Hi there, Just wondering what is a good and bad FPS? Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
I’d consider anything above 30 to be acceptable. Higher is always better, but as long as you can maintain 30, you should have a good experience.
4 Likes
Thanks guys for the info.
Not this again…
Edit:
Sorry, did not mean to be crass. But this is simply not correct if you put it like that.
4 Likes
One thing is FPS, the other thing is stuttering. 30 FPS is totally acceptable as long there is no stutter and jitter. You can see the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS f.e, but high FPS aren´t important in a simulator because you don´t have to do quick camera moves.
1 Like
30 fps has been the go-to value for years. You can fly with 20, but it isn’t really fun. I fly with around 45-50 unless in the South California Bay Area or Cities like London, where it drops to around 30 and sometimes a bit lower.
The average should actually be higher than 30, since an average implies a bell curve where thirty is the mid-point, but you will have frames below that many times during the sim running.
I prefer to run around 39/40 to 45 in non-PG low density map areas. That means I’m at least at 35 in a poly-heavy airport like LAX, JFK or De Gaulle.
I would be more than happy with a stable experience throughout the flight, regardless of the FPS. I’ve tried this flight on the 320NX multiple occasions and for some reason every single time I am able to leave KTUS at decent FPS and by the time I approach KPHX 30 min later the FPS have dropped to a slideshow. I’m on a 9900k + RTX2080Ti but it makes little difference because this looks like a big memory leak or something.
1 Like
Slightly OT, but have you checked your RAM usage?
Because I can fill up my 32GB of RAM on Ultra settings on a 2K resolution easily on a flight like that. I check the memory allocation on every flight and it always ends with around 1GB of free memory if I am lucky.
Above that and the performance can tank if your RAM is full and the game starts paging to HDD/SSD. I had a few CTDs happen that way, too. Because the sim seems unhappy when access times begin to stall.
But that is just my casual observation.
I picked you this short answer from Google:
“Human’s eye can see up to 1000 FPS and, perhaps, above. 60Hz monitor will always show 60 FPS, no matter how much FPS your game is able to provide. High refresh rates are noticeable only in dynamic scenes; in slow or static scenes you rarely will see any difference beyond 30 FPS”.Oct 25, 2019…
If you like to know more about FPS regardless what game, movie or streaming, This article gives you some answers to your inquiries:
Frame Rate: A Beginner’s Guide for Live Streaming
Good luck 
2 Likes
You are correct. I was writing in general terms. All pc,s are different obviously and in general if you are at fl40 20 is good. However 20 fps at 2000 is not going to be very well accepted. But generally 30 or more anywhere is good. Then the graphics in MSFS is so good and intense many times 30 isn’t good enough in some more intense areas which have been mentioned. You can be flying along and all is heavenly and then on decent depending on that great location things go south fps wise. Possibly can be avoided by tweaking the graphics settings - perhaps not again depending on the capability of the pc. Its all relative.
1 Like
I did not mean to offend or anything, just not proliferate the myth that the human eye can not perceive more than 30 frames per second, which is how I understood your post.
Firstly, there is a distinction between the refresh rate of your monitor, which is measured in Hertz and the number of frames your graphics card puts out to that monitor.
BoNooraa posted a good guide to delve a little deeper, I think. 
2 Likes
I am glad you found the article useful
Cheerz
1 Like
Yes you are right as well. this happened to me a few times. The FPS dropped down from 30+ to nearly 10 when I was flying on about 1500 in a harsh area. I thought I am the (ONLY 
) one encountes this … Thank you Rickieb7 for the information, it deserves attention.
I hear what you all are saying and I don’t want to disagree with you.
But I’m flying the WT CJ4 (most of he time now) with IFR/ILS
under AP at 3000 feet max; take off from KJFK and flying over New York City.
I get from 14 to 24 FPS with smooth flight, (take off, cruise and landing),
and responsive CJ4. And I don’t see any difference in the 14 and the 24 FPS.
Pure “Ultra” graphics (4K Windowed) on a 65 in TCL OLED TV.
- (select “Ultra” and no other changes)
It must be my bad eye sight or poor brain function but I am very content.
Giabyte Z390 MB
i9-9900K , 4.8 Ghz
64 GB SDRAM, 3400 Mhz
Samsung 970 EVO Plus
- M.2 SSD, 500 GB, PCIe, NVMe (C:\Win 10 and D:\FS2020)
INTEL 665p
- M.2 SSD, 1 TB, PCIe, NVMe (All other programs)
MSI GTX 1660 TI
TCL 4k OLED TV
I started out with:
Z370 MB —>> Z390
i7-9700K, 4.8 Ghz —> i9-9900K 4.8 Ghz & Multithread
32 GB SDRAM, 3200 Mhz —>64 GB, 3400 Mhz
Samsung 860 EVO SATA SSD 500 GB —> M.2 PCIe NVMe & Intel 665p M.2
MSI GTX 1660 TI (the only item that has stayed the same)
Started out with:
- pauses
- stutters
- choppy
- not happy with and enjoying flying FS2020
With each new piece of PC hardware, FS2020 got
better (smoother and higher graphics and increased graphics detail).
I think any piece of PC hardware can slow the speed of FS2020
getting the graphics to the monitor.
We used to have Interlaced monitors.
A non-interlaced would paint the full screen at 60 Hz. (60 times a second)
An interlaced monitor would paint the full screen at 60 Hz but
would only paint every other row (odd number rows - 1,3,5).
A second pass the would the missing rows (even numbered rows - 2,4,6)
Thus 30 HZ.
Many people complained of headaches, etc. from the interlaced monitors.
I assume a graphics card paints the screen at 60 HZ.
Or 144 Hz or whatever HZ your graphics card AND monitor can handle.
But it is painting a full screen. Also assuming a Frame Per Second is the
same as a screen per second.
I think a blinking light at 15 or 16 Hz or lower can be seen as blinking.
Above that and our eyes/brain will see it as a solid light.
My Graphics setting is set for: (Options, General)
Windowed
Full Screen Resolution = 3840 x 2160
Global Rendering Quality = Ultra
Frame Rate Limit = 60 ----> Flight is smooth, quality of scenery/cockpit good/clear
Frame Rate Limit = 20 ----> Flight is chopped/stutters, quality of scenery/cockpit same
I assume the monitor is still painting the full screen at 60 Hz.
This would keep the quality of the scenery/cockpit good/clear.
I assume it is painting the same screen 2 times and a new
screen on the 3d time ( or something like that) with the 20 FPS limit.
14 fps would be horrid in a low and slow GA performance envelope. Approaching a relatively suburban uncontrolled airfield, that’s a slideshow on final approach. Not sure how that’s acceptable in a business jet whose performance envelope is easily double a Cessna piston…
For me 30 or above is good. VR user here.
14 - 24 FPS over New York City.
Take off on Runway 31R. VS set for 3,000 feet.
I’m content.
4K 3840 x 2160
Graphics set to Ultra
Scenery looks great.
Flight is smooth.
I typically get around 25fps on a 32” 4K monitor at high end settings flying a Beech Bonanza or similar. And I love it.
To each his own.