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 10-12-2017, 10:15 AM
jbourke's Avatar
jbourke jbourke is online now
Knife Edge Software Owner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corvallis, OR, USA
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by viperdriver5150 View Post
1280 x 720 is decent but looks like garbage.
That's pretty vague. Instead of saying it is "decent" tell me the frame rate. And what do you mean by "looks like garbage"? Are you saying that the resolution isn't high enough for your tastes or that there are rendering errors?

Quote:
Frame rate in 4k is about 16-22
It sounds like your video card will not allow you to run RF-X at 4k.

Quote:
1920 x 1080 is below average as the background landscape looks very odd trees popping in and out with some very blurry and just look very odd. Of course the random stutters and such to go along with it and when flying helis it makes it darn near impossible to practice 3d.
When you are running at a low frame rate the LOD transitions are visible. Maybe you are seeing something else but it sounds like this is all it is.

I'm sorry that the word "optimal" confused you, but I did explain months ago that "optimal" meant the system could handle "HD" resolutions. This is 1280x720. Why are you being so stubborn about the resolution? If you want to run at 1080p you need a stronger video card.

Honestly it sounds like you are seeing exactly what we expect from our lab tests.

Quote:
Now I can run Battlefield 4 / Call of Duty maxed in 1080p buttery smooth so I just don't get it.
That has nothing to do with anything. These aren't flight sims. Flight sims are more taxing on a video card than an FPS. We are drawing a lot more stuff every frame.

Quote:
Also, do you have any intentions of adding HD photo fields to RFX and possibly giving us the helicopter sounds it should have had like your newer program is getting.
RF-X is not getting PhotoFields any time soon, if ever. I don't know if helicopter sound improvements will find their way into the RF-X update.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-12-2017, 10:27 AM
jbourke's Avatar
jbourke jbourke is online now
Knife Edge Software Owner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corvallis, OR, USA
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by flip View Post
Jim, you're a smart guy and I'm sure you know 1080p is a low resolution these days RF-X needs to be able to run at a solid 60 fps at 1080p with a reasonable graphics card and a next to the top Intel processor, any less is unacceptable in almost any one's eyes.
This is a flight sim, not a game console. You will have to adjust the resolution according to the capabilities of your system.

RF-X defaults to 720p, if I recall correctly. You would have to go and increase the resolution in the settings to get to 1080p.

Quote:
The spec's say a GTX1060 is optimum at what resolution is it optimum? These days 1080p is pretty much the minimum resolution anything should be spec'd at, it's pretty much the lowest resolution a monitor runs at (native).
Here is the system requirements sticky http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32256

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-12-2017, 12:49 PM
flip flip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbourke View Post
This is a flight sim, not a game console. You will have to adjust the resolution according to the capabilities of your system.

RF-X defaults to 720p, if I recall correctly. You would have to go and increase the resolution in the settings to get to 1080p.



Here is the system requirements sticky http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32256

Jim
Okay Jim, thanks for the link to the system requirements thread. Now I remember reading it a long time ago but forgot exactly what you said. I've been around 3d since the beginning so I know lots about it and don't want to dance around speaking of a 3d game or 3d RC Simulator so let's just say this, and most everyone would agree. Any 3d Application produced now needs to be spec'd at Full HD (1080p) for two reasons. First the monitor has to rescale the image to put it on the screen if it's not the native resolution and that degrades the image. Second the image quality is definitely reduced at HD (720p). So RF-X needs to run at a Solid 60 fps all the time (read 80 to 90 average) so the RF-X rendering problem that happens when the fps dips below 60 doesn't happen, it looks very bad. My system is stronger than the optimum system and I still can't run RF-X at 1080p without plenty of drops below 60 fps and seeing the rendering issue when that happens. I remember seeing a post by you that explained it, it causes shadows behind the plane when the fps dips below 60. It got better with the last update but it's still there.

JIM I want to see RF-X succeed it's a good looking RC simulator when it's running well, but what does it take to do that. According to one of the guys on the forum it looks like a 1080ti is what it needs to do that. That is average probably 90 to keep a virtual 60 fps minimum frame rate. Please just tell me what I need to buy to make RF-X run at a minimum 60 fps ALL THE TIME. (at 1080p) Virtually NO drops below 60 fps. Thanks, that would really help me.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-12-2017, 07:44 PM
viperdriver5150 viperdriver5150 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 65
Jim

Frame rate on the 1280x720 is like 80 to 110 but when you are sitting in front of a 55" screen the 1280 on the models especially looks terrible and I realize my video card will not handle 4k, I was just curious what it would do. 720 progressive was good about 15 years ago.

I guess this is what it comes down to and yes it is a personal opinion. I think RFX is a complete step backwards and the fact it was released so incomplete and with such performance issues really is upsetting to a very loyal RealFlight user and I know there are many more out there. Why you would ship RFX without multiplayer is ridiculous in itself. RFX was sold as the future of RC simulators and I honestly see nothing futuristic about it. The flying fields are just plain boring and it doesn't even feel like you are flying at a field, the backgrounds are so game like (and not in a good way) and the worst part is they barely look any better than the 3d fields in 7.5. The key word here is simulator, you are trying to simulate the feel and look of the aircraft but also feel like you are at your local flying field, not flying in a minecraft scene. Photo fields did just that and why you would not incorporate some of them into RFX is beyond me.

Also, understand that there are a lot of us waiting on a update and have been for a very long time that will make this more usable and not on a dumbed down resolution, something that looks good for the modern hardware that is available today which so many are using. Then you come out with a new program one year after RFX that is supposed to appease those who loved 7.5, myself included. Then you go ahead and give Realflight 8 mulitplayer, virtual reality and new aircraft sounds, overall just a better version. Do you see any reason why we would be upset considering you got us hook line and sinker on the sales pitch of RFX?

Last edited by viperdriver5150; 10-12-2017 at 08:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-13-2017, 12:45 AM
jbourke's Avatar
jbourke jbourke is online now
Knife Edge Software Owner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corvallis, OR, USA
Posts: 705
Viperdriver a lot of what you are saying is your opinion and I'm not about to argue with it. You are the customer and you know what is best for you. If RF-X isn't it then ok. I also enjoy that you come here to tell people about your experience because that is best for everyone. If you spare someone the agony of buying the wrong product you've done us all a favor. More power to you.

Also it's very helpful for me to hear your comments and everyone else's because I rely on them to work out what is best for the product line. It's because of so many comments like yours that we returned to RF 7.5 to build RF 8.0.

Quote:
Do you see any reason why we would be upset considering you got us hook line and sinker on the sales pitch of RFX?
No of course not because we do not promise the future. We don't even talk about releases one day before they are ready, with the recent exception where Ryan spilled the beans on the RF-X update that is coming soon. Other than that, you are buying what we have in the box every time you buy software from us. You are never buying what we may or may not do next week. You might have noticed that we have a history of doing updates but we do not make them upon demand. We make them according to a lot of factors. There are only so many resources available and there are lots of requests.

That doesn't mean I don't sympathize, but you have to meet me halfway. After all, weren't you involved in this decision? You could have waited until you knew a little more about the feature set or what the frame rate would be on your system. For that matter you could have asked about it here. No one here wanted you to be in the unhappy and angry position you are in right now. We tried to release the information you needed to make the best decision for you.

Quote:
Also, understand that there are a lot of us waiting on a update and have been for a very long time that will make this more usable and not on a dumbed down resolution
Of course we will keep working on performance but there is only so much we can do. RF-X will probably never run at 1920x1080 on your system at any reasonable frame rate.

PhotoFields are low priority for RF-X as long as RF 7.5/8 is on the market. Customers with low-end systems aren't buying RF-X to begin with so we want to focus on features that make heavy use of the 3D engine we invested in.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-13-2017, 01:30 AM
viperdriver5150 viperdriver5150 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbourke View Post
Viperdriver a lot of what you are saying is your opinion and I'm not about to argue with it. You are the customer and you know what is best for you. If RF-X isn't it then ok. I also enjoy that you come here to tell people about your experience because that is best for everyone. If you spare someone the agony of buying the wrong product you've done us all a favor. More power to you.

Also it's very helpful for me to hear your comments and everyone else's because I rely on them to work out what is best for the product line. It's because of so many comments like yours that we returned to RF 7.5 to build RF 8.0.



No of course not because we do not promise the future. We don't even talk about releases one day before they are ready, with the recent exception where Ryan spilled the beans on the RF-X update that is coming soon. Other than that, you are buying what we have in the box every time you buy software from us. You are never buying what we may or may not do next week. You might have noticed that we have a history of doing updates but we do not make them upon demand. We make them according to a lot of factors. There are only so many resources available and there are lots of requests.

That doesn't mean I don't sympathize, but you have to meet me halfway. After all, weren't you involved in this decision? You could have waited until you knew a little more about the feature set or what the frame rate would be on your system. For that matter you could have asked about it here. No one here wanted you to be in the unhappy and angry position you are in right now. We tried to release the information you needed to make the best decision for you.



Of course we will keep working on performance but there is only so much we can do. RF-X will probably never run at 1920x1080 on your system at any reasonable frame rate.

PhotoFields are low priority for RF-X as long as RF 7.5/8 is on the market. Customers with low-end systems aren't buying RF-X to begin with so we want to focus on features that make heavy use of the 3D engine we invested in.

Jim
Jim

So what exactly was the point of RFX then? If 7.5/8 basically can do everything better than RFX wasn't RFX just a experiment gone wrong and really releasing 8 backs that up. What is the compelling argument for creating RFX because I just don't see one whatsoever.

As for buying RFX, it was the same process I have used since G2 as every version since was always slightly more compelling but it always worked and usually had some nice upgrades. RFX was the exact opposite, it's like everyone there at knife edge sat down and stripped everything out that people enjoyed, multiplayer, photo fields, creating custom fields and aircraft and absolutely zero backwards compatibility with any expansion packs.

As for resolution, asking a sim to run at 1920x1080 is not at all a demanding task in today's world and a 980ti overclocked,32gb of ram and i7 6700k Intel processor should be more than up to the task. Again I believe that is exactly why you released 8, as you realized the majority of people do not have a system that can come close to running it properly, nor do they want to invest 1500.00 (1080 card, 32gb ram and mobo/processor) to do so and that's if you build your own pc's as I do. Not to mention that is why hobby shops do not demo RFX in stores.

I personally see you dropping support completely for RFX in the next year and quietly let it fade off into the sunset. Unfortunately we are left holding the bag and to get the features that would have been considered natural progression for RFX we are now left with the option of buying 8.

Last edited by viperdriver5150; 10-13-2017 at 11:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-13-2017, 09:04 AM
bobma bobma is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbourke View Post

Here is the system requirements sticky http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32256

Jim
It would had been nice of you Jim to have answered why KE was deceptive about the system requirements.
And why not update the requirements to make them more accurate? PS. I am Not the only one who would like to know!!
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-13-2017, 09:54 AM
Bill Stuntz's Avatar
Bill Stuntz Bill Stuntz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Columbus, OH USA
Posts: 184
Send a message via ICQ to Bill Stuntz
Quote:
DirectX 11 Mid-Range Video Card with 2 GB of video memory
I pre-ordered X because I THOUGHT that was true of my 2G GTX430, and I wanted to upgrade from 5.5 anyway. I was warned that I might not get very good performance and would probably want a new video card, but I had but I hoped I'd get sub-optimal but usable performance until I could afford a better video card. At the default settings, I got 2FPS. At the lowest resolution with all the eye candy turned off, I managed to improve it to 6FPS.

As I said, I was allowed to un-register & return X for full credit even though it had been installed, but I don't know whether others had the same experience. The published return policy was that the package needed to be UN-opened, but I argued about it and an exception was made. If that exception wasn't made for other dis-satisfied purchasers, that might explain at least SOME of the bitching by other users.

If I had known that 8 was coming, with similar hardware requirements to 7.5, I'd have waited to upgrade. Will there be any discount for recent 7.5 purchasers like me?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-13-2017, 12:36 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 Bill Stuntz View Post
I pre-ordered X because I THOUGHT that was true of my 2G GTX430, and I wanted to upgrade from 5.5 anyway. I was warned that I might not get very good performance and would probably want a new video card, but I had but I hoped I'd get sub-optimal but usable performance until I could afford a better video card. At the default settings, I got 2FPS. At the lowest resolution with all the eye candy turned off, I managed to improve it to 6FPS.
A 430 gtx is by no means a mid-range video card. It exists primarily for the workplace environment for running multiple monitors in a 2d environment. Midrange cards today are the 1060, and 1070 video cards.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-13-2017, 03:55 PM
Bill Stuntz's Avatar
Bill Stuntz Bill Stuntz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Columbus, OH USA
Posts: 184
Send a message via ICQ to Bill Stuntz
When I bought my 430, the 1060 was the HIGH end card and WAY out of my price range. Mine was midrange at the time. I didn't realize how far the range had moved. I thank you for being one of the people who warned me that I'd probably need to upgrade, but I had hoped I could limp along with the 430 until I could afford something better. I didn't expect 5.5 to be 15X faster than RF-X on a quad Xeon 3.6 w/ 16G RAM. I expected maybe 2 or 3. By the time I found a GTX760 in a machine that was being recycled, I had already uninstalled & returned X, and upgraded to 7.5 instead. With the 760, I suspect X would limp along the way I had hoped the 430 would. But I think RF-8 is the better option for me now. I could duplicate my current machine TWICE for what a high end card would cost me.

Last edited by Bill Stuntz; 10-13-2017 at 04:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-14-2017, 08:33 AM
bobma bobma is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 33
Here was the Big Mistake KE made:

and can be corrected by:

Changing your:

Optimal System Requirements to: Recommended System Requirements

Then add the accurate Optimal System Requirements or just delete this category, would be your best bet.

NOBODY on this forum can say I am wrong about this! Obviously!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbourke View Post
This is a flight sim, not a game console. You will have to adjust the resolution according to the capabilities of your system.

RF-X defaults to 720p, if I recall correctly. You would have to go and increase the resolution in the settings to get to 1080p.



Here is the system requirements sticky http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32256

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-14-2017, 08:49 PM
mikejr83 mikejr83 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1
I've been with RF since 6. I came from Phoenix. I was sold on RF's physics engine. Phoenix was too game like. Now, I've read all the previous pages and some of the other threads. I thought I'd post my piece.

First let me give you a bit of background on myself. I started in the hobby with rotor wing. I got a sim to hone my skills for that type of aircraft because I quickly recognized that it was cheaper to put them in the dirt while on a computer vs. at the field. I'm also a software developer by trade. I'm a bit of a gamer.

My PC is a monster by 2015 standards. It's a water cooled, overclocked beyond 4.2 GHz octo-cored, EVGA rockin' 970 GTX, ASUS 24" 1ms gray-to-gray response rate 144Hz refresh rate monitors, software development and fun machine. The most impressive frame rates I get are when I run Warframe at 1920x1080. It clocks in at 300+ FPS during basic game play and doesn't drop below 175 fps in big battles. I run other current gen games without issues (Battlefield 1, No Man's Sky, Star Citizen). While those other games don't have nearly as impressive specs at 1080p they are mostly just capped at my refresh rate of the monitor (unless I turn off the cap like on Warframe just because I wanted to see how well it does). I give all this info as a preface to my discussion of my observations.

Back to RFX. When the announcement first came I was more worried about the upgrade requirements of the software from the aspect of if I was going to have to get a new Interlink controller and if I couldn't use all the custom models. While I was highly disappointed in the answers to those queries, I recognized the statement that in order for RF to move forward certain things had to be changed. I ended up seeing that the new controller would be nice for drones and scale aircraft. What I really had hoped for was that custom aircraft would take large advantage of the new controller.

Furthermore, I saw in the statement that it was time for the RF brand to move on as the same argument that I have to make on a release basis in my software engineering position, the moving on from current design due to technical debt. My initial thought was, "great! No we'll be able to see a progression of an awesome sim into the era of high performance gaming." If you follow consoles then you may understand it this way, it is like the racing sim Grand Turismo for Playstation 2. Impressive due to the large amount of vehicles and the level of simulation achieved. When PlayStation 3 came along it wasn't a right off the bat release because the whole graphics engine was unlike anything else. It took time, the amount of cars and tracks was cut due to modeling them at 1080p was time consuming, etc. All like RFX.

In short, I expected that the release of RFX wasn't going to be stellar. I expected a lot less aircraft. I was prepared that there were going to be fewer fields. To me, the promise of a new starting point to build the brand was exciting because it meant that all the things people considered "wrong" or out-dated would now have the chance to be "fixed" or modernized. I was excited.

After the software was released I ordered it immediately. Having seen even the previous incremental improvements from 6 to 7.5 as worth my money I was under no guise that it would be any different. Wow was I disappointed. Each field feels the same. My monster machine felt puny. I was completely soured. The days where I'd spend a whole day working on piro-flips or working on rolling harriers were not going to be spent on this software. If there is a way I can go into the console and see how many hours played my bet is that it would be in the single digits.

I could echo exactly what the others have said. I don't have anything new to add there. My sentiments have already been voiced. I just hope that providing the background and my thoughts give more humanizing and complete picture of how some of us feel let down. I actually used to frequent the swap page frequently. Right after the release of RFX I kept coming back to the forum to see about updates, the ability to have custom models, a glimmer of hope. I even decided to dip into my modeling budget to save for a brand new 1080 GTX (and to watercool that sucker for maximum overclocking). Yet, crickets on the forums. I understand not wanting to commit to a release data. I hate that our management speaks out of both sides of their mouth regarding that policy where I work. Trust me, I know. But after seeing the incremental fixes from the 6 and 7 series, while still fewer than many developers, I felt completely hung out to dry.

I honestly gave up coming back here. The whole process soured me that bad. The only reason I came back was to see if anyone else felt as upset as I was after reading the Tower email about the release of the newest KE product. I guess I'm not alone. Well... I'v rambled enough. I hope you understand that I'm not angry. I'm disappointed. It's going to take some serious time before I come back to this platform.

Mike G.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-15-2017, 12:39 AM
viperdriver5150 viperdriver5150 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 65
Mike

I totally agree. When I saw the announcement of RF8 that put me over the top. It isn’t that I cant afford the software and I don’t mind upgrading now and then to stay current, in fact I rather enjoy it. What I don’t enjoy is having a simulator that is sitting unused as yours has. I bet I do not have 15 hours on it total as it is so discouraging to use.

As I said in my previous post, with 8 being released what was the purpose of RFX other than to irritate a very loyal base. Looking from the outside I believe it was a move that was based on sucking in a younger crowd with the drones and only including 3D fields. I do not treat this as a game, I want to be able to practice new tricks and just keep my fingers in check over the long winters. In fact, it would drive my wife nuts I would use it so much.

I think it’s just a shame that what has made the program so great over the years has been thrown to the wayside.

Last edited by viperdriver5150; 10-15-2017 at 08:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-15-2017, 07:42 AM
BrokeDad's Avatar
BrokeDad BrokeDad is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 922
Remember "New Coke" ? It worked for them. Hehe I'm really looking forward to RF-8. They put in almost all the things we asked for after RF-X and used the old engine like we suggested. I'm just glad I sold my copy early. I'd hate to sell it now as one might get $20.

Last edited by BrokeDad; 10-15-2017 at 07:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-15-2017, 10:08 AM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,474
I'm waiting for the next RF-X update to say if RF-X is dead for me or a longer term project. There's a lot of things I like about RF-X it's just the poor performance and rendering issues that keep me away from it. If they could squeeze a little bit more performance from it (read higher frame rate) and get rid of the stuttering and the rendering errors (shadows that follow the plane when the frame rate drops below 60) then I could enjoy flying it. I really like flying through the mountains and dipping up and down through the trees so there's enough there for me to be happy with it if those issues are fixed. I hate even thinking this but to me RF-X seems like a program that will work once Intel releases a faster processor than the current line and NVidia releases the Volta series cards, it needs a bump in both the CPU and GPU from what's available now to work the way I want it too. And that would be a minimum frame rate of 80 so it stays totally fluid all the time with no rendering issues. Then it would be fun for me to convert some of my planes and go flying through the mountains. Of course that's not really what most want from an 'RC' flight simulator they want to practice flying RC at a field and for that the 3D fields aren't really up to the task yet, 2D fields bring with them the Graphic Realism that makes you feel at a real RC field not in a game environment. I wish KinifeEdge would have thought about having a few town meeting style get-togethers with the guys on the forum to get ideas of what the next generation RC simulator should be I think they would have made a much better product. BUT.. I'm still hopeful that RF-X will work for me some day and hope they don't give up on it. Like I said I think this next update will let everyone know if RF-X can recover from it's rejection and begin a recovery process. But if they stick only to 3D fields it will need more realistic textures, which of course would cost performance so I don't see that happening.
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 03:44 PM.