Mad Max Fury Road 1080p 60fps Download

[Thomasina Norse]

Along time ago, in using Prepar3D, I learned the pathway to the smoothest, stutter-free experience is thru the use of Vsync, however capped at the maximum SUSTAINABLE frame rate during any given flight. This same logic persists in MSFS. As you note 60 FPS is not only not sustainable but not even achievable w/ your current configuration. I have a bit more horsepower to play with than you do from your hardware specs, and I'm not able to sustain 60fps primarily because I have every slider set to Ultra. So for MSFS, and because I don't have a Gsync capable display, I settle for a frame lock of 30 FPS. And a solid, stutter-free 30 FPS is amply sufficient for any flight sim. More is better, but not anywhere near as 'better' as putting all settings at Ultra, and LOD's out to 200-400, scenario-dependent. A clear benefit of locking at 30 FPS is you are asking your CPU to prerender 'only' 30 FPS, and your GPU to render only 30 FPS (I hope I have the language right but may well not there!) so your hardware runs at the minimum it needs to to maintain that frame rate of 30. Here's an example of this:

Here we are set UNLOCKED, no frame rate cap. Notice both the CPU and GPU utilization rates--CPU16 is the MSFS mainthread when hyperthreading was enabled. You can see the frame rate is 41 in this unlocked scenario:

Here is the same exact spot in the flight, however this time the frame rate is locked at 30, with Vsync turned ON. You can see CPU16 is now roughly at half of what it was unlocked, and GPU down to 76% from 99%, the CPU is running a little cooler as well.

And the most important take home: the latter produces the smoothest, stutter-free experience. This is why it is absolutely preferred over the higher frame rate in the former example. If I had a Gsync capable display presumably I could let Gsync lock the frame rate dynamically, so that in the above example I would be seeing a frame rate of 41 while maintaining smooth animation. This is only my understanding as I've never seen it myself. My next screen will sport Gsync, but as mentioned rock solid frame rate of 30 is amply sufficient for my needs so there is no rush to replace a perfectly excellent 34" curved display.

Vsync ON without a frame lock that your configuration can fully sustain gets you little to nothing, hence you never noticed anything. With your hardware my recommendation for you is to go to the most demanding scenario you will find yourself in and tune settings in MSFS such that you can maintain 30fps, and put the frame lock to 30 and Vsync ON--set your monitor's refresh rate at 60Hz for this to work correctly. Esp important to set correctly are your LOD settings, especially Terrain.

If you have a 60Hz monitor, set v-Sync to 30, then set you in-sim settings to sustain 30fps, you will notice how smooth the sim will be. I have a 120hz curved monitor, I've set v-sysn to 20 (1/3 of my monitors refresh rate) which in turn yields 40fps, smooooth as silk everywhere I fly.

I have adopted this philosophy and for me it was a huge benefit, I was constantly trying to chase 60fps as I have a 42 inch 4K TV (60Hz). This really put a lot of strain on my trusty old 1080TI. I could only run at 2K with mediocre settings. Once I set Vsync in the sim and set 30fps I reset all my graphics settings then did a few test flights and saw that I really could maintain a solid 30fps no matter what I was flying. I then went about about re evaluating my graphic settings and was totally surprised that I could run the sim in full 4K resolution with decent settings and I was seeing CPU usage around 60% and GPU usage around 80%

Ultimately now I am finding the experience so consistent and hit a solid 30FPS with live weather, live traffic & road traffic and a sim that visually looks amazing. I did think about selling my 1080TI, it is still a great card but I wasn't prepared to sell any internal organs to pay for a 3080TI or similar. I am so glad I didn't !!!!

I have been flying this way since Sept and have not looked back, I am very happy with what I am able to achieve with my rig which by today's standard is probably considered a mid range PC. I guess the moral of this long winded story is give it a try and see if you like it.

I hear you on that and that is fabulous your 1080Ti is doing so well. I was caught in a little bit of a squeeze play when I found one at a price I could stomach (barely!) this was immediately before the giant performance increase we saw in I think it was SU5? Anyway, I bought a 3080 Ti FE and it's been great, of course. Even w/ the performance upgrade w/ my former 2070 Super I had to dial back specific settings, often clouds had to dial back to High instead of Ultra, but really it was still very good. I am able to run all planes and all settings maxed but do need to vary Terrain LOD else my CPU isn't up to the task otherwise. It's set at the worst case settings (FSDT's KORD in weather in the 787X, from this morning's flight) I had to set T-LOD to 160. Usually I just leave it on 200 and it's fine, but when in lighter weight aircraft and rural scenery out to 400 no problem.

This exactly. I have a 3090 but still lock my fps to 30. It runs the gpu much cooler on high or ultra settings.

Besides if you turn off vsync the menu screen wd run at 1000 fps making the gpu sound like a rocket engine.

But be aware that the V-Sync settings in the game refer to TV monitors running at 60 Hz, 60 is equal to your monitors refresh rate, 30 to half your monitors refresh rate and 20 to a third, I run my monitor at 75 Hz and sets V-sync to 30 in game, which gives me a fps lock at 37.5, (half my monitors refresh rate.) I personally prefer little higher fps than 30 when panning as it does not get as choppy as it does at 30 fps.

In the last decade, cell phones have made huge leaps forward in technology and capability. It's simply incredible what they are capable of these days, and the amount of processing power and features they have would have been unimaginable not so long ago. The latest iPhones are capable of shooting beautiful images and video up to 4K at 60p. Further, still, the iPhone 8 and X are capable of filming at 240 fps when shot at 1080p, which is very impressive indeed. Both of these features are currently not available in any other similarly priced phone, DSLR, or even most mirrorless cameras. Even popular DSLRs like the Canon 5D Mark IV and Nikon D850 aren't able to shoot at the same frame rates as the iPhone. The question that many people ask is, why?

In a recent video, Max Yurev explains why he thinks this may be the case and discusses how the processing power in the latest iPhones enable these amazing features. Yurev describes how many DSLRs currently do not have the processing power to be able to perform at those levels and, although the sensor size plays a part, the processor is ultimately the reason.

Cameras such as the 5D Mark IV need to heavily crop the sensor in order to shoot at 4K and, even then, can only do so with a much older, inefficient codec. Other cameras such as the Sony a7R II and Sony a6500 are able to shoot without cropping the sensor. However, they generate far too much heat, causing them to inevitably shut down. Currently, only the Panasonic GH5 is able to shoot 4K 60p using the whole sensor.

The iPhone may not be able to fully match the quality, look, and feel of video coming from a camera with a much larger sensor, but it's still very impressive to see these features in a very pocketable and capable device.

If I'm not mistaken the iPhone is the first ever phone to shoot 4k at 60p which I think is definitely something to make a fuss about. There are more practical uses for that instead of 960p at a much lower resolution.

What isn't obvious to people is that some cameras are simply interpolating footage up to 4k, as their sensors don't have enough resolution to record true 4k. I don't know if that's the case with the new iPhone, but it wouldn't surprise me.

"DSLRs currently do not have the processing power to be able to perform at those levels"

WRONG! Wrong on so many levels...

Cameras have way more powerful processing units then phones do because they are ASIC.

The 5DM4 has dual processors, one DIGIC 6 for metering and a DIGIC 6+ for image processing.

And the EOS-1D X Mark II has dual DIGIC 6+ processors, "allowing for a capture rate of 170 consecutive RAW images at 14 fps or 4k Video with up to 60 fps".

1. So it's not a question of processing power...

2. FF sensors record way more than those tiny ones in a phone do. They even shoot films with them, for example: 11 5DM2 was used to shoot some scenes in Mad Max: Fury road.

( -on-cannon-5d-mark-ii/)

3. This article is a click bait, because you just shared a video, without adding any solid research info to back up the claims in it...

Won't change the fact.

You chose a question for the title, and answered it with "the processor is ultimately the reason", which is false. And failed to provide evidence to your claim or do any research on your own.

In the end, you just made an "article" about someones youtube video.

I don't see the point in people dissecting semantics. The bottom line of having an iPhone 8/X that can do 4K 60fps is absolutely amazing. Pair it with a gimbal for consumer video in good light, apply LUTs, edit in iMovie and share right on the phone. There's no such dedicated camera that can do that, it's a handheld computer with networking, and we know a smartphone is not for commercial production so it's Apples to oranges anyway, no pun. Of course there are lots of other qualities beside resolution and frame rate, but 4K at 60 friggin fps in my palm! While I shoot with two 5DIVs for weddings, X+gimbal will be my go to for vacations and family memories.

Tiny compacts costing a fraction of a DSLR have enough processing power to shoot 4K and run IBIS and in some cases film simulation at the same time. The idea that a processor that Panasonic can afford to put in an LX100 - half of the cost of which is probably the fast zoom, and the next biggest cost will be the sensor - is too expensive for the 5Div requires deep idiocy. Based on industry norms for retail chain markup etc, the LX100's cpu probably costs no more than 1/20 of its selling price - and 1/50 is more likely.

3a8082e126