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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46  
Old 10-28-2016, 03:19 PM
bneiderman bneiderman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringfellow View Post
In post #38, Technoid gives a way to display fps. Also, Fraps can do it.

Wow, that's disheartening I think faster refresh rate has a much more noticable benefit than higher resolution. Especially in high motion applications like our favorite RC sim.
Right now, my rig gives me 300-700 fps and my monitors are refreshing at 120hz. Even at normal 1920 x 1080p, aircraft appear very solid and real... especially in quick motion. Neighbors have actually commented on how "real & solid" they look. The difference between the jittery juddering of 60hz and the super smooth 120hz has made a world of difference. You can even see the difference when moving the mouse pointer across the screen.

So to go back to "little hitches" and "jittery backgrounds" is just going to be a non starter for me.
Agreed. I will check out the frame rate today and repost.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-28-2016, 04:29 PM
justinmccurdy25 justinmccurdy25 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringfellow View Post
In post #38, Technoid gives a way to display fps. Also, Fraps can do it.

Wow, that's disheartening I think faster refresh rate has a much more noticable benefit than higher resolution. Especially in high motion applications like our favorite RC sim.
Right now, my rig gives me 300-700 fps and my monitors are refreshing at 120hz. Even at normal 1920 x 1080p, aircraft appear very solid and real... especially in quick motion. Neighbors have actually commented on how "real & solid" they look. The difference between the jittery juddering of 60hz and the super smooth 120hz has made a world of difference. You can even see the difference when moving the mouse pointer across the screen.

So to go back to "little hitches" and "jittery backgrounds" is just going to be a non starter for me.
String, are you talking about RF-X? You are getting that many fps? Or in rf7.5? I would like to get a 120 MHz monitor. I notice a huge difference in real flight 7.5 when I active vsync to my monitors 60mhz. It smooths everything out
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-28-2016, 04:35 PM
BrokeDad's Avatar
BrokeDad BrokeDad is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 922
First it wouldn't load (tried two external USB drives) from the original DVD so I made an image and then a backup copy. That loaded.
I calibrated my old Interlink Elite, picked a helicopter, and went flying.
It was jittery, slow, and overall a huge drain on my system. I exited the program and uninstalled everything. Maybe when it's developed more and I really want to spend the big bucks to upgrade an already good gaming system I will try it again. For now it's gonna gather dust. Nice try Ryan but I think you should have made it work on less of a machine. You have pretty much made it unusable to a very large percentage of people and it's not a big market to begin with.

I'll stick with RF7.5 for the foreseeable future which might be a very long future.

P.S. It wouldn't work at all on my nice All-in-one system. I had to put it on my gaming system which is an i7, 32GB Ram, and a one year old 4GB video card.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-28-2016, 07:07 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrokeDad View Post
First it wouldn't load (tried two external USB drives) from the original DVD so I made an image and then a backup copy. That loaded.
I calibrated my old Interlink Elite, picked a helicopter, and went flying.
It was jittery, slow, and overall a huge drain on my system. I exited the program and uninstalled everything. Maybe when it's developed more and I really want to spend the big bucks to upgrade an already good gaming system I will try it again. For now it's gonna gather dust. Nice try Ryan but I think you should have made it work on less of a machine. You have pretty much made it unusable to a very large percentage of people and it's not a big market to begin with.

I'll stick with RF7.5 for the foreseeable future which might be a very long future.

P.S. It wouldn't work at all on my nice All-in-one system. I had to put it on my gaming system which is an i7, 32GB Ram, and a one year old 4GB video card.
Now you know why I moved Lightning from the RF-X developer area to the RF 7.5 developer area. I didn't say anything at first because I wanted to see what others would say, but there's some big mistakes in RF-X.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-28-2016, 07:34 PM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrokeDad View Post
I think you should have made it work on less of a machine. You have pretty much made it unusable to a very large percentage of people and it's not a big market to begin with.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this part of your statement. It is people like this which is the reason why realflight was pretty much the same software for 8 years. If RealFlight continued on its old path, it would have been dead since the competition is light years ahead vs the old software. The only reason 7.5 is still relevant today is the user created content. No other sim has thousands of models available to it. Knife Edge did the right thing. It scrapped the old software for something completely new. We may loose some people who won't upgrade, but gain new people who already have the hardware to run it. If people refuse to upgrade, go back to 7.5. Because the competition software is also more demanding than the old realflight. There are new people who will buy in.

I'm not happy with the way it works right now, it's more basic than realflight basic. I want my editor, I want gadgets. I also know that we are on version 1.0 and there is a long road ahead and plenty of time to add features that we had and to smooth it out.

Last edited by csgill75; 10-28-2016 at 07:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-28-2016, 07:51 PM
BrokeDad's Avatar
BrokeDad BrokeDad is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 922
Forums are all about opinion and debate. I fully respect your view csgill75. Hopefully it won't effect the relationship we have here. Heck .. I often take the other side of things with the Mrs.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-28-2016, 07:55 PM
Stringfellow's Avatar
Stringfellow Stringfellow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: S. Forida
Posts: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinmccurdy25 View Post
String, are you talking about RF-X? You are getting that many fps? Or in rf7.5? I would like to get a 120 MHz monitor. I notice a huge difference in real flight 7.5 when I active vsync to my monitors 60mhz. It smooths everything out
Sorry... that is on g7.5 & previous versions. I haven't received RF-X yet.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-28-2016, 08:06 PM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrokeDad View Post
Forums are all about opinion and debate. I fully respect your view csgill75. Hopefully it won't effect the relationship we have here. Heck .. I often take the other side of things with the Mrs.
I don't blame you specifically, but that mindset. You aren't the only person who thinks that way. Heck Knife Edge thought that way for years. The disappointment was here when RealFlight 7 came out 3 years ago and it was 6.5 in a new wrapper. We wanted change back then!

I am still very good friends with people who are voting differently than I am this election. I can live with your opinion if you can live with mine.

Last edited by csgill75; 10-28-2016 at 08:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-28-2016, 08:13 PM
Stringfellow's Avatar
Stringfellow Stringfellow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: S. Forida
Posts: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrokeDad View Post
You have pretty much made it unusable to a very large percentage of people and it's not a big market to begin with.

I'll stick with RF7.5 for the foreseeable future which might be a very long future.

P.S. It wouldn't work at all on my nice All-in-one system. I had to put it on my gaming system which is an i7, 32GB Ram, and a one year old 4GB video card.
I don't mind upping the performance & thus requiring a better machine if it provides a better (more realistic) flying experience. But it shouldn't require a $4000 rig! When a system chews up the latest video games but can't run an RC sim... something's out of whack. And yes, if an RC sim will only run on monster rigs, you limit your appeal to a small niche OF a small niche.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csgill75 View Post
If RealFlight continued on its old path, it would have been dead since the competition is light years ahead vs the old software.
Not sure which sim is light years beyond RF... but nobody has chimed in yet with how RF-X is light years beyond g7.5, even with all the new gaming horsepower.

Last edited by Stringfellow; 10-28-2016 at 08:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-28-2016, 08:23 PM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,114
Right now it's not better. Like I said it's more basic than realflight basic. 7.5 had a decade or so to develop. I only got on board with G4 and 7.5 is much more developed than that version. It will probably take a few versions of realflight X to get it to where it needs to be.

Things happen faster in RF-X, or seem to feel like they do. It has a fluidity that is hard to describe other than it's similar to what my helicopters fly like but not exactly and with no editor, I can't fix it. It's great when you aren't getting the stuttering effect. The short time I have had in it seems like it could be better but it's a good start.

Try AccuRC, compared to realflight 7.5 it makes realflight seem archaic. There is also liftoff for quads and racers.

Last edited by csgill75; 10-28-2016 at 08:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-28-2016, 08:28 PM
BrokeDad's Avatar
BrokeDad BrokeDad is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 922
I do see a problem with mobility. Many of us like to have a sim while traveling or at work. I guess for that there is still 7.5 and "other" options
A large portion of the population no longer use desktops even at home as well.
Another thing is the demographics. Most of the people into RC planes and helis are older. We tend not to be the ones doing a lot of high end gaming. While we may have a decent system we aren't the ones buying a new video card or computer every 6-12 months.
Go to any RC club field and look around... I think what you will see is mostly the over 30 crowd if not even the over 40 crowd.

Last edited by BrokeDad; 10-28-2016 at 09:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-28-2016, 08:30 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by csgill75 View Post
I wholeheartedly disagree with this part of your statement. It is people like this which is the reason why realflight was pretty much the same software for 8 years. If RealFlight continued on its old path, it would have been dead since the competition is light years ahead vs the old software. The only reason 7.5 is still relevant today is the user created content. No other sim has thousands of models available to it. Knife Edge did the right thing. It scrapped the old software for something completely new. We may loose some people who won't upgrade, but gain new people who already have the hardware to run it. If people refuse to upgrade, go back to 7.5. There are new people who will buy in.

I'm not happy with the way it works right now, it's more basic than realflight basic. I want my editor, I want gadgets. I also know that we are on version 1.0 and there is a long road ahead and plenty of time to add features that we had and to smooth it out.
I think you're a little off on this. I definitely agree they needed to move on and make RF much better than it was but they also needed to be mindful of what it takes to run it. The requirements are too stiff and should have been fine on my system and ran in the mid 40s to low 50s and not mid 20s to low 30s. That would have made it about right. Then the guy with a GTX 1070 would get 90s and up, which is what I like to run at, but the guy with a system HIGHER than the minimum system GTX 460 (MINE IS I7 32Gb RAM with GTX 760) would get playable frame rates, and mid 20s to low 30s isn't playable frame rates, ask any gamer. And I'm sure you'd agree with that. I think we all agree that RF-X isn't what it should have been in a lot of ways, like you said it's more basic than basic. Gosh let the rest of us say what we don't like too. He said his gaming system ran everything else fine so it's not a terribly slow system. And with all the negatives being reported it's clear RF-X needed more work.

Personal Comment: Why no beta? There are lots of good resources on this forum, it's full of people that love RealFlight and would have been a great place to setup a round table discussion to see what everyone wants in the new version and feedback on areas that needed to be fixed or improved. And a real beta to get actual feedback from the people 'you are making the software for'. That's what we did at several places I worked (Apple, Compaq, Texas Instruments, 3Dfx Interactive, more) and it works very well because everyone thinks differently and you get views you'd never consider yourself. Two years of development and it's extremely stripped down and clearly needed more work before release. Why oh why get rid of the 2D fields, what most people I've spoke to said was the only thing they fly because it's the closest thing to being at a real field. And 3D fields Do Not feel that way. They can be great fun when populated more than the ones in RF-X but they don't ever feel like being at a real field like the 2D fields do. I know there are different opinions on this, but 2D fields would have been easy to add and everyone would have had something, not just the strong gaming system.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-28-2016, 08:50 PM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,114
Well we can agree to disagree then. My last comment on the subject is that It's going to have to mature much like 7.5 did. It does have strong system requirements, but 3 or 4 years from now, they will be rather mundane in comparison to today. I expect that they will be on this engine and it's successors another 6-8 years or so and we are literally in week 1 of that time span.

2D fields would definitely help if it could be added with their new game engine. It would definitely be easier for people who just want to practice Helis or 3D flight. With the way it feels when it works right it may be outstanding as a simulator.


Years ago Knife Edge had betas and even hosted multiplayer sessions with people who could talk directly to them last time I saw one I think it was in 4.5. I know that when the physics changes in 6 it really pissed some people off and they in turn were berating the developers. Also around the time of 6.5 a major shakeup of this forum occurred with some very good people leaving permanently and I think that had something to do with the way they operate now. They don't let a lot of information out and while they still review this forum, they do not participate in the discussions as actively as they probably should. Hopefully this changes.

Last edited by csgill75; 10-28-2016 at 09:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-28-2016, 09:03 PM
justinmccurdy25 justinmccurdy25 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 67
I don't know what happened but I turned on my sim and It actually loaded up and there was no long pauses anymore. I reset to default and flew around wassukuppe field for awhile. had to turn down the 50 mph wind. the jerkiness is there but I was able to fly with settings on high in the 40's. I did deactive the bloom though which made it look better anyway. oh, and this is with my gtx 760. I took out my 1060 and saving that for a new system that I plan to order. im just hoping real flight has something up their sleeve for fixes in the glitches., and improvements in general.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-28-2016, 09:34 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by csgill75 View Post
Well we can agree to disagree then. My last comment on the subject is that It's going to have to mature much like 7.5 did. It does have strong system requirements, but 3 or 4 years from now, they will be rather mundane in comparison to today. I expect that they will be on this engine and it's successors another 6-8 years or so and we are literally in week 1 of that time span.

2D fields would definitely help if it could be added with their new game engine. It would definitely be easier for people who just want to practice Helis or 3D flight. With the way it feels when it works right it may be outstanding as a simulator.


Years ago Knife Edge had betas and even hosted multiplayer sessions with people who could talk directly to them last time I saw one I think it was in 4.5. I know that when the physics changes in 6 it really pissed some people off and they in turn were berating the developers. Also around the time of 6.5 a major shakeup of this forum occurred with some very good people leaving permanently and I think that had something to do with the way they operate now. They don't let a lot of information out and while they still review this forum, they do not participate in the discussions as actively as they probably should. Hopefully this changes.
No problem to agree to disagree, you being wrong that is (Just Kidding).

I've often heard that opinion, that is.. 3 or 4 years from now everything will be okay. But gosh csgill75 we are buying and using it now, so 3 or 4 years from now doesn't really work for any discussion about it. And like you I don't want to argue about it either. But I worked most of my life on this type of stuff so it's hard for me to not say the truth about something. I won't berate anyone's opinion that's NOT the thing to do. We all view it differently. I just don't think giving a company 3 or 4 years to fix something that was released today is a good idea. I worked at startups most of my life and we always worked long hours and weekends and hurt our family life but we also got the product out first rate, not needing to be fixed the day it shipped. Give me one last comment so I can understand your thoughts. Out of 100 percent of the RF community what percent of that 'today' can run RF-X in the 60s minimum ( the target for any real 3d gamer). And look at RF-X it's clearly a game, not a simulator. And the look of it seems to target what I'd call kid games. Huge buttons and nothing to do but press them and play. Not a simulator with all the tools you've already said is missing. And it's good you mentioned it. The truth is.

The Squeaky Wheel Gets The Grease!

So everyone should say their mind because we all know KE is reading the forum and they need the feedback. Don't you know they already knew what would be said when they shipped RF-X. Sure they did, they created RF 7.5 and the community here. It's clearly not what they should have shipped.

But I want to say something before I forget to. I have a number of planes that I think would be great for RF-X and when the developer tools become available I'll port them over to RF-X, and of course Lightning is one of them. But there's a fair amount of them that would work well for RF-X. Can you imagine exploring the 3D fields with Lazy Eight or RIF (Recon In Force) or even Big Red the biplane. And others. SO.. even if I'm hard on the failures of RF-X I'm just saying the truth to make sure the developers know what they need to fix.
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 03:47 PM.