More Awesome Than You!

I've gone back to the Pudding after several months, and I've noticed that my frame is noticeably slower than I remember.  The last time I used the FPS counter in Awesomemod several months ago, I was getting up to 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with settings high to max.  I get similar frame rates now, but with somewhat lower settings and a resolution of 1280x800.  If I try to run at 1920x1080, I get frame rates between 15 and 20 FPS.  I did have to send my computer in for repairs in the interval, if that's relevant.

Specs:
OS: Windows 7 Professional (64-bit)
Dell Studio XPS 1645
Intel Core i7 q820 @ 1.73 GHz
8 GB RAM (DDR3, IIRC)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4670

Have you tried it without cc?

Yes.  There isn't much improvement, in part because I'm only using a small amount of CC.  I got 15-35 FPS regardless of the presence of CC.  Am I expecting too much of my computer?

When was the last time you played it? There's been a few graphical overhauls with the last couple of patches including new water shaders, more detailed trees, more/improved shadows, overhauled lighting (though not quite the "overhaul" that some of us want), overhauled reflective shaders (i.e. for windows and rooves) all of which can knock off quite a few FPS in the game. with my GTS 250, I've seen the frame rate drop from 110-120 to around 85-90 since the last couple of patches (1280x1024, everything maxed - excluding external nVidia settings like enhanced AA and 16x anisotropic filtering which bring it down to around 60 FPS). Also, LN or not, the invisible car glitch is now around ten times worse with both AM and NRaas Master Controller reporting on average 500 or so cars being purged in my Sunset Valley and Riverview hoods every night.

I last played TS3 in August, and I probably last counted FPS in August or July.  Another note, here- my computer is annoyingly inconsistent.  Now, at 1280x800 and highish settings, it's just giving me 20-30 FPS.  This is in a neighborhood (Sunset Valley) that has only about 20 playables in it-- I had destroyed all humans eariler.

You know this is a waste, right, and causing unnecessary stress on your rig? The human eye can't distinguish frame rates over 60, if I recall correctly. For Sims 3, keeping it maxxed at 30 is ideal.

The game is an inconsistent mess. It's not necessarily your computer's fault. My own is all over the map without FPSLimiter. It'll be 28/29, then in the 120s, then back down.

I do use FPSLimiter, but there are times when I load up the game directly by mistake, and it's those times when I've noticed the drop in FPS between patches.

Human eye can't see frame rates over 30, and the game itself does not actually run at that high of a frame rate, so drawing 60 frames is unnecessarily rendering everything twice even though the game only cycles slightly over 30 times a second.

Hmm... Not sure about that. Gran Turismo 5 on PS3 runs at 60fps and is silky smooth for the most part. Take a rehashed/done-on-the-cheap generic "realistic" FPS in comparison (like, say erm... Modern Warfare 2) running at 30fps and there is noticeable judder, especially when panning the camera. In the case of a game like Sims 3 though, anything more than 30fps for what is basically a simulation really is overkill.

Is it really the 60fps that is giving the silky smooth appearance, or the way the graphics have been coded to make better use of advanced techniques and technology?  Older games like Modern Warfare 2 won't necessarily show better on better equipment because they were not coded to make the most out of that technology.

I think in the case of GT5, it actually is the 60fps that's giving the smooth appearance. Some games "fake" 60fps by using a blur filter to blend framestogether, but the side effect of this are washed-out graphics, trails and muddy textures which GT5 doesn't appear to exhibit. I've seen a few games do this with mixed results.

MW2 on the other hand was specifically coded to run at 30fps and at least for the 360 version I played on (a mate's 360 - I have a PS3, though most FPS action I see is usually on the PC), it appeared juddery though consistent. Apparently the PS3 version is worse as it drops frames thanks to crappy code porting - Still, I didn't expect any less from Activi$ion really. Neither console really got a game that utilised the hardware properly.

60 fps isn't what gives you a "stable" picture because you cannot actually see better than 30 fps, and it is rather unlikely the game itself runs at a higher resolution, so you're just seeing the same frame being drawn repeatedly. WHY you see a stable picture is that FPS isn't the whole picture: If the frame rate isn't CONSISTENT, so you're getting 30 fps on AVERAGE, but in PRACTICE, you're getting bursts of low frame rate being averaged against spikes of higher frame rate, THAT will appear jerky, because the points at which the frame rate is bad fall below the 30 fps line, and you can see the jerking. The other thing which can create the impression of jerkiness is the game itself being jerky: It doesn't matter if it is smoothly rendering 30 frames of jerky stop-action behavior induced by lag, or the computational thread locking up while the rendering thread keeps faithfully rendering the stalled output: The game will appear jerky because it actually *IS* jerky.

You know, this game kind of is a jerk, come to think of it.

Not to mention if your monitor has a refresh rate of 60hz (which is pretty common), anything above 60FPS is pointless.