[Jack@Elvas]

Curious what framerate people are seeing with openrails.

I was on the Train Simulations Montana Rail Link route yesterday, and was getting 20-30 FPS.

Is that framerate typical?

Is there a guide to optimizing framerate in OpenRails?

[shadowmane]

I was on Chilton Saturday and was getting 14 FPS until I got out into the countryside. Then it went up to the 50's and 60's.

[R H Steele]

I get 59-60 on all routes, have Options/Video/Vertical Sync set to 60. If I turn that off I get 100 to 200+ depending upon route. OR just does not need more that 60fps ( at this stage of development -- future: who knows? ).

Much depends upon individual user's hardware and graphics card -- and other settings --- "Shadow all shapes" and "Dynamic Shadows" can eat up the fps.

FPS will drop if you have the various Logging options checked, which are usually only used by developers and others troubleshooting specific problems.

[Weter]

Hello.
My foolish, sidetrack question: why try to reach 60 fps, while eye can't see difference after 24?

[Jack@Elvas]

 Weter, on 22 April 2024 - 09:00 AM, said:

Hello.
My foolish, sidetrack question: why try to reach 60 fps, while eye can't see difference after 24?

Wetter, I don't think this is correct.
While the ability does seem to vary by person, a number of studies have shown that higher FPS makes a difference.

In my own experience as a sim user I notice far smoother panning at higher frame rates.

Even something as simple as moving the mouse cursor around is easier to follow at higher frame rates.

60FPS does feel like a nice value point - cheaper and less power consuming than 144 while still being responsive enough for most interactive applications.

[Jack@Elvas]

 R H Steele, on 22 April 2024 - 08:56 AM, said:

I get 59-60 on all routes, have Options/Video/Vertical Sync set to 60. If I turn that off I get 100 to 200+ depending upon route. OR just does not need more that 60fps ( at this stage of development -- future: who knows? ).

Much depends upon individual user's hardware and graphics card -- and other settings --- "Shadow all shapes" and "Dynamic Shadows" can eat up the fps.

FPS will drop if you have the various Logging options checked, which are usually only used by developers and others troubleshooting specific problems.

Well shucks that could be it, I'm using the unstable version, since it's got raildriver support.
Is there a way to use the latest version but disable all logging?

[R H Steele]

[copied from various sources and cobbled together ]

For starters, the human eye doesn't actually see in frames per second. That's a measurement we devised to track how quickly images appear on a screen. Each "frame" is, in fact, a still image, and 60 FPS simply means 60 still images appear on the screen each second. Think of it like a flip book, with each page fitted to a frame. The quicker you flip it, the more frames you see per second. But instead of frames, human vision uses a continuous stream of information from our eyes, which is delivered to the brain as electric signals.

As an extension of FPS, hertz (Hz) is the hardware limit at which a display can refresh its images on the screen. So, a 45 Hz monitor, for instance, could lead to tearing and frame skipping if it's forced to play a 60 FPS video — especially without any variable refresh rate technology. That's why gamers often need monitors with refresh rates of 120 Hz and above because they can detect motion blur or flicker in displays with lower specs. You can learn more in our guide on the difference between refresh rate and motion rate.

There's no one place you can point to specifically and attribute the myth that you can't see more than 60 frames per second. But there's a consensus across forums that it may have come from Hollywood.

Most movies are shot at 24 FPS, and that's because it's the lowest frame rate needed for movements to appear natural to people. Historically, it was also the best rate for sound quality without studios spending an arm and a leg. Over time, we've gotten so used to the 24 FPS aesthetic that it has now set the standard for what cinema should look like. We still use 24 FPS in movies today (with motion blur), even though we have the technology for better frames.

Various sources speculate about the maximum frames per second we can see. The best way to approach this problem, though, is not "how many frames per second can we see?" but more of a "when do we notice a difference between FPS levels?"

As FPS increases, the noticeable differences between higher frame rates become less pronounced for most people. This is because the human visual system has a finite ability to process what it sees. Beyond a certain point, additional frames do not translate to a noticeable improvement in motion smoothness or clarity.

Our ability to discern differences between high frame rates depends on several factors, including the viewer's sensitivity, the viewing conditions, and the type of content being viewed. For instance, the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is quite noticeable in terms of smoothness and motion clarity, especially in fast-paced video games or high-speed video footage. However, as you move to higher frame rates, such as from 220 FPS to 250 FPS, the improvement in visual quality is less perceptible.

This "what FPS the eye can see" misconception seems to have started with people saying we can't see more than 24 FPS. This was perhaps an oversimplified version of Hollywood telling us that we didn't need more than 24 FPS — and the number has varied a lot over the years to settle at 60 FPS.

...and so forth with more blah blah.

Just copy your question "why try to reach 60 fps, while eye can't see difference after 24?" in any search engine and you'll have dozens of returns.

[R H Steele]

 Jack@Elvas, on 22 April 2024 - 09:39 AM, said:

Well shucks that could be it, I'm using the unstable version, since it's got raildriver support.
Is there a way to use the latest version but disable all logging?

Options/Data Logger

[Weter]

Hello, Jack.
You know, That does have some sense: I was told (learning computers), and later, advertisement of new-generation TV-sets have repeated that: 50Hz REFRESHMENT rate of display screen is painful for eyes, in case of prolonged watching, 60 is minimum for comfort work, and 75 is better.

In case of high frame rates I do see jerks from time to time.
TBC...

My guess, therefore - there is some kind of "interference" between frame and refresh rates of the display's screen (remember stripes, we see, looking onto rotating propeller of an aircraft), some stroboscopic effect...

Hmm...
In case, my guess is right, any number for both: refresh rate of monitor(V-sync?) which is constant, and current game's frame rate - times of 6 and higher, than 24 will be good for eyes. The rest - might be marketing lies.

[steved]

I get 59-60 fps running the VSL. Sync set to 60.
I usually have TSRE, Paintdotnet, Firefox w/10 tabs, Chrome w/4 tabs, and several other apps running in the background and on other monitors.

These are my heavy hitters.
 tskmon.jpg (28.97K)
Number of downloads: 1

Processor = AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor (12 threads, 6 cores, 3.6 GHz) (L1 - Cache 384 KB) (L2 - Cache 3072 KB) (L3 - Cache 32768 KB)
Memory = 31.9 GB
Video = NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 (4.0 GB RAM) (nvlddmkm 31.0.15.3598)

Randy