13 hours ago, AnkH said:

I do not need a trip to Blur Busters to understand that YOU are mixing up stutters with tearing and whatever. Do you really think that in the pre-Gsync age nobody got stutterfree gameplay? That only those had a stutter-free experience with EXACTLY the number of FPS that their monitor has? You cant be serious about this, right? If you have 100% constant 70FPS on a 120Hz monitor you have stutter-free experience. But you might suffer from screen-tearing. 

And limiting the FPS exactly 3 FPS below the Hz-Number of the monitor is even recommended by the site you tell I should go reading: https://blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/5/ So if the thread starter has a G-sync monitor, is 117FPS lock is perfectly fine...

exactly right, except the OP isn't using Gsync, and the reference you cited suggests 3 fps below refresh WHEN USING GSYNC. You can believe what you want, but when not running gsync and setting 3 fps below refresh it's going to result in stutters...and how did screen tearing ever become the issue for you - the OP is having a problem with stutters.

14 hours ago, Keirtt said:

Sorry everyone for my delay with replying.

To clarify a couple of my things. I'm currently using an LG C2 42" which has GSYNC

For you, I cite the topic starter... @somiller He HAS Gsync. 

BTW: Check this

 

17 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Anything above 75 FPS is pretty pointless for the human brain/eye.

What..? You can clearly discern the difference of a game running at 120fps on a 120hz screen vs 60fps. Even more so with 144hz. This is why professional gamers usually run 144hz or 240hz screens because increased frames rendered within the refresh rate offers better reaction time, pending they can render to match the screen's refresh rate.

 

17 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

What you want to look for is lowest FPS value and set your refresh rate to just below that to ensure fluidity in your flight scenarios.  Personally I would avoid Gsync/Freesync as what you want is consistency in timeframe (it’s the consistency that provides for the sense of fluidity).

You can't just do this randomly. If you have a 144hz screen and can only maintain 60fps, you will experience choppines as you can't attain a fraction of you regular refresh rate, ie 72fps in this scenario. The other options is using vsync down to 36 fps.

This is where Gsync comes it, it is a variable hardware refresh rate so regardless of your actual fps, the screen can dynamically adjust its refresh rate to anything. ensuring parity between fps and refresh rate.

 

17 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

If you can obtain 16ms timeframe consistency for duration of approach in your most difficult scenario (say London City airport, in complex aircraft, in bad weather, lots of AI traffic), then set your refresh rate to 60Hz Vsync on.

Frametime, not timeframe, is directly tied to your fps. if you're getting 16ms frametime on 1% lows then you're achieving 60fps on 1% lows. They cannot be out of sync with each other. This also assumes you have a 60hz monitor, I don't I have a 144hz screen so my options are to vsync to 72fps (in your scenario I can't) so then forced to 36fps. Again another situation where Gsync comes in handy.

7 hours ago, AnkH said:

For you, I cite the topic starter... @somiller He HAS Gsync. 

...and isn't using it - as stated by the OP himself.

23 minutes ago, somiller said:

 

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Lossless Scaling app (available cheaply on Steam). I can set half monitor refresh vsync 30fps in the sim and set Lossless Scaling to either 60 fps (2x) or even 90 fps (3x) and I get results at least as good if not better than frame generation. There is virtually zero lag. I haven't tested it much with more demanding aircraft but on GA aircraft it works a treat. I can pan with no ghosting and no stutters at all. I can't achieve that in frame generation.

For those who haven't tried it I encourage you to give it a go.

58 minutes ago, somiller said:

...and isn't using it - as stated by the OP himself.

For MSFS2020...

27 minutes ago, robert young said:

For those who haven't tried it I encourage you to give it a go.

I haven't tried it and rarely use DLSS FG because of some artifacts I get with it relative to my other settings.  If I use NVSR w/ DLAA most of the artifacts disappear but then the ghosting in characters in glass cockpits which I just saw in the video can be improved by using secondary scaling.  If that is solved all that remains for aberrations visually is the judder one gets when moving back and forth between two screens.

Are there ANY artifacts you notice using the LS app?

7 minutes ago, Noel said:

Are there ANY artifacts you notice using the LS app?

Not so far, at least using 2x. I think if you pushed a complex aircraft to 3x you might see some oddities. BTW because I no longer use Frame Generation as Lossless Scaling doesn't need it, I find DX11 so much smoother than DX12, which is heavier on resources according to my monitoring app and offers no advantages I can see apart from frame generation.

1 minute ago, robert young said:

Not so far, at least using 2x. I think if you pushed a complex aircraft to 3x you might see some oddities. BTW because I no longer use Frame Generation as Lossless Scaling doesn't need it, I find DX11 so much smoother than DX12, which is heavier on resources according to my monitoring app and offers no advantages I can see apart from frame generation.

There is no DX11 for MSFS2024...

6 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

You can clearly discern the difference of a game running at 120fps on a 120hz screen vs 60fps

We disagree, many studies have proven this is not valid:

Healthline Article

MIT /study

13ms is the max for human brain recognition of imagery … yes, the eye doesn’t operate in terms of FPS, but it’s the brains ability to process an image that is the limiting factor.  That limit is one image every 13ms.

What professional gamers do isn’t a scientific study of eye/brain image recognition.  The more likely reason for running high refresh rates of 144 or 240 is an attempt to maximum server response and nothing to do with visual processing.  The more time they can get the server to respond to their input the more likely they’ll get desired results … and that depends on the application/server as most use some form of predictive algorithm to determine position in the virtual world.  In terms of MSFS 2024, my latency to the server is 17ms, there is no way it can operate at 16ms so it uses predictive algorithms.

For motion fluidity you never want to be in a “variable” state, Gsync/Freesync provide for variable frequency of image to display rendering, this is not how the eye/brain perceive motion.  

I agree, not many monitors support a refresh rate for 13ms image display, the industry seemed to settle on support for 16ms 60Hz.  And yes, one should always want to be “in sync” with their display’s refresh rate hence why Vsync is an option for most games.

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

We disagree, many studies have proven this is not valid:

Healthline Article

MIT /study

Christ, your own linked study is flawed as the test was done on a monitor that was limited to 75hz.

Quote

Apparatus. The experiment was programmed with Matlab 7.5.0 and the Psychophysics
Toolbox extension (Brainard, 1997) version 3, and was run on a Mac mini with 2.4 GHz, Intel
Core 2 Duo processor. The Apple 17-in. CRT monitor was set to a 1024 x 768 resolution with a 75-Hz refresh rate.

This is not a conducive test as it was done in 2014 with a monitor only capable of 75hz. Come back to me with a study done with a 240hz or even 144hz monitor then you'll actually have something to go off of.

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

The more likely reason for running high refresh rates of 144 or 240 is an attempt to maximum server response and nothing to do with visual processing.  The more time they can get the server to respond to their input the more likely they’ll get desired results … and that depends on the application/server as most use some form of predictive algorithm to determine position in the virtual world.  In terms of MSFS 2024, my latency to the server is 17ms, there is no way it can operate at 16ms so it uses predictive algorithms.

Server latency and monitor refresh rate are not tied to one another, what are you talking about??? Here's an actual study carried out by Nvidia that conclusively showcases the increased time to respond due to the increased refresh rate in professional gaming. Here is a written article by BlurBusters that references this study and goes over exactly how refresh rate ties in with FPS and it's benefits in ESports competitions

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

For motion fluidity you never want to be in a “variable” state, Gsync/Freesync provide for variable frequency of image to display rendering, this is not how the eye/brain perceive motion.  

The eye does not perceive motion through FPS, the eyes perceives motion through electrical signals by the iris (over simplification). Gsync has also been demonstrated to provide advantages in gaming scenarios. I don't think you actually understand how Gsync functions. It is to ensure a matching refresh rate for a given frametime to reduce screen tearing and reduce latency.

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

I agree, not many monitors support a refresh rate for 13ms image display, the industry seemed to settle on support for 16ms 60Hz.

literally hundreds of monitors support 75fps/13ms. Even more monitors support 144hz, it is basically the de-facto standard once you leave the budget price points for monitors.

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

And yes, one should always want to be “in sync” with their display’s refresh rate hence why Vsync is an option for most games.

ONLY, if you can attain an fps that is or higher than your monitor's refresh rate, otherwise Vsync does nothing. This is where the advantages of Gsync come in.

Please for your own sake, remove the notion that the eye cannot see above 75fps. There's enough actually conducive studies to showcase otherwise. Not to mention you can do a simple test, with a high refresh rate monitor (like 144hz), ensuring the refresh is set in the windows display settings and just running testufo and using you're eyes.

I'll rest my case here, if you decide to double down.

Fighter pilots have been tested and can identify the type of plane in an image with just one frame at 255 fps. How is that possible if 75FPS is the max?

https://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Besides the fact that the test setup with a 75Hz monitor is embarassingly wrong as mentioned above, it is also not all about recognizing single images. If you have a game running at 200FPS and then it dips for example down to 100FPS for fractions of a second, you instantly notice this as a stutter, no matter if you can see 100 or 200 single frames. The lower the FPS, the more recognizable are such dips, even with smaller variation...

As a side note, many of the figures people have quoted in various threads over the years with respect to perception of frames were to do with either phosphors on old school TVs (or monitors) or projected films on cinema screens. So ... be careful where you get your information from. Most of the posts above refer to modern/digital displays and the figures quoted are correspondingly different/accurate.

1 hour ago, Lucky38i said:

I'll rest my case here, if you decide to double down.

You have not provided any “case”?  I’m going to stick with MIT study as their credentials are pretty significant over a “professional gamer” perception and your perception.  I suggest you re-read the MIT article to understand why the monitor refresh rate was not relevant to the experiment … they tested down to 6ms.  I think what you are missing in this experiment is “what are you actual able to recognize”.

Don’t see any accredited scientific method in the 100fps link you provided.  Going to stick with accredited MIT study and various medical institutions for accuracy in testing and data of human eye/brain image recognition.

Gsync and Freesync are VRR (variable refresh rates).  Yes the eye does not “sync” to VRR … think about it.  Many monitors will have a limit on the VRR range, with the majority at 48-120 Hz but there are some that will go from 1-240Hz … not really sure why they go so low since nobody is going to want to sync FPS to display at 1 Hz.