Feature Suggestions » FPS 60 plus?

The program is very nice, but the fps is very sluggish, only good for a PC with without a good video card.
HeliX with 300 FPS is acceptable, it will go faster, but not necessary.
60 fps is almost useless.

I have noticed that there seems to be some lag in updating the display. If neXt is using double or tripple buffering, it will be rendering frames ahead of displaying them, meaning that input lag could be 2/60s or 3/60s (=50ms), so there could be some reason to use a higher FPS. Double buffering you need to avoid tearing but tripple buffering is I think mostly to smooth out the frame rate for games, and not necessary for neXt.

Thanks Klaus,
The last physics update made a huge improvement. Your program looks really nice, and the sound is very good, better than Heli-X.
I cannot say exactly why 300 fps looks better than 60fps, but it does. Try it. I suspect there is a calculation of frames at 300 fps, and the data gets decimated to fit 60 fps, which is better than 60 fps calculations where there is more room for variation. 60 Hz is 16.6 ms, where a lot of things can happen.
Video games usually need very high frame rates, regardless of monitor speeds, and the effect is certainly visible. People also spend big money on fast video cards.
Your program does not seem to use the video-card much, as evident from temperature monitoring. Good if you have weak card, but if you have a good card more effects can be pulled in.

The lag between the controller stick movement and the sticks on the screen is easily spotted, I'm guessing in the 100ms range. I use a USB adapter to my JR transmitter, the USB adapter is from HobbyKing, which sadly only has 5 channels. Heli-X do not have this delay, so I cannot blame the hardware.

The helicopter is realistically illuminated but is sometimes hard to see. Is there a way to make it a little brighter? I put some day-glow fluorescent film on my helis to make them more visible, and distinguish polarity. Downhill skiers are easier to see on TV with their bright green equipment against the white snow. Perhaps the light "source" can also be made like an overcast sky, producing less contrast? I don't know if OpenGL has calls for this.

(The motion picture industry is set at low frame rates with a very few exceptions. (Peter Jackson's lord of the rings) People are so used to motion blur that they don't even "see" it. 24fps was a good idea in the film era, but now with high speed cameras and digital storage this is no longer a valid point. The TV makers are itching for a new product, and high frame rate (low blur) would be a top choice for me, curved and 3D is less interesting. )

800FPS on the Next Simulator

http://helifreak.com/showpost.php?p=7063857&postcount=15