, and the (incorrect) assumption is that having high frame rates means you'll automatically have even frame distrubution. There is no such assured direct relationship between the two, and there never has been.

This is the very reason you can be getting "good" FPS (on a screen display of some sort) and still have it 'feel' like a much lower rate - because you see a lack of smoothness from frame to frame. Lots of people say they can see the difference in frame rates over 60, but there is considerable evidence that shows they don't. (I can easily set up a test where no one would be able to see the difference between 100 FPS and as little as 1 FPS). The perception is about movement, and in terms of frames being refreshed, that motion only looks smooth if it's consistent. If it pauses, for even a very short time, you'll notice it - even if you're getting 100FPS on average. (Incidentally, this is why informed reviews have included frame time data for some time now, and not just FPS).

The reason it's important to understand the difference is so that you understand that higher and higher frame rates (usually by way of more and more expensive hardware) does not necessarily mean game play will be smooth and fluid.

Also, I couldn't help but notice, you indicate a recent upgrade but don't really give any details. If you don't mind sharing those details, it would be easier to see a better picture of your situation. While new upgrade parts *can* (and usually do) mean much better performance, it depends entirely on the exact upgrade and the context smile
Posted By: Rick_Rawlings

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/10/20 05:36 PM

Wasn't the idea that if you clicked on medium but checked the option to steer them into you it would mimic he heavy air option without the CUP load? Or am I way off on that?
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/10/20 06:21 PM

.

As my name has been mentioned here, and since I am still in the process of testing my newly updated rig, I went ahead and ran a series of air activity comparisons that I hope may help in this discussion. With my test pilot in 56 Squadron starting on November 1, 1918 I ran the first three minutes of sorties alternating between Ultra Heavy, Very Heavy, Heavy, and Medium air activity settings, three sorties for each. Here in summary is what I experienced.


On Ultra Heavy the average load time from hitting “Start Mission” to sitting in the plane on the field was a whopping 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Going out of cockpit and panning around to preload everything did not result in smooth gameplay, no matter how long I panned. Back in the cockpit gameplay was choppy, and artifacts like white triangles and cloud popping were blatantly present.

On Very Heavy the average load time from hitting “Start Mission” to sitting in the plane on the field was 55 seconds. Going out of cockpit and panning around to preload everything required three to four full revolutions in order to achieve smooth gameplay. Back in the cockpit gameplay was smooth most of the time but there were still a few intermittent choppy intervals of a second or two, as well as a white triangle or two on rare occasion.

On Heavy the average load time from hitting “Start Mission” to sitting in the plane on the field was 35 seconds. Going out of cockpit and panning around to preload everything required one full revolution in order to achieve smooth gameplay. Back in the cockpit gameplay was smooth and fluid, no artifacts of any kind.

On Medium the average load time from hitting “Start Mission” to sitting in the plane on the field was 20 seconds. Going out of cockpit and panning around to preload everything was not required at all in order to achieve smooth gameplay. Back in the cockpit gameplay was smooth and fluid, no artifacts of any kind.


As a point of reference, here are my newly updated system's full specs:

CPU: Intel Core i5-10600K Comet Lake, OC’d through the AI Suite to 5.0GHz
CPU Fan: Arctic Super Cooler
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 32gb (2 x 16gb) LPX DDR4 3200
Mobo: ASUS Prime Z490-A
Hard Drives: 2 Western Digital BLACK 500GB SN750 M.2 SSDs ; 1 Western Digital 640 GB Caviar Black SATA for onboard file storage
Opti Drive: LG 22X DVD+/RW Dual Layer SATA Rewrite
Video Cards: 2 EVGA RTX 2070 Super FTW3 Ultras with NVLink SLI Bridge
PS: Corsair HX 850 Watt
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
LG 34-Inch 21:9 curved IPS monitor with G-SYNC, 2560x1080 native resolution
Five large case fans, plus the PS, CPU, mobo, and card fans, (for a grand total of fourteen fans)
Saitek AV8R joystick
Saitek Pro Flight rudder pedals
Track IR4 camera with latest IR5 software

I have the OS and other assorted programs on the C drive, and WOFF PE only on the D drive. Everything else in on either the old SATA drive or the 1TB external drive I have plugged in.

.

I would conclude that if you are planning on building a machine that will actually get you to smooth, fluid results for Ultra Heavy air activity in late-1918, it will need to be something like this:

[Linked Image]

.
Posted By: VonS

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/10/20 06:32 PM

Thanks Lou for your detailed testing and info. This helps to simplify my usage of activity settings (will stick with very light/ light/ medium/ heavy for simplicity's sake).

@ Rick, you are essentially correct - lighter activity settings, coupled with some "steerage" of enemy 'crates in your direction, should mimic a situation similar to flying through a wider circle of air activity. (I'm running my casual campaigns for 1915 at light activity settings, with light/medium coaxing of aircraft in my direction, for example, and the results are/were historical looking - occasional skirmishes but often also flights with no contact with the enemy. Might try out some later campaigns in '17 and '18 but will keep air activity at light or medium settings again, with minor coaxing of aircraft my way - should provide for healthy FPS this way I would think.)

Happy flying all (and thank you for this thread, as well as for Lou's other thread with his comp. upgrade information - great info.),
Von S smile2
Posted By: Tycoon

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by RAF_Louvert
.

As my name has been mentioned here, and since I am still in the process of testing my newly updated rig, I went ahead and ran a series of air activity comparisons that I hope may help in this discussion. With my test pilot in 56 Squadron starting on November 1, 1918 I ran the first three minutes of sorties alternating between Ultra Heavy, Very Heavy, Heavy, and Medium air activity settings, three sorties for each. Here in summary is what I experienced.


On Ultra Heavy the average load time from hitting “Start Mission” to sitting in the plane on the field was a whopping 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Going out of cockpit and panning around to preload everything did not result in smooth gameplay, no matter how long I panned. Back in the cockpit gameplay was choppy, and artifacts like white triangles and cloud popping were blatantly present.

On Very Heavy the average load time from hitting “Start Mission” to sitting in the plane on the field was 55 seconds. Going out of cockpit and panning around to preload everything required three to four full revolutions in order to achieve smooth gameplay. Back in the cockpit gameplay was smooth most of the time but there were still a few intermittent choppy intervals of a second or two, as well as a white triangle or two on rare occasion.

On Heavy the average load time from hitting “Start Mission” to sitting in the plane on the field was 35 seconds. Going out of cockpit and panning around to preload everything required one full revolution in order to achieve smooth gameplay. Back in the cockpit gameplay was smooth and fluid, no artifacts of any kind.

On Medium the average load time from hitting “Start Mission” to sitting in the plane on the field was 20 seconds. Going out of cockpit and panning around to preload everything was not required at all in order to achieve smooth gameplay. Back in the cockpit gameplay was smooth and fluid, no artifacts of any kind.


As a point of reference, here are my newly updated system's full specs:

CPU: Intel Core i5-10600K Comet Lake, OC’d through the AI Suite to 5.0GHz
CPU Fan: Arctic Super Cooler
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 32gb (2 x 16gb) LPX DDR4 3200
Mobo: ASUS Prime Z490-A
Hard Drives: 2 Western Digital BLACK 500GB SN750 M.2 SSDs ; 1 Western Digital 640 GB Caviar Black SATA for onboard file storage
Opti Drive: LG 22X DVD+/RW Dual Layer SATA Rewrite
Video Cards: 2 EVGA RTX 2070 Super FTW3 Ultras with NVLink SLI Bridge
PS: Corsair HX 850 Watt
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
LG 34-Inch 21:9 curved IPS monitor with G-SYNC, 2560x1080 native resolution
Five large case fans, plus the PS, CPU, mobo, and card fans, (for a grand total of fourteen fans)
Saitek AV8R joystick
Saitek Pro Flight rudder pedals
Track IR4 camera with latest IR5 software

I have the OS and other assorted programs on the C drive, and WOFF UE only on the D drive. Everything else in on either the old SATA drive or the 1TB external drive I have plugged in.

.

I would conclude that if you are planning on building a machine that will actually get you to smooth, fluid results for Ultra Heavy air activity in late-1918, it will need to be something like this:

[Linked Image]

.

Ok thanks. On a side note I don't get the point of even having this option in game, it's not like cpu single core speed is improving in the forseeable future.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Tycoon
Ok thanks. On a side note I don't get the point of even having this option in game, it's not like cpu single core speed is improving in the forseeable future.


I think it's entirely possible that newer/faster CPUs will come along at some point (they always do, somehow lol). But, to your point, the huge jumps in single-core speeds that were common years ago just don't happen anymore. The industry has long since moved to a model where having multiple cores and allowing the OS to spread tasks across them is 'standard'. This is primarily because of heat and the size of the actual CPU/heat spreader. You can only dissipate so much heat - and for that matter, only handle so much current - through a piece of silicon before it breaks down. So, if you can't make it faster (and deal with the resulting heat)...then just make more of them and do things in parallel.

Anyhow, I think the point in the game has been described as always staying ahead of what current systems can handle, so that as faster stuff comes out, you have access to a more detailed experience.

That said, it does seem a little much that even a very capable machine (as above) can only get that far up the scale before it starts suffering.

By the way, I'd still like to know what your recent build consists of, just for comparative reference.
Posted By: Robert_Wiggins

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 02:58 PM

KK

IMHO...

This desire for improved non-stuttering WOFF performance is fast approaching a dead end in my opinion simply because the WOFF engine is single core old technology. That said, OBD and supporting developers have pushed amazing improvements forward despite this.

Best Regards
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 05:34 PM

Hi Robert. I'm sure you're right, I concluded long ago that no hardware, settings, etc were going to eliminate stutter.

That said, just curious...did you by any chance misread "suffering" as "stuttering"? Just wondering smile

(I ask, because I didn't actually say stutter in this thread, unless I missed something).
Posted By: 77_Scout

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 05:40 PM

I run with the 'medium' setting and looking at the red circles on my briefing map shows it encompasses a very big area, certainly well beyond where i will be flying my mission. Based on that, I have operated under the assumption that air activity settings above 'medium' give little benefit to the game experience and just bog things down unnecessarily.
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 05:59 PM

.

Scout, I agree with you, I've made the same assumption myself and normally run at 'Medium' too, unless it's early war and then I set it lighter.

kk, I was the culprit who mentioned stuttering in my analysis post. Blame me. biggrin

And Robert, I too have been saying for some time that the OFF/WOFF occasional hiccups/micro-stutters are an inherent part of the old CFS3 engine and will likely never be fully eliminated. C'est la guerre. smile

.
Posted By: Panama Red

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 06:08 PM

In all the testing and playing WOFF over the years (and I do mean since way back to OFF3), especially now that we have the red circles, I found that there was no more aircraft encounters during your mission flight with Medium Air Activity then there was with Light Air Activity, but the FPS went up at least 20% or more at Light versus Medium.

As a result, why add un-needed CPU cycles to the game when you can play the same game/mission with higher FPS than lower FPS (and yes kk, I prefer higher FPS than lower FPS in the game).
Posted By: Tycoon

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 06:10 PM

My build is roughly like Louvert's, except a single 980 card and the cpu is at 4.8.
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 06:14 PM

.

PR, that is interesting. I'm fairly certain I've had more encounters on 'Medium' than on 'Light' over the years. But then everyone's experiences with this sim do seem to vary a fair amount. To the FPS, I think most of us prefer to see those numbers higher if possible. If I read kk's comment right he was only saying that higher FPS doesn't always equate to smoother gameplay, which I agree with.

.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 07:05 PM

Thanks Lou, that's it exactly smile

Oh, and thanks for taking the rap on the stutter utter smile I get in way too much trouble for that :D:D:D
Posted By: Panama Red

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 08:14 PM

Having played this game for years, I know all about the stutter and you can even begin to predict when it is going to happen and what it means when it does it. But I found the higher the FPS, the less it is noticeable or as "jarring" as when the the game has low FPS and stuttering at the same time.

The biggest difference I found on enemy flight encounters is when I activate the "Forced Encounters" on High versus selecting the Medium or Light Air Activities.
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 08:29 PM

.

PR, I must confess I've not used the "Forced Encounters" much at all, having usually relied on the air activity settings to adjust the frequency of encounters. And, having also been playing this sim since the OFF days, I agree about being able to judge on occasion when the stutters will arise. Having a higher FPS may well help to make them less jarring, I will take your expertise on that. I never really gave it too much thought, but then until this most recent build I've never had a rig that would get more than 50 to 60 FPS on average when playing OFF/WOFF.

.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 08:37 PM

From a different perspective...

I've also been playing this game a long time, in fact back to the very first (free) OFF, and although I've donated quite a sum to OBD, and paid for all but the latest release, I've opted not to buy PE (not that it matters, as this has zero bearing on the stutter issue).

In my observation, having higher FPS means not only is the stutter more likely (because the machine is taxed all the more), but it is also much more noticeable when the stutter does happen, simply because the change/drop is greater in comparison to a higher frame rate.

In other words, if I'm getting 30 fps and it drops to 20, not as noticeable as dropping from 100 down to 20 (which it does drop at least that low, in the case of the stutter we're discussing, the frame rate actually drops to near zero, very briefly).

It just makes sense that 33% drop is less noticeable than an 80% drop.


Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 08:44 PM

.

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.

.

.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 08:58 PM

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 biggrin 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.
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 09:24 PM

.

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

.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 09:35 PM

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 smile

Hopefully that's easier to digest.
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 09:43 PM

.

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."

.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/11/20 09:48 PM

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.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 11:39 AM

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

Originally Posted by RAF_Louvert
. 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.


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.
Posted By: Panama Red

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 11:58 AM

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.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 12:25 PM

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.
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 12:27 PM

.

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. smile

.
Posted By: Panama Red

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 12:38 PM

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.
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 12:44 PM

.

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.

.
Posted By: Panama Red

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 12:50 PM

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 ???
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 12:52 PM

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.
Posted By: Fullofit

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 12:57 PM

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. biggrin
What I wouldn’t notice is the smooth frame rate.
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 12:57 PM

.

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.

.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 01:00 PM

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.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Fullofit
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. biggrin
What I wouldn’t notice is the smooth frame rate.


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.
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 01:05 PM

.

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

.
Posted By: kksnowbear

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/12/20 01:56 PM

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.
Posted By: HarryH

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/15/20 04:12 PM

Tycoon, to your original question: even though you say it isn't TrackIR, I believe paying at least some attention to your TrackIR settings may help you get a better / smoother in-game experience. My TrackIR setup guide might be worth perusing.

As for the rest of this discussion, there are some interesting points being made, and quite a number of them I agree with. I think I'll resist deeper analysis, except to agree especially with those that cite the game engine itself as a primary limiting factor in terms of getting a totally smooth, stutter-free in-game performance, especially at the higher air activity settings. Since the game engine is unlikely to ever receive any love, let alone be rewritten to take advantage of multiple cores (!), then all any of us can do is a) upgrade our hardware, b) tweak / experiment with settings, or c) play something else. I've been doing the latter for some time now, but I'm looking forward to revisiting WOFF with the upcoming new release (still two weeks away?).

Meantime, enjoy your new rig, Lou!
Posted By: RAF_Louvert

Re: Is the ultra air activity setting actually playable? - 10/18/20 11:55 AM

.

Thanks Harry, I am! pilot

.
© 2024 SimHQ Forums