New Patch 2.??

[PeteEHAM]

Yeah, I've done that.  I still maintained only 65 FPS max.

Strange that it doesn't happen for you. Does anyone else have the turbo FPS on finals?

Hi,

I've installed the demo and I also still maintained only 65-70 FPS max.

Computer: Q6600, 4GB DDR RAM, Nvidia 8800 GTX 768mb running Vista Home Premium

Greetings,

PeteEHAM

[desktopsimmer]

Hi,
I've installed the demo and I also still maintained only 65-70 FPS max.
Computer: Q6600, 4GB DDR RAM, Nvidia 8800 GTX 768mb running Vista Home Premium
Greetings,
PeteEHAM

Does it increase on final, as with that specification it should beat my 200fps

[Spacewalker]

I tried the new demo yesterday and, like so many here, I got around 65 to 70 FPS.

I suspect the max. FPS does not only depend from your PC hardware, but also from the monitor settings you are using. If your monitor is set to a relatively low resolution like 1024x768 or even 800x600 the FPS would be much higher than on high res settings like 1600x1200 or 1920x1200.
So, I think this is one reason for the different FPS values we all see.

In this respect, I am quite happy with the FPS I get, as my monitor is set to 1920x1200.

Maybe everybody here could also write what monitor settings they use, when they get a certain FPS value.
It would allow a better comparison of the different FPS values. (Usually you don't compare apples and oranges, do you? )
And we will soon be able to prove or disprove my point.

[Steven]

My resolution is 1440x900.  I get 58-62, max I've seen was about 67.

Now that you speak of it, though, I do wish there was a resolution setting in SSM.

[spaceboy7441]

It can't be your monitor resolution because SSM automatically sets it to the monitors max resolution

[Spacewalker]

It can't be your monitor resolution because SSM automatically sets it to the monitors max resolution

I would doubt that. Just try it out for yourself: Change the display settings of your monitor to a lower resolution and then start SSM. It will look different and you will get higher frame rates in certain situations, than in a higher res setting.

Besides: Monitors also have different max resolution settings.

[uri_ba]

SSM is always running on the windows resolution setting.
it assumes that it's the MAX res for your screen

[Steven]

I've tried 800x600, and I still got 58-62, and nothing changed.  All the way from HAC to landing, no outstanding FPS.

[fwagner]

I tried the new demo yesterday and, like so many here, I got around 65 to 70 FPS.

I suspect the max. FPS does not only depend from your PC hardware, but also from the monitor settings you are using. If your monitor is set to a relatively low resolution like 1024x768 or even 800x600 the FPS would be much higher than on high res settings like 1600x1200 or 1920x1200.
So, I think this is one reason for the different FPS values we all see.

In this respect, I am quite happy with the FPS I get, as my monitor is set to 1920x1200.

Maybe everybody here could also write what monitor settings they use, when they get a certain FPS value.
It would allow a better comparison of the different FPS values. (Usually you don't compare apples and oranges, do you? )
And we will soon be able to prove or disprove my point.

where is the new demo I downloaded it yesterday and it said it was version 1.37 I thought that the new version was 2.0

[uri_ba]

demo is on the main page.
latest "operational" version is still 1.37a

[Admin]

Demo software version may not always correspond to the full software version.

/Admin

[FalconAF]

Guys,

I love this sim.  And I'm not criticizing it in any way with this post.  But I've also got over 35 years experience as an IT Professional, and feel there needs to be a little bit of clarification for some users of the sim before this thread turns into a "Frames Per Second" fiasco much like I see in many of the Flight Simulator type forums.

Unless you are using an old CRT monitor, anything over 60 Frames Per Second is redundant, and a waste of your computer resources.  A computer application may be able to PROCESS over 60 FPS, but if your monitor Refresh Rate is only 60 Hz, which almost all current monitors are, your monitor is only refreshing the screen 60 times a second.  It can't draw 100 FPS on your screen.  You will NEVER see those extra 40 FPS on your monitor.

So, if you are currently getting anything over 60FPS, and have any of the graphics sliders in SSMS turned down, turn some of 'em up until you get to 60 FPS.  You may as well use some of that extra processing power to give you more detail at "only" 60 FPS, as that is the maximum number of "frames per second" you are ever going to see on your monitor anyhow.

And don't be fooled into thinking that if you get 100 FPS and somebody else only gets 60 FPS, you are seeing "more" than they are.  Ain't so.

Respectfully submitted, of course.

 

[desktopsimmer]

I agree, what is the point of +100fps .

I've posted elsewhere on this forum that it was a good thing that the sim is 'throttled' to 50fps. IMHO there is nothing gained for over 50fps, and to be honest I not seen a significant difference between my daft 200fps and +50fps. I've just found it strange for my PC to run at such a high rate for the demo.

[Admin]

Hi guys,

Yes, your observations regarding FPS etc are very correct. Actually on my own PC I am getting "only" a steady 60-70FPS - about 15%-20% more than I had before.

The new optimization gives us more headroom to add new features without impeding the smoothness and "real-timeness" of the sim.

And of course, we have mentioned quite clearly that the people who will see more improvement - especially in the real-time department - are those with weaker machines. Those of us fortunate enough to own a modern mainstream gaming rig (or stronger) will feel less improvement although it is definitely there.

What we are bringing with the next Service Pack is NOT what one would call "brute optimization" which results in hysterical FPS that look good on benchmarks. We have fine-tuned the Real Time engine and ONE result of that action spills over to better frame rates. Attempting to benchmark real-time simulators (FSX included) is doomed to failure, frustration and/or ridicule. There is a solid theory behind why this happens, but suffice to say that comparing FPS is NOT always a good way to gauge your system or application performance.

So while somebody gets 200+ FPS and somebody "only" 67FPS is really not that indicative of the SSM2007 performance - or the specific HW power. What is enough to know (and notice) is that Real Time now works correctly for VERY LOW FPS - last we tested was for as low as 9 (nine) FPS! Which is something we have not planned for initially. We simply wanted to pave the way for weak laptops and older PCs which of course, still offer some 3D acceleration according to our lowest recommended specs. Another indirect benefit is that now, it is very possible to get smooth or real-time in-game FRAPS video captures without the fear that FRAPS brings SSM2007 down to a crawl

It is likely that we will again "cage" the FPS indicator for the full release to max 50FPS (as opposed to the situation with the Demo). We are even tempted to remove it altogether now that we go real-time for as low as 9FPS. We'll see.

/Admin

[FalconAF]

Admin,

In retrospect, after reading my post above, I want to clarify something.   

My use of the word "Guys" at the start of it was aimed at the user community...not the developers.  The post wasn't meant to be critical in any way about the development concepts.  Your efforts at improving the overall performance of the sim are greatly appreciated, for all users. 

And I agree with your idea of caging the FPS in the final release.  It will avoid a lot of "worry" amongst the user community about performance issues based on "relative" FPS indications. 

FalconAF