Go Back   Knife Edge > RealFlight - Designer's Corner > RF-X - Designer's Corner
Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use. | Looking for technical support? Read this!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-05-2016, 08:56 PM
U-Bird's Avatar
U-Bird U-Bird is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 350
RF-X A Closer Look

With RF-X becoming available, a lot of people have been preoccupied with "Frames Per Second" and it seems to me that no one is looking at what their $200.00 bought them. It seems that people are trying to decide how much money it will require to get RF-x to run for them.
I loaded RF-X on my old computer, had no install problems, have had no horrible issues at all and this machine is FAR from being top of the line as listed in the RF-X requirements. All the shots I will include are on this machine. RF 6.5 and 7.5 are also installed on this machine and both InterLinks are plugged in.
Fraps is running and the shots that will come will be scattered over the entire Sierra Nevada. what we are gong to look at is the ground, surrounding terrain, and the interaction with models. Here are some shots to begin with, bare in mind that this is NO gaming computer and I play no games at all. My first shot are my computer specs.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Old System info .jpg (189.8 KB, 40 views)
File Type: jpg Sea Master on RF-X Lake.jpg (216.8 KB, 44 views)
File Type: jpg Sea Master a.jpg (422.4 KB, 45 views)
File Type: jpg Sea Master b.jpg (142.4 KB, 32 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-05-2016, 09:03 PM
U-Bird's Avatar
U-Bird U-Bird is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 350
RF-X A Closer Look

More Shots so you can see that things don't look to bad and all things are set wide open and the res is at 1920X1080.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Skagway a.jpg (223.0 KB, 28 views)
File Type: jpg Skagway b.jpg (208.6 KB, 23 views)
File Type: jpg Legoman's DC-3 .jpg (297.8 KB, 34 views)
File Type: jpg like rolling on glass.jpg (463.1 KB, 24 views)
File Type: jpg Surface textures.jpg (241.0 KB, 29 views)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-05-2016, 09:49 PM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,115
I started a screenshot thread in the main RF-X forum. It's just stock aircraft in there but they really do look spectacular.

That DC-3 needs a Collision mesh. It sinks into the ground for me too.

I also wish that multiple colorschemes were available, I prefer the silver colored Zero in the older versions of realflight.

Last edited by csgill75; 12-05-2016 at 11:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-06-2016, 04:15 AM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by U-Bird View Post
With RF-X becoming available, a lot of people have been preoccupied with "Frames Per Second" and it seems to me that no one is looking at what their $200.00 bought them. It seems that people are trying to decide how much money it will require to get RF-x to run for them.
I loaded RF-X on my old computer, had no install problems, have had no horrible issues at all and this machine is FAR from being top of the line as listed in the RF-X requirements. All the shots I will include are on this machine. RF 6.5 and 7.5 are also installed on this machine and both InterLinks are plugged in.
Fraps is running and the shots that will come will be scattered over the entire Sierra Nevada. what we are gong to look at is the ground, surrounding terrain, and the interaction with models. Here are some shots to begin with, bare in mind that this is NO gaming computer and I play no games at all. My first shot are my computer specs.
You actually have the makings of a very nice gaming computer there, the i7 3770K 3.5 Ghz and 32 GB of memory and the GTX 680 OC was a pretty good gaming card back in it's day. Do me a favor take some screen shots with FRAPS on at the Castle airfield I'd like to see how your system does there. But you're right after I got past the shock of RF-X running so slow on all the airfields at the time (before grass lands) and looked at the scenery I started liking it. That's actually why I decided to do a full system upgrade. I've been wanting to do it for about a year so it's time to get all new stuff again, not that my old system was bad I just like to get a new system every few years.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-06-2016, 07:45 AM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,115
I'm glad that we have some green now. I don't like all the brown. It reminds me of the winters here. No snow but everything looks dead.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-06-2016, 08:57 AM
U-Bird's Avatar
U-Bird U-Bird is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 350
RF-X A Closer Look

Actually the purpose of this thread is to look into all that RF-X lacks. The picture of the ZERO shows the plane sitting on a ROUGH runway , yet the plane, all the planes act like they are rolling on glass. Everywhere you go the same, a glass like surface, smooth as a baby's bottom. No interaction with what should be rocks or something rough.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg like rolling on glass.jpg (463.1 KB, 9 views)
File Type: jpg No surface reactions.jpg (408.5 KB, 10 views)
File Type: jpg Surface textures.jpg (241.0 KB, 9 views)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-06-2016, 09:07 AM
U-Bird's Avatar
U-Bird U-Bird is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 350
RF-X A Closer Look

There are those that seem to think they speak for all of us concerning 2-d fields. I don't speak for everyone, however the fields that I fly my RC at are all 3-d. If I get there at the right time we hear the Quail in the distance, the wind blows and changes directions, you know, its all real, because flying REAL RC planes IS real. Just stick your hand in that spinning propeller and you'll see. For me, 2-d fields are just pictures and I don't care for them. I have always enjoyed editing and building new fields and want the ability to continue to do so. Flying RC is not a game for me, it's my unwind tool.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-06-2016, 01:16 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by U-Bird View Post
There are those that seem to think they speak for all of us concerning 2-d fields. I don't speak for everyone, however the fields that I fly my RC at are all 3-d. If I get there at the right time we hear the Quail in the distance, the wind blows and changes directions, you know, its all real, because flying REAL RC planes IS real. Just stick your hand in that spinning propeller and you'll see. For me, 2-d fields are just pictures and I don't care for them. I have always enjoyed editing and building new fields and want the ability to continue to do so. Flying RC is not a game for me, it's my unwind tool.
I think I lost your meaning so I'm a bit puzzled. But those of us that want 2d fields back only want them because they look more like the real word because they're pictures of the real world. I worked at the 3D design centers for 3Dfx and Cirrus Logic so I absolutely love 3D and before I retired I played all the new first person shooters so being able to move in a 3D world is very cool. The goal of a 3D world is to mimic the real world and if RF-X did that I wouldn't want the 2D fields back, but it doesn't. It's less cartoony than RF 7.5 for sure but not there in terms of realism. But adding the 2D fields back could bring even more realism than before with higher resolution images. So yes I'm one of the guys that want them back. I don't speak for you and I think when I say something about 2d fields I say something like most people like 2D fields the best. And by the number of comments from forum members and new people signing up just to comment about RF-X that seems to be true.

So I'm on both sides of that fence. I love both but 3D fields don't make me feel like I'm flying at a real field because the imagery isn't there, it still lacks what it takes to look real. But a picture does, even though you can't fly off anywhere.. which traditional RCers don't do anyway. So give us both is the cry I hear. Surely 2D fields are much easier to create than 3D fields.

Being honest porting the RF 7.5 Render Engine to DX-10, increasing the triangle limit to 50k, increasing the texture resolution to 8 or 16k, and increasing the resolution of the 2D images so the fields looked better would have been a Huge Success and not as hard to do as what they did. Gosh even one of the hard core modelers mentioned he would have been happy with 50k. So we didn't need to move as far forward as we did to get something that looked good and was the improvement everyone wanted.

I wish I could leave this stuff alone because I don't want to cause any turmoil but as a retired engineer working in 3D graphics for years I have a pretty good understanding of these things from the what it takes to do it perspective. Companies are pushed in many directions by the market and their customers and sometimes make decisions that doesn't fit the need for the next version of their product. And being honest that's where RF-X falls.

But back to your comments, yeah the way the plane moves is a bit odd. But I have seen it bounce quite a bit so it's not always smooth as glass. In fact in one area inside I was saying - really why so much bouncing here. Yes RF-X has a long way to go but I think if they work on it they can get there.

But honestly KE needs to embrace all the comments being made and move in all those directions (as they can) because I don't think I've heard any that aren't true. As much as some of us want to kick back at some of the comments the performance is bad and it's still buggy and it lacks lots of the features that define RealFlight. Just because the new grass lands field gets 100+ fps on older systems doesn't help ALL of the other fields. So there's lots of work to do. And I bet they're working as fast as possible to make things better. But a small house takes longer.. gosh I don't want to wait longer, but it's necessary so there's no other option. I just spent 1,800 bucks to make sure RF-X performs the way I want it to so I paid for the right to make my comments.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-06-2016, 03:42 PM
U-Bird's Avatar
U-Bird U-Bird is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 350
RF-X A Closer Look

OK..... My experience with RF goes all the way back to RF Deluxe, I purchased everyone of the Add-On's and I purchased everyone of the Expansion packs so I to have paid for the right to comment.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-06-2016, 03:56 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by U-Bird View Post
OK..... My experience with RF goes all the way back to RF Deluxe, I purchased everyone of the Add-On's and I purchased everyone of the Expansion packs so I to have paid for the right to comment.
OPPS.. I'm SORRY I didn't mean it that way at all. It was just a general comment saying I've invested lots of money in RF-X so when I make comments about it they comes from someone that didn't give up on it and send it back so my comments are from the heart about what I think it needs. But it wasn't directed at you at all. Didn't think about that when I wrote that part. If it was pointed towards anyone it would have been KE. I was just echoing all the feelings I have about what RF-X should morph into now since it's out.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-09-2016, 05:15 PM
Moto-Guzzi Moto-Guzzi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: East Coast
Posts: 181
I always liked the photo-realism of the 2-d fields in RF7 too, so I know what you mean....

But one day the computer gen plane image against a photo real sky just looked...i dunno...weird...it was like a cartoon moving over a photograph....cant describe it, just all of a sudden the the two didnt 'mesh" for me any more...one was "real" and one was "fake", so I went to all computer gen 3-d fields and it doesnt "clash" anymore....

Funny, reminds me of watching the movie "Midway" for the first time in 20+ years on a good, modern TV....those scenes where they mesh studio shots of Chartlon Heston (and others) climbing into cockpits with wartime footage of carrier deck action in the background....looked fine in the theater in the 70's, and on old-school living room color TV's....but in high-def 60 inch, its SO obvious the two are not from the same piece of film...literally RUINED the movie with a better quality TV!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-11-2017, 09:59 PM
Sammy Yousef Sammy Yousef is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 348
I first bought G2. Back then there were no photofields. When G3 came along one of the main reasons I was glad I bought it was because I was then able to photograph the fields I really flew at. So now, for me no photo fields are a complete deal-breaker.

When I was flying I came to rely on getting the aircraft and field as close as possible to reality to keep from getting too rusty. And it worked. I could go 6 months with no flights and a year with less than a dozen flights and still be competent.

Now that I'm between clubs I rely on Realflight for the occasional nostalgia so I can fly once more albeit virtually. I have no interest in playing it as a game. If I can't import my own photofields or make new fields when next I join a club, I'll be looking elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:23 PM.