Go Back   Knife Edge > RealFlight - Designer's Corner > RealFlight 8 - 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
  #31  
Old 08-27-2018, 09:13 PM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,483
I prefer 2 stroke with a tuned pipe or electric, but that 4 stroke looks like the best of the bunch.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-27-2018, 09:19 PM
asj5547 asj5547 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by technoid View Post
So if you can do one more for me and start it AFTER you make a u-turn and are FLYING over the trees low that will give me the lowest numbers I get. Thanks.
Sorry I did not reply to your post, been busy with the wife and doctors appointments today, will try some longer flights when I get back on the gaming computer tomorrow.

Those recordings were from take off to landing, the Nexstar is quite fast so I will try at 50% throttle next time, or do two circuits around the flying field.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-27-2018, 09:53 PM
Fly_electric's Avatar
Fly_electric Fly_electric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N-Space side of all Charged Vacuum Emboitments
Posts: 1,411
Still vote for making the plane large and electric, maybe swinging a 15", 18", or larger prop. Something like a 2x, 3x or 4x version of this plane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wjNxtXo_zo


Or (thanks again for the link Andy!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Eo...ature=youtu.be
__________________
Rebuilding crashed planes one reset button push at a time..

Last edited by Fly_electric; 08-27-2018 at 10:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-27-2018, 10:38 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle twist View Post
I saw all of those, thus my choice, was just saying it might be easier to make a choice with pics. of each of them in the the plane, BUT, I don`t want you too have too go through that process UGH
Oh.. Got it, sorry about that!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-27-2018, 10:56 PM
uncle twist's Avatar
uncle twist uncle twist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by technoid View Post
Oh.. Got it, sorry about that!
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/aec06d1...c-825639083bec
__________________
Why do today, what you can put off `till tomorrow
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-28-2018, 01:16 AM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by asj5547 View Post
Sorry I did not reply to your post, been busy with the wife and doctors appointments today, will try some longer flights when I get back on the gaming computer tomorrow.

Those recordings were from take off to landing, the Nexstar is quite fast so I will try at 50% throttle next time, or do two circuits around the flying field.
No problem the important part I want to get on the benchmark is flying low across the forest on the right side of that field, when I fly low across it I get some really low frame rates. And the 1080 is only suppose to get around 15 to 20 fps faster so that's what I'm expecting to see. That is unless your CPU is pushing out more FPS than mine and then that could be a difference too. In 3D there's always two things making the frame rate, the CPU frame rate and the GPU frame rate.

Just for grins you might want to do two things to see what your system is capable of on this field flying low over the forest. Fly low over the forest and start the benchmark run after you're already flying low across the trees at 1920x1080 and then do exactly the same thing at 800x600. Don't change anything else just the resolution. But do BOTH of them in WINDOWED MODE. Doing the same run at 800x600 will give you the best idea of what your CPU is able to run that field at. That's a bit like having a NULL set of video drivers, that is a set of video drivers that simply RETURN each time a 3D function is called. At times hardware companies use that to get the CPU frame rate. And then do the same thing with a normal set of video drivers to get the GPU frame rate. That's just something to do if your interested in finding out how fast your CPU is able to push the frame rate ( 800x600 ). I did it here but didn't post those numbers but here they are so you can see what I mean. If your system with a 1080 is able to push the frame rate more than about 20 fps faster in 800x600 then your CPU is making higher frame rates than mine.

Quote:
All Benchmarks in Windowed Mode not Full Screen

2018-08-26 23:33:44 - RF-X_x64 (1920x1200)
Frames: 14170 - Time: 232223ms - Avg: 61.019 - Min: 42 - Max: 108

2018-08-26 23:39:11 - RF-X_x64 (1920x1080)
Frames: 15249 - Time: 238588ms - Avg: 63.914 - Min: 45 - Max: 115

2018-08-27 01:38:05 - RF-X_x64 (800x600)
Frames: 25571 - Time: 267198ms - Avg: 95.701 - Min: 55 - Max: 138
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-28-2018, 07:40 AM
asj5547 asj5547 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 755
Here is 1920 x 1080, I did a couple of circuits and tried to fly as low as possible to the trees, I actually clipped one tree and spun the model around, (just before landing) and was expecting to see a drop in fps at that moment but nothing.
Attached Files
File Type: txt FRAPSLOG.TXT (103 Bytes, 5 views)
File Type: txt RF-X_x64 2018-08-28 07-31-17-41 fps.txt (685 Bytes, 4 views)
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-28-2018, 08:11 AM
asj5547 asj5547 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 755
800 x 600, the first log is at 60hz the second is 75hz.
Attached Files
File Type: txt FRAPSLOG.TXT (204 Bytes, 6 views)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-28-2018, 11:01 AM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly_electric View Post
Still vote for making the plane large and electric, maybe swinging a 15", 18", or larger prop. Something like a 2x, 3x or 4x version of this plane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wjNxtXo_zo


Or (thanks again for the link Andy!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Eo...ature=youtu.be
At the moment the plane has a 100 inch wingspan and is using the electric motor you gave me for another project a while back but there will be a GP version too. You mentioned you'd like to be involved with this project so I'm planning to send you the plane once I get it mapped and the first pass of the phycis done, sizing all the parts to the finished plane. Then you can do the EP physics and I'll do the GP physics.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-28-2018, 11:41 AM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by asj5547 View Post
800 x 600, the first log is at 60hz the second is 75hz.
I took a look at your benchmarks and these are some radically different frame rates than I get and much higher then I'd expect a 1080 to be faster than a 1070 so I'm wondering if there's something wrong in my system so I need to know what your system specs are I forgot them.

What OS ore you running?
i7 8700K at Stock Clock ?
How much memory and how fast?
Which 1080 card and is it over clocked?
Is RF-X running off an SSD?

MY SYSTEM SPECS

Windows 7 Pro 64
i7 6700K at i7 7700K clock rate 4.2 Ghz
32 GIG RAM 2400 Mhz
MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X at Stock Clock
RF-X running off NVMe 512 G SSD

Thanks for your help I really need to look into this becaue the normal difference between a 1080 and 1070 is usually 10 to 20 fps in games.

Here's what's the kicker to me.

YOUR 800x600 FRAPS LOG

2018-08-28 08:00:24 - RF-X_x64
Frames: 21258 - Time: 153563ms - Avg: 138.432 - Min: 111 - Max: 172

MY 800x600 FRAPS LOG

2018-08-27 01:38:05 - RF-X_x64
Frames: 25571 - Time: 267198ms - Avg: 95.701 - Min: 55 - Max: 138


Your average 800x600 is 138 and mine is 95 so your CPU seems to be pushing your graphics much faster than mine. So unless your extra cpu cores are making that difference I'm not sure what the deal is. What are your thoughts on it? I remember you disabled your other 2 cores once and the fps stayed the same if I remember correctly.

EDIT: Actually the performance you're getting is exactly what I want, that being 100 fps all the time.

Last edited by technoid; 08-28-2018 at 12:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-28-2018, 11:55 AM
BrokeDad's Avatar
BrokeDad BrokeDad is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,966
If you haven't tried it the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility might be able to get you a little better performance. It does on my machine.

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/dow...ity-Intel-XTU-
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-28-2018, 12:07 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrokeDad View Post
If you haven't tried it the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility might be able to get you a little better performance. It does on my machine.

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/dow...ity-Intel-XTU-
My CPU is overclocked from 4.0 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz and the memory is overclocked from 2133 to 2400. There seems to be something else going on here.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-28-2018, 12:18 PM
asj5547 asj5547 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 755
I7-8700 cpu no overclock 3.7 ghz base.

MSI Z370 Tomahawk Motherboard

Video card ...GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1080 WINDFORCE OC 8GB
- 1632 MHz Base/1797 MHz Boost ,10010 MHz Memory

DDR4 2400 memory 8Gbs.

NVME M.2 drive.


Windows 10 pro 64 bit.

I was disappointed with frame rates at 800 x 600, such a low resolution should have displayed more frames, also was shuddering video.

Would be nice to see frame rates like this in Green Grass Flatlands. 1920 x 1080
Attached Files
File Type: txt FRAPSLOG.TXT (102 Bytes, 5 views)

Last edited by asj5547; 08-28-2018 at 12:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-28-2018, 12:57 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by asj5547 View Post
I7-8700 cpu no overclock 3.7 ghz base.

MSI Z370 Tomahawk Motherboard

Video card ...GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1080 WINDFORCE OC 8GB
- 1632 MHz Base/1797 MHz Boost ,10010 MHz Memory

DDR4 2400 memory 8Gbs.

NVME M.2 drive.


Windows 10 pro 64 bit.

I was disappointed with frame rates at 800 x 600, such a low resolution should have displayed more frames, also was shuddering video.

Would be nice to see frame rates like this in Green Grass Flatlands. 1920 x 1080
Thanks for all the info and your help on this I really appreciate it.

Well the green grass flatlands might as well be an RF-8 field they created it when everyone was complaining about very low frame rates. I don't use it or consider it an RF-X flying field. It's in RF-X of course but it's not really RF-X I'm sure you know what I mean.

Considering your 800x600 frame rates were taken in a dense forest field I'd say it looks pretty good to me. HA.. mine is only 95.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-28-2018, 03:09 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,151
Well I finally did it I just finished upgrading to Windows 10 Pro. I haven't tried running RF-8 or RF-X yet but I will soon, right now I've got some errands to run. So one step out of the stone age for me I guess.
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 01:25 PM.