People who went from RF8 to evolution

P

psdavidson812

New member
I like RF8 and I don't mind flying the same planes and graphics is ok. I am not intrested in new planes but wondering if the EVO is worth the upgrade.
Is the dynamics the same or is evo better?
is the graphics better on evo?

Thanks
 
I don't notice a whole lot of difference in display quality or performance. I bought Evo mostly to get away from DX9. I may be upgrading my PC relatively soon because of the fact that Win10 will be dying in a year or so on my 4th Gen CPU, and gaming PC's tend to be out of my price range. I'll probably just move my GTX-960 into a Win11 capable generic machine to save a few bucks.
 
I'm afraid I have to agree. I started with RF8 Horizon Hobby Edition. I don't see a whole lot of difference in the graphics or how things fly. I think the emphasis has been on filling RF with Horizon Hobby aircraft, adding flying sites, and moving the distribution from discs/downloads to Steam. One of the biggest changes with Evolution is that RF integrates with Steam's store for micro-transactions, called "downloadable content" or DLC in the gaming world. (It's the same as "in-app purchases" in the phone/tablet world.) Now you can choose to buy individual add-ons for around $3.00 each or buy the quarterly or annual content packs. That's part of a bigger overall marketing effort to align RF with the real product line and use RF as a way to try new products or fly the new one you just bought in the sim.

I imagine the move to DirectX 11 will open up some new possibilities for the future, but right now the focus is still on making sure the DX11 version is working at least as well as the DX9 version in all aspects.
 
Evo doesn't look much better than RF8. It does have a lot more aircraft, many of which you probably already have. Evo does have the possibility of looking better in the future. Stick with RF8 if you are happy with it for now, upgrade when things change in Evo.
 
psdavidson812 said:
Bill, I'm running it on 11pro and no problems
Click to expand...
Thanks. But my concern is the fact that the DX9 RF's don't run on the latest Intel CPUs' onboard GPU. I'm still running an i7-4790, which won't run Win11 without jumping through hoops & isn't officially supported. I don't NEED 500fps & a $500+ super-GPU, so I MIGHT be able to live with the onboard video. In fact, I don't know why I'd want an FPS that's faster than my monitor's 60Hz refresh rate. It seems like overkill. My monitor already has to be dropping about 1/2 the frames with my GTX-960.
 
Last edited:
Bill Stuntz said:
In fact, I don't know why I'd want an FPS that's faster than my monitor's 60Hz refresh rate. It seems like overkill. My monitor already has to be dropping about 1/2 the frames with my GTX-960.
Click to expand...
Hi Bill, maybe you should consider one of the new Asus monitors running at 540 Hz.
 
Remember that human eye cannot process faster than 50-60 frames per seconds. Today, higher rate does deserve more precise/pristine picture slow mo for film. eg. sport.

50 frames is also historically the double of 24-25 to deserve interlaced frames of legacy TV's. And 8-16-35mm movies at 24-25 frames/sec (old 8mm and super eight at 18 img/s was too slow as eye flickering but of interest economically and extended duration of a spool).

With games, its a bit different as denotes how fast objects are drawn so rather performance than user comfort. Some games have an option to run at fixed or variable frame rate, also performance related.

If a screen with high frame rate is required, while most of the frames not visible by human, which frame rate is recommended as minimum for best RF performance?
 
Last edited:
RemyHeli said:
Remember that human eye cannot process faster than 50-60 frames per seconds. Today, higher rate does deserve more precise/pristine picture slow mo for film. eg. sport.
Click to expand...
I can't agree with that. 144hz looks better in EVERY application. I'd never want to go back to the old 60hz we were all used to in 1995. Yuck!
 
asj5547 said:
Hi Bill, maybe you should consider one of the new Asus monitors running at 540 Hz.
Click to expand...
Retired, fixed income. Not happening. No $500+ video card, either.
P.S. I've got about $400 in my whole computer using recycled parts from my old part-time employer - a refurbisher/recycler. That source has dried up. i7-4790, 32G, GTX-960, 1TB SSD, mirrored 3TB data drives.
 
Last edited:
Stringfellow said:
I can't agree with that. 144hz looks better in EVERY application. I'd never want to go back to the old 60hz we were all used to in 1995. Yuck!
Click to expand...
@Stringfellow I got an old Acer KG281K at native resolution 3840x2160 and 60hz. Appreciate if you advise what would look better at 144hz. I might be interested changing the screen basis your experience. Thanks in advance!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top