Disapointed by G4

[int2str]

Hey guys!

My "first impressions" thread unfortunately didn't stay on topic for long. Hopefully we can keep this one on track.

After a few weeks with G4, I must say I'm disappointed with G4. The InterLink Elite controller is great, and water is a lot of fun to play with in G4, but there's a lot of annoyances that I wish KE would address down the road. G4 is new, so I hope they'll introduce updates down the road to improve it.

Ok, here's an unordered list of things that "bug" me:

Graphics

Too me, G4 doesn't look that much different to G3.5, except for one part - models. The helicopters, and in particular rotor head animations look much better than in G3.5. The textures are nicer, the head is more animated and the rotor effects look nice.

But that's about it. To me, environments look pretty much the same... Water looks great in 3D fields and makes for some nice visuals. Shadows are improved, which once again makes for some nice eye-candy.

All this comes at too high of a price however. My computer exceeds the specs of the "optimum system" requirements on the box for G4. Yet I have not been able to find settings that give a high enough framerate to fly a model smoothly. Yes, I could crank down the resolution to Super Mario Bros. 8-bit level, but then what's the point?

Some of the new effects also make the models more artificial looking.

Water

Water is nice! Shadows on (and under) the water in 3D fields look great. Planes/helis even sink after you crash too hard! In fact, helis and planes even sink in water that previously showed too shallow to swallow the whole model, yet it does after a crash. You can test this near the pier at Lake Douglas photo field. Water also seems quite bouncy. In the photo fields the water effects look "tacked on". There's no appreciable effect from rotor wash. Set a heli into shallow water somewhere and spool up to full throttle. Then go full negative pitch. You won't see much effect on the water at all...

Photo fields

The new photo fields, in particular "Lake Douglas", I'm sorry to say, are quite sub-par quality, especially for being shipped in the box. The perspective doesn't seem right, which will cause you to hit the ground much sooner than you visually thought. You'll crash into trees that you thought were still a good bit away, and you will disappear behind trees and other parts of the image that look badly cropped. It really looks like Lake Douglas was put together very half-heartedly compared to previous built-in photo fields. Evergreen Airfield is better, but suffers some of the same problems. Like there's no height difference between the runway and the tall grass apparently...

Ground physics

Ground physics in G4 are still as bad as in G3. If you make a major revision to your product, why not address this problem? There's virtually no difference driving on the runway at Evergreen field and then driving into the (visually) tall looking grass next to it. That makes the whole visuals look detached and "cheap".

On a sandy field, the models slide down slopes even with floats and no wheels. Sand has no friction anymore? Speaking of floats - apparently there's no problem taking off on rough grounds with floats only...

Also, you can attempt a high speed fast-forward auto-rotation landing on skids and slide from a runway into tall grass without skipping a beat. The heli will slide perfectly smoothly, pretty much on any ground.

Heli physics

Apparently there was not supposed to be a physics difference between G3 and G4. I'm not sure I agree however. Wind has more effect in G4 (compare wind sock effects at identical wind speeds) and helicopters seem more twitchy (to me) than in G3. Conversely, scale models like the new float heli are completely tranquil and apparently almost indestructible.

Heli selection

Only 1 float heli??? Seriously?

G4 is completely out of touch with the state of RC helicopters apparently. There is no 450 class electric, no 550 class electric, no 600 class electric etc. Yes, 3rd party designers are going to fill this void, but I completely do not understand why there has been no viable electric to fly in G4. The Axe CP is a nice start, but we need something bigger. It doesn't need to have an official name tag if it's a licensing issue or competition related. But just invent a silly 450 electric already!

Menu integration

The new side menu launched from the InterLink is really nice. But why not integrate model and airfield selection in that style? Don't pop up those ugly model/airport selection dialogs. Put them right in there with quick cycle through bars (Like the Alt-Tab list in windows)... I don't want to be popped out of fullscreen every time I want to switch the models.

Conclusion

I really really like RealFlight and want it to succeed. Some of the above points MUST be easy to fix and I don't get why they would not be tackled. It's only been a week or so, so I'm sure there'll be a lot of updates in the future, I'm just afraid that many of the things listed above are just not a priority for KE.

If these issues made it over from G3 without being addressed, I can't imagine KE would want to fix them now, but I remain hopeful.

At least I've put them on the table now.

Thanks!

[opjose]

Hey guys!


Ok, here's an unordered list of things that "bug" me:

Graphics

Too me, G4 doesn't look that much different to G3.5, except for one part - models. The helicopters, and in particular rotor head animations look much better than in G3.5. The textures are nicer, the head is more animated and the rotor effects look nice.

But that's about it. To me, environments look pretty much the same... Water looks great in 3D fields and makes for some nice visuals. Shadows are improved, which once again makes for some nice eye-candy.



All of this was stated in the initial press release.

It sounds like it's actually better than what the release indicated.


All this comes at too high of a price however. My computer exceeds the specs of the "optimum system" requirements on the box for G4. Yet I have not been able to find settings that give a high enough framerate to fly a model smoothly. Yes, I could crank down the resolution to Super Mario Bros. 8-bit level, but then what's the point?


I dunno, that's more of a machine configuration issue than it is a problem with G4.

G4 was from the onset slated to require fuller DX9 compliance and a heaftier computer.

I always take the "optimum" settings for any software to really be the "minimum".

That's a safe approach.


Water

Water is nice! Shadows on (and under) the water in 3D fields look great. Planes/helis even sink after you crash too hard! In fact, helis and planes even sink in water that previously showed too shallow to swallow the whole model, yet it does after a crash. You can test this near the pier at Lake Douglas photo field. Water also seems quite bouncy. In the photo fields the water effects look "tacked on". There's no appreciable effect from rotor wash. Set a heli into shallow water somewhere and spool up to full throttle. Then go full negative pitch. You won't see much effect on the water at all...


Not Bad, but always room for improvement as you've stated.


Photo fields

The new photo fields, in particular "Lake Douglas", I'm sorry to say, are quite sub-par quality, especially for being shipped in the box. The perspective doesn't seem right, which will cause you to hit the ground much sooner than you visually thought. You'll crash into trees that you thought were still a good bit away, and you will disappear behind trees and other parts of the image that look badly cropped. It really looks like Lake Douglas was put together very half-heartedly compared to previous built-in photo fields. Evergreen Airfield is better, but suffers some of the same problems. Like there's no height difference between the runway and the tall grass apparently...



Hmmm... That's too bad. Hopefully some user created fields will be better.

It would be nice if the included fields did not have the issue you talk about, but I'm more interested in having the capacity for all of this, as I HOPE that fixes and user created fields will make everything better.



Ground physics

Ground physics in G4 are still as bad as in G3. If you make a major revision to your product, why not address this problem?

There's virtually no difference driving on the runway at Evergreen field and then driving into the (visually) tall looking grass next to it. That makes the whole visuals look detached and "cheap".

On a sandy field, the models slide down slopes even with floats and no wheels. Sand has no friction anymore? Speaking of floats - apparently there's no problem taking off on rough grounds with floats only...


There were supposed to be NO changes to the physics.

Already too many people were complaining that there would be causing all of the user created planes to be superceeded or require changes.

This is one of those "can't win" situations for KE.

I would have loved to see some changes, but OOHH those endless rants about changing the physics here... sheez.




Also, you can attempt a high speed fast-forward auto-rotation landing on skids and slide from a runway into tall grass without skipping a beat. The heli will slide perfectly smoothly, pretty much on any ground.



This sounds just like G3.5, which to an extent can be modified.

Have you edited the airfields and changed the friction co-efficients for the various components as well as the whole airfield default?

It makes a big difference.




Conclusion

I really really like RealFlight and want it to succeed. Some of the above points MUST be easy to fix and I don't get why they would not be tackled. It's only been a week or so, so I'm sure there'll be a lot of updates in the future, I'm just afraid that many of the things listed above are just not a priority for KE.

If these issues made it over from G3 without being addressed, I can't imagine KE would want to fix them now, but I remain hopeful.

At least I've put them on the table now.

Thanks!

I would hope the KE continues to develop G4 ( one of the reasons I've "bought in" so to speak, to keep up with the updates... ).

There was soooo much initial quipping about perceived threats of "changes", that I wonder how much pressure they felt to try to keep the transition changes as small as possible....

I don't agree with those complaints though, and would have welcomed some additional changes for the better.

Hopefully with a new "product" under their belt, updates, add-ons, and upgrades will continue.

[willsonman]

Thats too bad about graphics performance. I know that with my crossfire setup I see a moderate improvement over single card but still ... lacking some nicer textures and AA just to be able to fly seems a bit overkill. Still debating over G4 and this si something else to consider.

[redherring]

Hey guys!

Ground physics
Ground physics in G4 are still as bad as in G3. If you make a major revision to your product, why not address this problem? There's virtually no difference driving on the runway at Evergreen field and then driving into the (visually) tall looking grass next to it. That makes the whole visuals look detached and "cheap".


Agreed. Grass, gravel, asphalt etc. should be easily identifiable, and the aircraft should react differently on each surface.

I know the actual flight dynamics is the crux of any sim, but the unrealistic ground interaction detracts for sure - after doing a really nice flight, you are rewarded with a landing on grass that looks like the aircraft is rolling along on a smooth and level concrete slab.

Cheers, RH../

[int2str]

I dunno, that's more of a machine configuration issue than it is a problem with G4. G4 was from the onset slated to require fuller DX9 compliance and a heaftier computer.
The machine is DX10 compliant...
I should not have any problems with G4, but I do.
Try it yourself....

Have you edited the airfields and changed the friction co-efficients for the various components as well as the whole airfield default?
It makes a big difference.
Then why did KE not do it?
That's my point, these new fields seem half-baked; rushed. I hope KE will fix the fields (which is why somebody needs to point it out), since not everybody should have to.

[josh0987]

If you don't like this software don't use it!

Stop whining about your computer not working with it.

Simple.

There are people that are trying to ENJOY the forums, but then these unneeded threats come and everyone starts fighting.

Just leave, your not helping.

Also I think your previous thread was closed for a reason, I think this one should be closed as well. :mad:

[0xdeadbeef]

Now that was constructive :rolleyes:

[MadMonkey]

If you don't like this software don't use it!

Stop whining about your computer not working with it.

Simple.

There are people that are trying to ENJOY the forums, but then these unneeded threats come and everyone starts fighting.

Just leave, your not helping.

Also I think your previous thread was closed for a reason, I think this one should be closed as well. :mad:

I'm guessing he bought G4 expecting it to be an improvement over G3 (as well he should have). Apparently, at least in his opinion (and as a consumer, his opinion SHOULD count), G4 wasn't as good as he had hoped, and he's letting other people know his opinion. Nothing wrong with that. Many people are trying to decide whether to buy G4 or not, and reading multiple opinions on it can give us a much better overall picture of the sim and the general likes/dislikes of the same.


And please tell me where he made a "threat" http://smiliesftw.com/x/hsughnuts.gif (http://smiliesftw.com) LOL.


This is a discussion forum. This is a discussion. Let it go. I don't know about everyone else, but I found his statements to be far more enlightening than a angry reply directed back at him. At least he's contributing something constructive.

[int2str]

If you don't like this software don't use it!

Fair enough.
But maybe - just maybe - by pointing out what I believe are flaws or shortcomings in the software, I give KE inspiration to fix them.

Stop whining about your computer not working with it.

No computer in the world can improve the ground handling in G4. KE can. Nothing to do with my particular setup. You're picking on one aspect of my review.

There are people that are trying to ENJOY the forums, but then these unneeded threats come and everyone starts fighting.

This forum serves the purpose of discussing G4. I am doing that. You are not.

Also I think your previous thread was closed for a reason, I think this one should be closed as well. :mad:

My previous thread was closed due to other people posting non-topical replies (like you just did) - NOT because of my posts in that thread.

Constructive feedback please.

[opjose]

The machine is DX10 compliant...
I should not have any problems with G4, but I do.
Try it yourself....
.

Why not post your machine specs so I can have a look?

I'm not expecting problems, but then again I'm still awaiting delivery...

We'll see.


Then why did KE not do it?
That's my point, these new fields seem half-baked; rushed. I hope KE will fix the fields (which is why somebody needs to point it out), since not everybody should have to.

This has been pointed out many times.

Some say that this is to ease things for the newbie.

I don't quite buy that, but better that you can change things, than not.

That said, ground handling is the thing that needs a lot of attention, along with a few things that remain in the fligh model physics.

I hope we'll see that in a future update.... and that the programmers are hard at work on this... ( here's hoping... ).

[int2str]

Machine specs are attached.

I'd be very happy if it was just a configuration problem or if it's just me. But it would be nice to see what kind of frame rates other people are getting (and at what resolutions). Separate thread maybe?

[Zelatio]

If you don't like this software don't use it!

Stop whining about your computer not working with it.

Simple.

There are people that are trying to ENJOY the forums, but then these unneeded threats come and everyone starts fighting.

Just leave, your not helping.

Also I think your previous thread was closed for a reason, I think this one should be closed as well. :mad:


I think your posts calls for you to be banned. He wasn't whining. He was simply stating a fact that his computer was far beyond the Optimum specs and yet it still stutters. Most modern games have that problem. It's almost impossible to find a game that will actually run on the so called "minimum specs." I guess if you turned all the details down and had just boxes flying around a blank world it would work, but to me that's impossible.

Also, he didn't say he did not like the software. He said it needs improvement. I myself found his post in this thread to be extremely constructive. And based on Opjose's constructive response, he thought the info good as well. So based on your post and his, I would MUCH rather have you leave for not helping this thread at ALL! It's the people like you, trying to point out others fault are the reason the forums have been in a state of turmoil for the past weeks.

I may have not been the lightest opponent against G4, but I'm not going to badmouth. I just point out things from my perspective that appear to be wrong with it. You don't have to accept my opinion as fact and make it yours, you don't even have to read it. you can block people out if you want. I'm just sharing my $.02. Now I hope this forums returns to the state in which I found about two years ago, where everyone helps everyone else and we build a Knife Edged utopia.

[pplace]

Ground physics

Ground physics in G4 are still as bad as in G3. If you make a major revision to your product, why not address this problem? There's virtually no difference driving on the runway at Evergreen field and then driving into the (visually) tall looking grass next to it. That makes the whole visuals look detached and "cheap".

On a sandy field, the models slide down slopes even with floats and no wheels. Sand has no friction anymore? Speaking of floats - apparently there's no problem taking off on rough grounds with floats only...

Also, you can attempt a high speed fast-forward auto-rotation landing on skids and slide from a runway into tall grass without skipping a beat. The heli will slide perfectly smoothly, pretty much on any ground.!

Thank you for this input. I am still anxiously awaiting my graphics card so I can run G4. I was under the impression that the ground "handling" was worked on or improved. I of course will judge for myself once I get it up and running....but I still want to thank you for this information. Plus the other comments or suggestions that you / we would like KE to possibly work on.

dhk79 mentioned in a post that he felt the water aspect was pretty spot on......I hope I find that true myself. As there are many lakes around here that I can fly off....so "realistic" practicing can't hurt.

Thanks

[josh0987]

Sorry, I just had enough with people complaining about G4... Guess some of the anger spilled, thousand apologies :o

[opjose]

Machine specs are attached.

I'd be very happy if it was just a configuration problem or if it's just me. But it would be nice to see what kind of frame rates other people are getting (and at what resolutions). Separate thread maybe?

Out of curiosity have you installed some sort of all in one codec pack on your computer?

Also have you tried turning off Aero and screen effects before running G3?

Have you also tried to see the difference in performance running full screen versus windowed mode?

Finally how is Vsync set?

[opjose]

Agreed. Grass, gravel, asphalt etc. should be easily identifiable, and the aircraft should react differently on each surface.

Cheers, RH../

Actually with the co-efficients turned up, the aircraft actually do.

The plane will "bump" along on cobblestone, it will nose over as it transitions from asphalt to stone, etc.

Not perfect, but better than nothing.

[Cougar]

My review.. I think G4 is WONDERFUL :D

Yes, it does need some more updates/improvements to be added.

And KE will do it I am sure. and thanks for your review!

Jeff

Oh,, And I do have a Question.. were in the heck do I save
the Files that folks have made in the swap section? to what
folder in G4. sorry for being so stupid. :confused:

After all I am an old guy , Just trying to have fun!

Thanks.

[jeffpn]

If it's like G3 (and I'm sure it is) it doesn't matter where you save the downloaded file to. You import it (the .r3x or whatever the new extension is) from inside the G4 program. Look up the import function.

[opjose]

My review.. I think G4 is WONDERFUL :D

Yes, it does need some more updates/improvements to be added.

And KE will do it I am sure. and thanks for your review!

Jeff

Oh,, And I do have a Question.. were in the heck do I save
the Files that folks have made in the swap section? to what
folder in G4. sorry for being so stupid. :confused:

After all I am an old guy , Just trying to have fun!

Thanks.

Basically drop them anywhere you want.

Your best bet is to create a new folder someplace for them... a folder that is easy for you to get to.

Then use the "import" feature to navigate to that folder, and import each or groups of files.

Use the detail view in the "dialog box" to display the dates so you can easily track which are the newest files.

If you ever need to back up all of your downloaded planes, they will be all together ready to go.

[Cougar]

So what your saying is that I make 3 folders lets say
Photo Fields
Airplanes/Helis
and the other *lol* I forgot

Into my Windows Explorer
dump them there.

then Open G4 and import?
Or do I put anything into... the G4 Folder that I see
in my program files? Thanks guys for your help.

You know folks these flying Sims have come such a long long way
since RC AeroChopper.. that was my first Sim.. And Wow. look at it
now have far they have come. yes is was DOS Based. see how old I am? :rolleyes:
Jeff

[pplace]

Actually with the co-efficients turned up, the aircraft actually do.

The plane will "bump" along on cobblestone, it will nose over as it transitions from asphalt to stone, etc.

Not perfect, but better than nothing.

Opjose, I'm not trying to be a smart ___ here. This is an honest question: I know you ordered G4 but can't remember if you received it yet? I ask this because of your above statement: Was that for G3.5 or G4? Also in addition....why wouldn't the co-efficients already be set to the correct setting (for each surface to react properly)

I very much want my aircrafts to bump or bounce around (on taxi and landing) in G4......makes it much more "true to life"

Thanks

[redherring]

I very much want my aircrafts to bump or bounce around (on taxi and landing) in G4......makes it much more "true to life"

Thanks

I agree 100%. No matter how I tweak the coefficients, it is far from realistic. Take Evergreen Airport for example (one of the photofields in G4) - I messed around with the coefficients for hours last night, and although the aircraft now slows down faster on the grass than when it's rolling on the asphalt, it does not bounce at all.

Now, I can assure you that if I was to fly my real Big Stik there and I ran it into the grass, it would either nose over or bounce all over the show.

The flight dynamics in G4 are great IMO...if the ground interaction can be made as realistic as the flight dynamics, G4 will be superb.

I am not asking something impossible here. I hate to say it, but it has been done in other commercial RC simulators, so it is certainly doable.

Cheers, RH../

[pplace]

I agree with all that redherring, flying is a major percentage of the hobby....but making the ground handling (taxing, take off and landing, overshooting the runway an rolling into the grass) is also a big percentage of the experience....If I were a "new" pilot that was learning from G3.5 or G4 completely I would be shocked or surprised the first time I went to the field and my plane got "bounced" off course on take off....would I be able to correct with rudder enough?? Without the practice from here??

I know what to expect as I have done it "real life" but I still dream of the day this is "captured" on the G4 upgrade (hint, hint!!)

[0xdeadbeef]

Problem is that AFAIK the current ground handling is just based on scenery objects like grass or the runway. There's no way of defining surfaces apart from that and of course there is no support for uneven ground. With the current limitations, the ground handling will never meet the expectations of people who used e.g. Reflex XTR.

[dhk79]

I don't know if this will help anyone or not, but here are my specs:

System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.070227-2254)
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 2046MB RAM
DX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800

With this single core processor and three generation old video card, I'm getting 85-115 (average about 100) frames per second with all the graphics maxed. No jitters, no pauses, no nothing. So if int2str is having graphics problems with his duo-core machine and a new DirectX 10 video card, he has a configuration problem or assorted crap on his system.

[int2str]

With this single core processor and three generation old video card, I'm getting 85-115 (average about 100) frames per second with all the graphics maxed. No jitters, no pauses, no nothing. So if int2str is having graphics problems with his duo-core machine and a new DirectX 10 video card, he has a configuration problem or assorted crap on his system.

That's very nice to hear! Vista an issue maybe?

But to put your framerate into perspective, we need more details. Screen resolution? Full-screen, windowed? Airfield? Plane/Heli?

[dhk79]

Full screen, 1280x1024 (most my monitor will handle), stock G4 Piper with floats on Douglas Lake.

It may not be Vista, but an accumulation of spy/ad-ware or just assorted programs that think they need to waste your systems resources by putting pieces of themselves in your start-up. Many of these include useless utilities from video card manufactures, google, Acrobat, Office, and Symantec; just to name a few. If any of these are loaded on your machine 10-to-1 you have what I referred to as crap in your PC's start-up. These stupid things add up and will bring the best machine down to a grind.

[int2str]

Full screen, 1280x1024 (most my monitor will handle), stock G4 Piper with floats on Douglas Lake.

I'm running the same resolution. On photo fields I can get much higher FPS than on 3D fields, but nowhere near what you're claiming.

It may not be Vista, but an accumulation of spy/ad-ware or just assorted programs that think they need to waste your systems resources

I'm a software engineer by trade, I keep my computer clean.
CPU utilization is not maxed either when running G4.

[dhk79]

The most of the 3D fields run about 1/3 as fast on my system, but still usable and without pauses or jitters. Below is the P-51 on RealFlight Ranch (3D) and Grass Flatlands (photo). The Flatlands is higher than what was reported for Douglas Lake because of no water effects.

[BladeCP02]

Mmm, I like that NavGuide window!

[int2str]

See attached screenshot to witness my misery :D

This is on "highest" everything.

[dhk79]

Yuck! :eek:

[MrHalftime]

I just received G4 last Friday and I knew my graphics Card (nvidia onboard 6150 chipset) was decent, but not the best so I went to Comp USA and splurged for a Geforce 8600 GT for about 250.00 which hopefully should keep my computer up to date for a couple of more years.

When I loaded G4 - it was amazing all graphics are quite smooth and the gameplay was even smoother ; the planes seems to respond better than G3.5 almost like they would in real life.

My Computer is a Dual AMD Antholon 64x2 dual core 4200+ with 2 Gigs Ram running Vista Ultimate 32 bit. My monitor is 22" displaying 1680 x 1050 resolution.
There definately was a significant improvement in graphics quality + gameplay with the new card. Now I get an average of 100+ frames per second at 1680x1050 resolution with most settings turned to high.

The amount of $ invested in RealFlight is still just a fraction of what the few good crashes has already cost me. I only wish my DX6 controller had a red Reset button so I could undo my real life crashes too.

Technically speaking G4 may have a couple of kinks but overall is quite impressive + pretty stable for a major release. The Water is done very well, when I see how well the planes react with it when taking off and landing I feel confident that have they (knife edge) have the technical skills + knowhow to make the plane react with the ground much better too.

I like that I can access different planes, etc from the new controller.
All the gadgets look better + bigger too (especially binoculars)

IMHO If you enjoy it and have the extra $ - then go for it.

Good Job Knife Edge + Great Planes :)

[r1derbike]

int2str, are your shadows on highest setting?

My G4 hasn't arrived yet, but I noticed a doubling of framerate on G3/3.5 when I ran shadows @ medium, instead of highest.

You might need to bump down AA and AF to 4 and 4, if you are running max on them.

My framerate (on photofields) went from 150 fps to over 300 fps after the change to medium on shadows, and down to 4 and 4 on AA and AF.

Charles

[int2str]

Ok, I cracked the graphics egg!!

I've upgraded my PC (see framerate thread) and now it's seriously humming! :D

Hopefully KE will address some of the other issues down the road.

[pplace]

Hey guys all this call about "overclocking" "AA" etc. has me somewhat boggled. I know where to change the settings for my card but, I didn't want to mess with anything without knowing more about it.

1. What exactly is "overclocking" it sounds dangerous and exciting!hehe And how does it affect the performance or fps? (Is this pushing the card over the recommended parameters)

2. Does upping the AA steal away from your fps also? I would think it does as you can't have your cake and it it too right?

3. Any other information on things that could / should be changed on the card settings to get full advantage of it.

Just trying to get more out of my G4....I'm happy with G4 on my computer (it's not great but it's good enough) But if I can make it better with a few graphics card settings I wouldn't mind one bit. Again any changes should also be fps friendly

Thanks

[Zelatio]

1. What exactly is "overclocking" it sounds dangerous and exciting!hehe And how does it affect the performance or fps? (Is this pushing the card over the recommended parameters)

2. Does upping the AA steal away from your fps also? I would think it does as you can't have your cake and it it too right?

3. Any other information on things that could / should be changed on the card settings to get full advantage of it.

Thanks

1. Overclocking is in a basic sense increasing the speed of you card. Not by much, but by a little. It's much more complicated than that and if you really wanted to get into it you need to read a lot. It increases the heat and wear on the cards, so unless you are fanatical about getting (no joke here) 3 fps more, you shouldn't really do it. I've OCed mine a tad, but I understand almost all things having o do with OCing.

2. AA is a major hit on performance. But it makes it soo pretty. Just 2x makes it look a lot better. But it will also cut your FPS by a lot.

3. Nothing I can think of without doing a little research. Do a couple searches and you should be able to find a few things.

[r1derbike]

Overclocking is basically an exercise in frustration. You spend possibly hundreds of hours tweaking your memory settings, video card, CPU voltage and multiplier, memory voltage, and dozens of parameters to squeeze that last bit of performance out of your system, which, as Zel pointed out, makes a minimal difference when it works, and crashes your system when it doesn't.

It is the difference between a mule and a racing thoroughbred. The mule just keeps pluggin' along, merrily, but the thoroughbred is temperamental, skittish, and kicks you in the teeth on a regular basis. Great fun for masochists.

You are the master of your machine, until it says "no more". That's why I have multiple drive clone, and image backups, every time I make a software change.

The performance increase certainly is not worth the time to fine tune every parameter on a computer, and every computer is different, even if made with the same components.

There are programs (nVidia nTune comes to mind) that will set and test the maximum stable parameters for your computer, but they are looked upon with disdain by obsessed overclockers.

There you have the skinny.

Charles

[ladams]

There is a LOT to like about G4, well worth the upgrade. Especially for me as a silent flyer primarily, the new dynamic soaring and thermals and the ability to design your own thermal or DS "airports" is a lot of fun, the water, and other improvments etc... Don;t underestimate the better shadows, they were positively annoying in G3.X but are very nice now.

I think the "problem" is that the better a piece of software is, the better you can see that it COULD be. So with that yes there are a TON of things that could be improved. We have water so now there are 100 water "improvements" that everyone wants :) I guess it's too bad it's not "insanely great" but only "great" :)

My personal "wish list": I think there needs to be more small scale sloping areas, more DS planes, more foamies, plank style planes, wings and such. Luckily we can make the planes :) Still I would like to see more smaller scale slope areas, there is NOTHING in the sierra map that qualifies. There is a nice little hill face in the archepelo that I've been able to put a DS zone on the back side of but it needs to be a little deeper, and it's one of /very/ few small scale slope landforms around.

[seanbatson]

i figured the concept was to learn how to fly and not be bothered about how the grass looks etc...

[flip3d]

Based on my experience with early G3... G4 right out of the box is great. G3 was so bad I removed it from my computer and went back to G2 trusting that KE would make the necessary fixes. I was not disappointed. The fixes exceeded my expectations.

I am thoroughly impressed with the level of detail and overall "polish" achieved in G4. Models are adjustable in the extreme and the helicopters are excellent "as is".

If the improvements made in early versions of G3 are any indications... you havn't seen anything yet!

NOTE: G4 and all expansion packs work fine with Vista.

[BKM72]

3. Any other information on things that could / should be changed on the card settings to get full advantage of it.



If you have an nVidia card, Download the "nVidia forceware control panel". Alot of problems can be solved here.

I bought the game Crysis and was having some issues......ALL were corrected with the control panel and now Crysis runs like MAD. :D


Control panel here: http://www.nvidia.com/page/forceware_geforce.html

[opjose]

Based on my experience with early G3... G4 right out of the box is great. G3 was so bad I removed it from my computer and went back to G2 trusting that KE would make the necessary fixes. I was not disappointed. The fixes exceeded my expectations.



Out of curiosity...

Are you saying that G3 was "bad" because of the problems you had with your system ( If I recall correctly it was one of the patches to G4 which pleased you in terms of how it ran on your computer... )... or because of something else?

[flip3d]

Out of curiosity...

Are you saying that G3 was "bad" because of the problems you had with your system ( If I recall correctly it was one of the patches to G4 which pleased you in terms of how it ran on your computer... )... or because of something else?
op, ya lost me here???

[opjose]

Heh...

You mentioned that G3 was "bad" in your opinion.

I'm wondering if you thought it "bad" because it would not run well on your system, or if it was for some other reason.

e.g.

What made G4 "good" but G3 "bad?

[flip3d]

Heh...

You mentioned that G3 was "bad" in your opinion.

I'm wondering if you thought it "bad" because it would not run well on your system, or if it was for some other reason.

e.g.

What made G4 "good" but G3 "bad?
G2 was good. Good enough to entice me to purchase G3 immediatly upon introduction. Certainly a much more sophisticated program. Memory fails me on exact problems but suffice it to say that the software had many issues...enough to make it unuseable (in my opinion) compared to G2. KE stepped up and addressed those issues and it has been (here again... in my opinion) nothing but improvements. G4 seems to be a positive step in that progression. Refinements and the application of plenty of "polish". All this I would think is in keeping pace with the tremendous improvements in home computing since 2002 when I first started using computer simulations.

Keeping in mind the ultimate purpose of the simulation. I trust that eventually the physics will reach a point that you will set up a model on the sim and be able to transfer that setup sucessfully to a flying model. Boy, my Tiger trainer would look WAAaaaaay better if I had this stuff when I learned to fly. Pardon me for being long winded... you asked, I told.

[opjose]

I trust that eventually the physics will reach a point that you will set up a model on the sim and be able to transfer that setup sucessfully to a flying model. Boy, my Tiger trainer would look WAAaaaaay better if I had this stuff when I learned to fly. Pardon me for being long winded... you asked, I told.

I ask because IMHO G4 is not all that different from G3.5.

Granted the water effects and other improvements... but that's a different story...

Short of the minor differences we've noted with physics, it's pretty much the same sim IMHO.... which is a good thing.

However in your post, you call G3 "bad" versus G4 "good"...

So I'm assuming that you had hardware related problems that rendered G3 unusable on your system... something that may have been corrected with the "Integrated Video" update that also seems to have cured things for a few people with non-integrated displays as well....

[Blade Scraper]

I'm pretty confused,why were realflight classic owners able to upgrade to G2 for free but we can't get a free upgrade to G4. If you look on an add ons case it says "This disk upgrades realflight classic to G2"

[pplace]

However in your post, you call G3 "bad" versus G4 "good"...

So I'm assuming that you had hardware related problems that rendered G3 unusable on your system

I think what he was trying to say is:

He had G2 loved it so much that he bought G3 (expecting the same or even more from it)

G3 came and it had problems out of the box (so he put it away and didn't use it) until KE came along with the improved versions (downloaded from the launcher) Then he was very happy with it again? Happy enough to upgrade / purchase to G4......and in his opinion it is as good or better than where the updated / improved versions of G3.5 left off?

I think that's what he was trying to get across?!

[phrank]

G3 to G3.5 upgrade was free.

I guess they skip the free upgrade every other version? :p

[Ryan Douglas]

I'm pretty confused,why were realflight classic owners able to upgrade to G2 for free but we can't get a free upgrade to G4. If you look on an add ons case it says "This disk upgrades realflight classic to G2"
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but there were no free upgrades from Classic to G2. Add-Ons 1 or 2 might have contained an update from Classic to Deluxe, but that would be equivalent to the way G3 Expansion Packs each contain a free update to the latest version of G3 available at the time of their release.

[Ryan Douglas]

Since everyone else is offering interpretations of flip3d's comments, I might as well chime in, too. :)

G3 was admittedly a little rough upon initial release. We have fixed many bugs and added many features since then, and its current incarnation (3.50.065) is much improved over the original release (3.00.313).

I believe flip3d is saying that right out of the gate, G4 does not have the same type of issues G3 did when it was first released. Rather, it uses G3.5 as a starting point in terms of stability and usability, and does it one better by adding additional levels of polish (not to mention all the new features). That's how we see it, too.

[r1derbike]

I believe flip3d is saying that right out of the gate, G4 does not have the same type of issues G3 did when it was first released. Rather, it uses G3.5 as a starting point in terms of stability and usability, and does it one better by adding additional levels of polish (not to mention all the new features). That's how we see it, too.Ryan, you've summed it up simply, and effectively, in as few words as possible.

Been with you guys from the start of G3. G4, overall, is a winner! ;)

Keep up the good work.

Charles

[flip3d]

Since everyone else is offering interpretations of flip3d's comments, I might as well chime in, too. :)

G3 was admittedly a little rough upon initial release. We have fixed many bugs and added many features since then, and its current incarnation (3.50.065) is much improved over the original release (3.00.313).

I believe flip3d is saying that right out of the gate, G4 does not have the same type of issues G3 did when it was first released. Rather, it uses G3.5 as a starting point in terms of stability and usability, and does it one better by adding additional levels of polish (not to mention all the new features). That's how we see it, too.
Thank you!

[pplace]

:D Since everyone else is offering interpretations of flip3d's comments, I might as well chime in, too. :)

G3 was admittedly a little rough upon initial release. We have fixed many bugs and added many features since then, and its current incarnation (3.50.065) is much improved over the original release (3.00.313).

I believe flip3d is saying that right out of the gate, G4 does not have the same type of issues G3 did when it was first released. Rather, it uses G3.5 as a starting point in terms of stability and usability, and does it one better by adding additional levels of polish (not to mention all the new features). That's how we see it, too.

Thank you!
Hey that's pretty much the same thing I said a couple posts above!!!