Next RF 9 Update

M

Mad4Mustangs

New member
Hello all. I’m ready to pull the trigger on RealFlight 9 but I realized the current release is coming up on a year old. Wondered if folks thought that the next update would be a 9.5 update or go right to version 10?

If it is a 9.5 update, will it be a free upgrade for 9 users like in previous versions? I had RF 6 and was given 6.5 as a free upgrade.

Don’t want to pull the trigger too soon and miss out on a big update. Thanks
 
Any minor updates will come free but don't expect anything major soon. Maybe some bug fixes and some things we've suggested that Ryan Douglas has put in tickets for.

As for RF10 I definitely wouldn't expect it this year.
 
PilotAt6 said:
What is everyone expecting would be the major feature(s) … when their is a RF10
Click to expand...
Well what I want is a major improvement in graphics quality. But I doubt I'll get it. Other than that RF is fine it just needs better graphics, badly. And I agree with what some folks have already said they should add the new planes released by Horizon Hobby quickly that tends to be what lots of people ask for.
 
The vast majority of people using Real Flight are not willing to purchase high-end graphics cards. RealFlightX was the canary for that mind experiment. Canary is dead, long live the canary.

I don't want my sim crapped up with every new beginner plane on the market. If they want that, they should have to purchase it separately. Sounds like someone is looking for work.
 
12oclockhigh said:
The vast majority of people using Real Flight are not willing to purchase high-end graphics cards. RealFlightX was the canary for that mind experiment. Canary is dead, long live the canary.

I don't want my sim crapped up with every new beginner plane on the market. If they want that, they should have to purchase it separately. Sounds like someone is looking for work.
Click to expand...
You could make a major improvement in the quality of the graphics in RF9 with very reasonable requirements I didn't mean to take it as far as RF-X just much better than it is. With a fairly minor overhaul of their existing engine and improved textures RF could look tons better and only need a low-medium end graphics card to run it at high frame rates. Look at the quality of lots of games that only need a very reasonable graphics card they look much better than RF. That's what I mentioned before they went with RF-X and it could have been a winner for them big time.

So temp a graphics engine programmer to move their existing engine to DX10 for improved graphics and shadows and their staff, or whoever did the textures for the Wright Island area in RF-X, could do redo all the textures to improve their quality. And there you have it much better graphics that only require a low-medium end graphics card to run at 100 fps.

And no sir I'm not looking for work. And you're forgetting that RF is for the entry level guys so the planes you don't want clogging up RF is the planes the sim is meant for.
 
technoid said:
You could make a major improvement in the quality of the graphics in RF9 with very reasonable requirements I didn't mean to take it as far as RF-X just much better than it is. With a fairly minor overhaul of their existing engine and improved textures RF could look tons better and only need a low-medium end graphics card to run it at high frame rates. Look at the quality of lots of games that only need a very reasonable graphics card they look much better than RF. That's what I mentioned before they went with RF-X and it could have been a winner for them big time.

So temp a graphics engine programmer to move their existing engine to DX10 for improved graphics and shadows and their staff, or whoever did the textures for the Wright Island area in RF-X, could do redo all the textures to improve their quality. And there you have it much better graphics that only require a low-medium end graphics card to run at 100 fps.

And no sir I'm not looking for work. And you're forgetting that RF is for the entry level guys so the planes you don't want clogging up RF is the planes the sim is meant for.
Click to expand...
DX10 would improve the graphics, (DX10 was released with Windows Vista.) How would we all like to go back to Vista, no thanks.
So that means Realflight is running on a pre-Vista graphics engine. ???
The latest version of DirectX is DX12. (released with Windows 10).
 
asj5547 said:
DX10 would improve the graphics, (DX10 was released with Windows Vista.) How would we all like to go back to Vista, no thanks.
So that means Realflight is running on a pre-Vista graphics engine. ???
The latest version of DirectX is DX12. (released with Windows 10).
Click to expand...
Remember DX10 stands on it's own and isn't tied to Windows Vista so there's no problem using it. My thoughts on an upgrade to their existing graphics engine is to reduce the work needed to change it to get a better looking RealFlight and DX10 has everything they need to make RealFlight look better, one is better shadows. Since their existing graphics engine runs on DX9 moving it one step up to DX10 would be fairly easy and give them the improvements needed to make RealFlight look better and still run at high frame rates on medium computers and graphics cards. We seen what DX11 and a complex graphics engine cost them with RF-X but the incremental improvements I mentioned gets improved graphics and shadow quality but keeps the computer processing requirements low.. so better looking but still runs on everyone's computer. Except if you have a boat anchor for a computer.
 
There is no reason they can't use DX12. Windows 10 Ver 2004 came with some DirectX12 enhancements that gives a performance boost in many applications. In a couple of other Simulators, Prepar3D V5 for instance, I have received both a FPS boost while the textures are smoother than Windows 10 1909. I am tempted to re-install RF-X to see what kind of improvements it gives it.
 
12oclockhigh said:
Are you a programmer?
Click to expand...
Yes I was a software engineer for Apple Computer, Compaq Computer, Rexham Aerospace, Pixel Semiconductor, Cirrus Logic, 3dfx Interactive, and Texas Instruments. (but that's not all of my resume) I know everyone wants the latest and greatest version of Direct X but given where the RF9 graphics engine came from (DX9) moving to DX10 would be an easy upgrade for a small effort. What all the future Direct X versions have wouldn't be needed by the RealFlight engine so that's why I said use DX10 because it would be the easiest way to get better graphics for RealFlight. Of course no on wants it because it's not the newest version but for what the RealFlight engine uses DX10 would work just fine.

To make my thoughts clearer. What I'm suggesting is to make an easy upgrade to the existing graphics engine to improve it's rendering and then rework "all" the textures to improve their quality. A DX10 based engine would have better shadows, integrate with 32 bit programming better, and be cheap and easy to do. I'm not saying "add" graphics features just make what's already there look better while keeping a low graphics horsepower requirement so you have fast frame rates and can run it one a low medium quality graphics card. So a noticeable increase in graphics quality but not the "next" generation of RealFlight. Of course I hope they're working on that instead I'd rather see that. But I'd be happy with a nice improvement in graphics quality.
 
Last edited:
csgill75 said:
There is no reason they can't use DX12. Windows 10 Ver 2004 came with some DirectX12 enhancements that gives a performance boost in many applications. In a couple of other Simulators, Prepar3D V5 for instance, I have received both a FPS boost while the textures are smoother than Windows 10 1909. I am tempted to re-install RF-X to see what kind of improvements it gives it.
Click to expand...
Yes they could use DX12 but I doubt it would be as easy to port the RF DX9 engine to DX12 than it would be to DX10. I can't guarantee that of course. But RF doesn't use any of the advanced features of the new versions of DX, but yeah I know no one wants the older version. But it would work well for the RF9 graphics and be cheaper and easier to port their existing graphics engine to. My thoughts are to get an incremental boost in graphics for a small investment and keep all the advanced features of RF9 that they lost moving to RF-X. If no one knew the version number you wouldn't be able to see the difference because of what RF9 is. So give it a boost in graphics for a small effort and low cost while maintaining all the cool features of RF9 everyone likes.
 
Last edited:
OK, if you want more aircraft. How about letting me delete the aircraft I don't want using disk space. How many 4 channel beginner foamy aircraft do we really need. Manufacturer of aircraft should provide a place to download the sim version of their aircraft. Don't make us all waste space. I only fly a few aircraft. There are likely many that I have never used and never will. Let me delete them.
 
12oclockhigh said:
OK, if you want more aircraft. How about letting me delete the aircraft I don't want using disk space. How many 4 channel beginner foamy aircraft do we really need. Manufacturer of aircraft should provide a place to download the sim version of their aircraft. Don't make us all waste space. I only fly a few aircraft. There are likely many that I have never used and never will. Let me delete them.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you said. Let you delete the built-in planes you don't want and your comment about the manufacturer providing the model for RealFlight so it doesn't have to be built-in. Also your comment about how many of basically the same plane do we need. I only said that because that's the first thing you see, where is this or that plane and I want RealFlight to stay around so it needs to serve that type of thinking. So I don't disagree with your thoughts I'm just going with what the market is demanding of the program. But yeah I'd love the ability to delete built-in aircraft. I virtually never fly them I could delete all of them.
 
PilotAt6 said:
How about more aircraft and airport editing features???
Click to expand...
What new features would you like to see? One feature I'd like to see is the ability to switch versions of a plane, like a 2-stroke, 4-stroke, gas, and electric. All need a different power plant so there's a weight difference so you need different physics for each version. When you buy lots of kits they support being built with different power plants so why not support that in the sim. That could easily be added to the Quick Edit menu with the planes designer providing different physics, engine curves, and sound profiles which could be used much like the Spec Map and Normal Map options are today.
 
Last edited:
BrokeDad said:
I don't need them but I think they should include preset profiles for their Spektrum line of real radios (DX6, DX8,DX9, etc) using their WS1000/2000 interface. That would help a lot of new people setting things up.
Click to expand...
That's definitely a good idea.
 
Newbie here... I am pretty satisfied with the graphics for the objective of the program is. Sure they could be better, but I think the behaviour of the models in combination with the feel of the DX controller is the most important thing to me. I'm just trying to learn to fly.

On the other hand, it is easier to see what is happening further away on higher resolution monitors (to me anyway). Running on an 8th gen I7 8700K (on the internal graphics only) gives a very acceptable experience on a 27" 4K monitor with displayport.
I find lower res monitors like my notebook turn the plane into a tiny number of pixels way too soon! I often mistake dust on the screen for the airplane shortly after takeoff. I'll blame that on my inexperience with RC, but I generally do better on the higher res screen.

I would LOVE it if the aircraft manufacturers/distributors (particularly horizon/e-flite) could provide downloadable models for their latest products. I can't fly a paper airplane yet, but I would really like to know how difficult the 80mm F-18 EDF is to fly! ( how proficient I have to be before I consider getting it )
Or the Turbo Timber 1.5m, as a trainer for 'real life' practice.
Or for a kind of 'try before you buy' without wrecking that expensive model I am lusting after.

Which brings me to a stupid question for anybody that flies real life RC AND uses this program:
Is your experience in an RF9 model close enough to flying the real model that you could use to evaluate the suitability of that real model for your purchase?
Or is it just for the general 'look and feel' of flying RC and the specific 'character' of the models matter less.

I am enjoying this program and saved thousands of dollars already. Looking forward to trying the 'real thing', and wondering how different that is likely to be, from what I learn here.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top