Go Back   Knife Edge > RealFlight - Current Products > RF-X
Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use. | Technical Support is available from Great Planes Software Support.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 04-27-2017, 08:38 PM
BaMMeR991 BaMMeR991 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 64
It sure is reliant on a fast cpu. Im using the I-7 6700 4 ghz and two of my cores are 80%
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-28-2017, 08:09 AM
NigelR NigelR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 35
My FPS comparisons have all been with..

Model: Gaui X7
Field: High Desert RC Field
version 1.0042
motion blur off

At 4K I get 45 FPS with the model sat on the ground.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg rfx_screen1 (2).jpg (388.9 KB, 17 views)
File Type: jpg Superposition_Benchmark_v1.0_9091_1493306491.jpg (86.7 KB, 22 views)
File Type: jpg Superposition_Benchmark_v1.0_21302_1493303355.jpg (87.2 KB, 20 views)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-28-2017, 11:51 AM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigelR View Post
My FPS comparisons have all been with..

Model: Gaui X7
Field: High Desert RC Field
version 1.0042
motion blur off

At 4K I get 45 FPS with the model sat on the ground.
I don't know if you have FRAPS but you can use it to get a much better picture of your performance than looking at the FPS. You can press a key and it will save the FPS each second during your flight and then when you press the key again it will save some files to your hard drive that you can look at to see the FPS for each second of the flight. I normally use Microsoft Excel and chart the flight so I can really see what's going on. Then you can do the same thing on several airfields since each one of them hits the graphics card different. Even different parts of the field will give you different results. I normally fly a bit at the airfield and then use the nose camera view to fly all around the area to get the best benchmark of the whole field. I wish there was a way to create a time demo like lots of games have so it would be repeatable.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-28-2017, 05:41 PM
bobma bobma is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 33
a $700+ GPU vs a $700 RC Radio.

a $700+ GPU vs a $700 RC Radio.

I would take the radio First!

I just run my games at 1080P with a GTX 1070 and have $400 Left Over. Yes they do go on sale for $300.

now if you play other games and 4K..... it may be worth the money.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-28-2017, 07:16 PM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobma View Post
a $700+ GPU vs a $700 RC Radio.

I would take the radio First!

I just run my games at 1080P with a GTX 1070 and have $400 Left Over. Yes they do go on sale for $300.

now if you play other games and 4K..... it may be worth the money.
I have all the radios I need.

I have all the aircraft I need and enough parts and radio equipment to put together a couple models.

I have a 300 game catalog on Steam, Origin and GOG that makes it easy to spend $700 dollars on a video card. It's actually a great deal for the performance. In some situations it's faster than the $1,500 card that sits right above it.

As far as the performance goes, I dunno why some people have great performance with RF-X while others can't use it. I've seen a couple complaints where the frame rates are in the single digits with high end equipment. I get great frames, I don't think that I do anything different. I do have a fresh windows 10 load and at the moment just a couple applications installed. I downloaded the latest video drivers when I installed the card the other day.

Last edited by csgill75; 04-28-2017 at 07:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-29-2017, 04:25 AM
bobma bobma is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by csgill75 View Post
I have all the radios I need.

I have all the aircraft I need and enough parts and radio equipment to put together a couple models.

I have a 300 game catalog on Steam, Origin and GOG that makes it easy to spend $700 dollars on a video card. It's actually a great deal for the performance. In some situations it's faster than the $1,500 card that sits right above it.

As far as the performance goes, I dunno why some people have great performance with RF-X while others can't use it. I've seen a couple complaints where the frame rates are in the single digits with high end equipment. I get great frames, I don't think that I do anything different. I do have a fresh windows 10 load and at the moment just a couple applications installed. I downloaded the latest video drivers when I installed the card the other day.
I hear you. for sure it's a great bang for you buck at $700 vs $500 for the non TI version. I would rather spend the extra $200... that's for sure! I will report back on my results with the gtx1070 / i5 6600K. It will be a week or two though.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-30-2017, 07:44 AM
justinmccurdy25 justinmccurdy25 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by csgill75 View Post
I run 4k at over 120fps on a 1080ti with a 6700k. 16gb ram. The settings are turned up but I disabled the motion blur. I've seen were a few people with high end systems seem to have a problem but other people don't. On the grasslands field the frames go over 400fps. There is a guy here with a single Titan Pascal which is just a little faster getting the same performance as me.

I have the MSI 1080ti Gaming X.
how do you like that 1080ti compared to your 1070?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-30-2017, 10:49 AM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinmccurdy25 View Post
how do you like that 1080ti compared to your 1070?
I didn't have a 1070, I had two 970's. It's 100% faster than what I had or at least it seems like it. No more micro stuttering from the sli, everything looks great. Less power draw too. It does make some heat though but I have one with a oversized heat sink. It's fairly quiet. I might think about water cooling later down the road. . My monitor needs a upgrade now it's only 1920x1080.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-30-2017, 02:42 PM
12oclockhigh 12oclockhigh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,712
Sorry to be the baby ruth in the punch bowl... but how can you know how good the graphics card is running as such a low resolution.... I thought you had a 4k display or so. I am running twin 1920x1200 monitors for 6 years now.

Lets face it... it is a whole system, any one of the parts can be preventing performance of the others. No matter what... moving 4k video streams around is one heck of a lot of bits. It is amazing to understand what is really happening behind the curtain.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-30-2017, 04:22 PM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12oclockhigh View Post
Sorry to be the baby ruth in the punch bowl... but how can you know how good the graphics card is running as such a low resolution.... I thought you had a 4k display or so. I am running twin 1920x1200 monitors for 6 years now.

Lets face it... it is a whole system, any one of the parts can be preventing performance of the others. No matter what... moving 4k video streams around is one heck of a lot of bits. It is amazing to understand what is really happening behind the curtain.
I have a Samsung 55" TV connected that runs native 3840 x 2160. It's connected via hdmi. I also have a monitor that runs at 1920x1080 for everything else. I believe that I mentioned that a couple times already.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-10-2017, 11:55 AM
bobma bobma is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigelR View Post
My FPS comparisons have all been with..

Model: Gaui X7
Field: High Desert RC Field
version 1.0042
motion blur off

At 4K I get 45 FPS with the model sat on the ground.
in this case I would Not want to spend $600+ on a GPU to run at 4K with a RC Sim that many consider to still be in BETA. A GTX 1080 at $400+ (i paid $375 total for a new GTX 1080 myself ) would be better that the TI version if you are fine with 1080P resolution and will get MORE than a measly 45FPS and save $200 plus to boot! I am not a gamer myself.... just a Simulator player.

Last edited by bobma; 06-10-2017 at 11:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-02-2017, 01:02 AM
Sovrin Sovrin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 3
I have a Ryzen 1800 with a Nvidia 1080ti, and i run it at 2560x1080 on my curved monitor and it runs the game without any problems. The new AMD is pretty fast , just a tad faster than my X99 6850k cpu. has anyone tried 2 1080ti's in SLI mode??
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-05-2017, 09:33 AM
Amarynth Amarynth is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 5
Hi Everyone,

I just picked up a new 4K monitor. I have a 1080 Ti and a Ryzen 1800 CPU (OC'd to 4 GHz). At 4K I'm currently only getting 47 FPS using NigelR's test:

Model: Gaui X7
Field: High Desert RC Field
version 1.0042

I have the following turned off: Bloom, Depth of Field, Motion Blur

Any idea what I can do to increase my FPS?
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 08:26 PM.