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
  #31  
Old 11-08-2016, 12:18 PM
Kaos's Avatar
Kaos Kaos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Luis Obispo
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by technoid View Post
You should do the FRAPS CPU benchmark that I talk about in both of my benchmark posts and then you'd know what your CPU can do. If you need help with it, just ask!
I've been using FRAPS (thank-you!), but have not delved into the spreadsheet part until this morning. I did a quick run and actually created an X-Cell spreadsheet with FPS information. Pretty darned cool.

Didn't see CPU information yet, but I probably need to click another option or two in FRAPS. Fun stuff!
__________________
Happily retired!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-08-2016, 01:59 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaos View Post
I've been using FRAPS (thank-you!), but have not delved into the spreadsheet part until this morning. I did a quick run and actually created an X-Cell spreadsheet with FPS information. Pretty darned cool.

Didn't see CPU information yet, but I probably need to click another option or two in FRAPS. Fun stuff!
You might have misunderstood my CPU benchmark. The CPU benchmark is JUST like any other graphics benchmark with ONE difference. You set your graphics settings to 800x600 with the lowest settings. The CPU creates the same set of 3D data for your graphics card whether the resolution is 800x600 OR 1920x1080.. BUT when the graphics card is the bottleneck you can see how fast your CPU can process the 3D data by setting the graphics resolution at a very low setting 800x600 so the graphics card can keep up with the CPU. Does that help? So the only thing you're doing different between the CPU benchmark and the GPU benchmark is setting the resolution very low 800x600 so the Graphics Card can Keep UP with the CPU. That allows you to see how fast the CPU can process the 3D data for YOUR system.

So the CPU and GPU benchmark is the SAME... EXCEPT for the Resolution and texture settings. The 800x600 with all the graphics settings at LOW simply allows the graphics card to KEEP UP with the CPU. Then when you run the GPU benchmark you see how much slower the Frame Rate is because the GPU must run at 1920x1080 with all the settings to High. The 1920x1080 is just an example you replace that with whatever you normally run RF-X at.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-08-2016, 04:50 PM
Prop_Washer2 Prop_Washer2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 146
Ordered a Crucial 512GB m.2 SSD for $124.99 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

and a PCIE Card for it... $17.99 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

MSI Radeon R9 390 $265.00, Corsair H55 (For the video card $50.00) and a Kraken G10 GPU Bracket for the video card water cooler (Corsair H55)

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

New Case CM HB XB Evo Case, got tired of my TT Level 10GT,

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...C1105202454760

I already have an AMD FX9370 (8-Core, 5.2 GHZ) , Corsair H100i, Samsung 840 EVO 240GB SSD, 3 TB HDD, and 32 GB of RAM with pretty flashing lights built in....

Last edited by Prop_Washer2; 11-09-2016 at 11:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-08-2016, 05:47 PM
Boof69's Avatar
Boof69 Boof69 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Swartz Creek,Michigan
Posts: 5,347
$0.00 My current system is more than sufficient.
Intel I7 3770 3.5Ghz CPU
Z77 chipset on Asus MoBo
32Gb DDR3 Ram
GTX 980 GPU
Mechanical HDD
I upgrade biannually and I am up for an upgrade this tax season but I don't think I need to.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-08-2016, 09:26 PM
Kaos's Avatar
Kaos Kaos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Luis Obispo
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by technoid View Post
You might have misunderstood my CPU benchmark. The CPU benchmark is JUST like any other graphics benchmark with ONE difference. You set your graphics settings to 800x600 with the lowest settings. The CPU creates the same set of 3D data for your graphics card whether the resolution is 800x600 OR 1920x1080.. BUT when the graphics card is the bottleneck you can see how fast your CPU can process the 3D data by setting the graphics resolution at a very low setting 800x600 so the graphics card can keep up with the CPU. Does that help? So the only thing you're doing different between the CPU benchmark and the GPU benchmark is setting the resolution very low 800x600 so the Graphics Card can Keep UP with the CPU. That allows you to see how fast the CPU can process the 3D data for YOUR system.

So the CPU and GPU benchmark is the SAME... EXCEPT for the Resolution and texture settings. The 800x600 with all the graphics settings at LOW simply allows the graphics card to KEEP UP with the CPU. Then when you run the GPU benchmark you see how much slower the Frame Rate is because the GPU must run at 1920x1080 with all the settings to High. The 1920x1080 is just an example you replace that with whatever you normally run RF-X at.
Well, here's something that might warp your mind. No matter what resolution I set in RF-X (highest to lowest and many in between), FRAPS shows pretty much the same FPS. In other words, somewhere around 15 to 20 FPS (in full screen).

And get this: When I set Texture Quality and/or Shader Quality to LOW in RF-X, I see the worst FPS, typically in the 15-17 FPS area. Remarkably, when I set Texture Quality and Shader Quality to HIGH, I see my best frame rates. Go figure. Something is rotten in Denmark, as they say.
__________________
Happily retired!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-08-2016, 10:37 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaos View Post
Well, here's something that might warp your mind. No matter what resolution I set in RF-X (highest to lowest and many in between), FRAPS shows pretty much the same FPS. In other words, somewhere around 15 to 20 FPS (in full screen).

And get this: When I set Texture Quality and/or Shader Quality to LOW in RF-X, I see the worst FPS, typically in the 15-17 FPS area. Remarkably, when I set Texture Quality and Shader Quality to HIGH, I see my best frame rates. Go figure. Something is rotten in Denmark, as they say.
hehe.. Because when you're in Full Screen the resolution is Full Screen. Or if you have a 1920x1080 monitor it's 1920x1080. Try this. Turn Full Screen mode OFF. Then set 800x600 and you'll have a small window, that's what you have to fly in and FRAPS should show a higher frame rate. I haven't looked at the frame rates for low, medium, and high I've just used them but not compared them. But I think I will you have me curious.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-08-2016, 11:47 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boof69 View Post
$0.00 My current system is more than sufficient.
Intel I7 3770 3.5Ghz CPU
Z77 chipset on Asus MoBo
32Gb DDR3 Ram
GTX 980 GPU
Mechanical HDD
I upgrade biannually and I am up for an upgrade this tax season but I don't think I need to.
Got a question for you. I'm rethinking what I want to do about an upgrade so can you tell me what type of frame rates you get when flying the Monte Vista field? Or are they about the same no matter what field you fly? I'm pretty sure at this point I'll be sticking with my 1920x1200 monitor and everything I've read says the 1070 is more than enough for any 1080P game, and my monitor isn't far from that. So since your 3770K is virtually the same performance as my 4770S the low power 4770K that runs at 3.1 Ghz but the 47xx vs 37xx the 47xx had about 5% better performance so our processors should be pretty much the same speed. But I'd like to feel pretty certain before I order the 1070 rather than the 1080 that I'll be seeing frame rates staying in the 70s so I'd get the feel I'm comfortable with. So if you can give me any info on that I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-09-2016, 02:40 AM
Boof69's Avatar
Boof69 Boof69 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Swartz Creek,Michigan
Posts: 5,347
I get solid frame rates of 60 plus in all fields with my 980. If you want higher frame rates than that I'm sure the 1070 will do the trick. However as a piece of advice I would stick with the 80 class card. Especially if you are going to be multi tasking making models with photos hope and 3ds max open at the same time like I will.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:36 AM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boof69 View Post
I get solid frame rates of 60 plus in all fields with my 980. If you want higher frame rates than that I'm sure the 1070 will do the trick. However as a piece of advice I would stick with the 80 class card. Especially if you are going to be multi tasking making models with photos hope and 3ds max open at the same time like I will.
Thanks I'm not quite sure what I'll do yet but I often have 3ds, Photoshop, and RF open at the same time. But most of the time I'll go in and out of RF since it taxes the system and the CPU and Video Card fans spin up, so I'll exit RF and run it when I need too. I like quiet.

I just got through trying two more fields and there's some really cool scenery to fly through. Like I put in another post, if you change your outlook on what RF is you can enjoy it as an RC game where you can just enjoy flying a RC plane, but not so much an RC simulator like RF 7.5 is. Even after flying so much now and really loving the cool scenery, 3D fields aren't the same experience as flying RC at the local field. So they should add the 2D fields back. That would also give a lot of people something to fly in since their system isn't up for the 3d fields. They cut out a lot of their audience.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-09-2016, 02:35 PM
justinmccurdy25 justinmccurdy25 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by technoid View Post
Thanks for that info I was just thinking about asking what resolution you run RF-X at. But what is your desktop resolution? I forget. Okay.. Good News for me. I just got permission for a system upgrade from the wife so now I'm serious about upgrading. So I'm wondering how SLI 970s compare to a single 1070? You probably know. I'm going to Google it too. But I've started to think maybe an i7 6700 32 Gig GTX 1080. It's hard to spend 200 bucks more for the 1080 but I want to make sure I can run all the eye candy. But I'm at 1920x1200 so maybe a 1070 can do that, but I want to be sure.. don't want to wish later I had got the 1080. And who knows a monitor upgrade could happen later to a 1440. So I want to cover the bases.
What baffles me is WHY would knife edge make the optimal specs to run this sim a 1060??? I don't know about anyone else but I trusted there specs and went out and bought a 1060 founders. Along with i7-6700k 8m. 32 gigs of ddr4 3300 ram and an Asus z170 m -plus board. In total around 1200 bucks just on those items. Now if the 1060 is not going to produce optimal playability ( no glitchy crap, at least 60 fps, at least on high) they need to make a formal notice of system specs change asap so people STOP buying the 1060. I would of gladly purchased the 1070 or so 1080 but for what? If people are saying no improvement from a 970 to a 1070.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:15 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinmccurdy25 View Post
What baffles me is WHY would knife edge make the optimal specs to run this sim a 1060??? I don't know about anyone else but I trusted there specs and went out and bought a 1060 founders. Along with i7-6700k 8m. 32 gigs of ddr4 3300 ram and an Asus z170 m -plus board. In total around 1200 bucks just on those items. Now if the 1060 is not going to produce optimal playability ( no glitchy crap, at least 60 fps, at least on high) they need to make a formal notice of system specs change asap so people STOP buying the 1060. I would of gladly purchased the 1070 or so 1080 but for what? If people are saying no improvement from a 970 to a 1070.
Your new system sounds great except for the 1060. Have you built it yet or is it being built for you? The reason I don't feel the 1060 is the right card is it's not much faster than the one I have and my frame rates are 20s to 30s. Of course there's some higher frame rates mixed in there too. But that's why I posted the charts of the benchmarks I've done because they show a clear picture of what the frame rate was during the benchmark. It's possible the 1060 will do better than I think it will too. And don't forget my goal was 80s to 90s which I don't expect the 1060 will do. But we haven't seen anyone graph it yet and I'm hoping that someone will do that. So if your system is already built I can help you benchmark it and get your performance charted. If the chart showed 45 to 65 you would have a good experience in RF-X. It isn't totally necessary to be 60 and above to have a good experience, especially in something that doesn't move extremely fast. So don't give up hope for a good experience.

Oh.. The little micro stutters being reported will affect fast and slow cards so once they fix it that part should be fine.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:23 PM
Kaos's Avatar
Kaos Kaos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Luis Obispo
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by technoid View Post
hehe.. Because when you're in Full Screen the resolution is Full Screen. Or if you have a 1920x1080 monitor it's 1920x1080. Try this. Turn Full Screen mode OFF. Then set 800x600 and you'll have a small window, that's what you have to fly in and FRAPS should show a higher frame rate. I haven't looked at the frame rates for low, medium, and high I've just used them but not compared them. But I think I will you have me curious.
Full screen has been off all along.
__________________
Happily retired!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:49 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaos View Post
Full screen has been off all along.
Sorry about that. My other post to you should clear this up but just for clarity I'll give a quick thought on it to make sure.

Two things happen in your computer to create a 3D game.

1. Your CPU processes the 3D data and sends it to your GPU (graphics card).

2. The GPU renders the 3D data to create the image on the screen.

Those two items are dependent on each other. So if your GPU (graphics card) can process the 3D data as fast as the CPU sends the data you won't see any difference in frame rate from low resolution to high resolution. In my case my GPU is slower than my CPU, at least in RF-X. So I see a big difference between low resolution and high resolution. In the old days the GPU was normally the slowest thing so the type of benchmarks I've done were used to show a frame rate change when you upgraded. But if your GPU can process the 3D data as fast as the CPU sends the data then you won't see any difference. That must be what's happening here.

But none-the-less the 800x600 low settings benchmark still shows the CPU frame rate, it just happens to be the GPU is as fast as the CPU so they're both the same. To make this even more confusing if you had a 1080 you'd still get the same frame rate because what you're seeing is as fast as the CPU can process the 3D data. In 3D graphics you want both systems to be running at the same speed or one holds the other back.

Last edited by technoid; 11-09-2016 at 03:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:04 PM
Kaos's Avatar
Kaos Kaos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Luis Obispo
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by technoid View Post
Sorry about that. My other post to you should clear this up but just for clarity I'll give a quick thought on it to make sure.

Two things happen in your computer to create a 3D game.

1. Your CPU processes the 3D data and sends it to your GPU (graphics card).

2. The GPU renders the 3D data to create the image on the screen.

Those two items are dependent on each other. So if your GPU (graphics card) can process the 3D data as fast as the CPU sends the data you won't see any difference in frame rate from low resolution to high resolution. In my case my GPU is slower than my CPU, at least in RF-X. So I see a big difference between low resolution and high resolution. In the old days the GPU was normally the slowest thing so the type of benchmarks I've done were used to show a frame rate change when you upgraded. But if your GPU can process the 3D data as fast as the CPU sends the data then you won't see any difference. That must be what's happening here.

But none-the-less the 800x600 low settings benchmark still shows the CPU frame rate, it just happens to be the GPU is as fast as the CPU so they're both the same. To make this even more confusing if you had a 1080 you'd still get the same frame rate because what you're seeing is as fast as the CPU can process the 3D data. In 3D graphics you want both systems to be running at the same speed or one holds the other back.
That makes sense. I convinced myself that replacing my old i7-930 2.8 GHz 4-core processor with an i7-980x 3.33 GHz 6-core processor would be more than enough to handle RF-X along with my new GTX 1060 and 24 GB of RAM.

It has become painfully obvious that my configuration still isn't enough, even with my i7-980x processor overclocked to 4.133 GHz. I hate it when this happens!

Thinking back, I've made this mistake with cars, too: bigger carburetors; tubing headers; sportier camshaft; 10 thousandth's overbore, etc. Yes, the performance did increase, but I still couldn't beat that nifty BMW 2002 down the street.

Perhaps this is a good excuse to get that Asus i7-670 with GTX 1080.
__________________
Happily retired!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:58 PM
csgill75's Avatar
csgill75 csgill75 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florence, Alabama
Posts: 3,114
Well I had a lightning strike on my Directv dish 2 weeks ago and several pieces of electronics were affected including my computer. Needless to say my insurance company as well as the protection plan I have with directv are replacing a couple of TV's my surround sound system, blue ray players, modem and router, and my computer. Apparently a surge went through the network cable and killed the motherboard. It does not post anymore.

I now have a very similar system with the 7700k, 16gb ram and the ASUS STRIX Z270E Gaming motherboard and a Asus STRIX 1080ti. My spinning drives still work fine but I upgraded the SSD to one of the Samsung 960 pro 512gb M.2 drives. Basically just a new version of the system that went bad. The new board has wireless AC networking built in so I might just isolate the PC from the modem so that this can't happen again. WiFi is fast enough for everything I do anyway.

I couldn't get the MSI 1080ti Gaming card in my old computer to work in my older AMD system so I guess it died too. I may try to rma it for replacement if my insurance provider doesn't want the old equipment. They have already covered the replacement costs but have not yet requested the bad equipment yet.

Last edited by csgill75; 07-18-2017 at 11:04 PM.
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 08:55 AM.