RF9.5 SteamVR FPS

themask

New member
Hello,

I have a Valve Index VR HeadSet and a fairly new Computer:
AMD R5 3600
32GB RAM
AMD RX6800

I am still not able to get 120fps that is required for smooth VR playing with RF.

I already tried switching off all the graphical settings, so it really does not look good anymore:
1607700970216.png

I don't know if you can read it in the screenshot, but I'm only getting 60fps. SteamVR is showing me, that my hardware only needs 2.8ms to calculate one frame, for 120fps it could use up to 8.3ms. Still RF is not even trying to get more FPS. The Problem with 60fps is, that if the model moves fast it is not synchron over both eyes anymore, there are 2 Planes in front of each other.

What setting is there to get the 120fps?

Btw those graphical Settings give me 500fps on my fullHD Monitor without VR.

Hope somebody can help, RF would be a great use of the VR headset, but its not usable like this.

Peter
 
RF9 still runs on DirectX9 and I believe only utilizes a single core no matter how many you have. That could be why you only get 60 fps. Also check in settings that you don't have Vertical Sync set to Yes under Graphics - Hardware.
 
Hello,

I have a Valve Index VR HeadSet and a fairly new Computer:
AMD R5 3600
32GB RAM
AMD RX6800

I am still not able to get 120fps that is required for smooth VR playing with RF.

I already tried switching off all the graphical settings, so it really does not look good anymore:
View attachment 122088

I don't know if you can read it in the screenshot, but I'm only getting 60fps. SteamVR is showing me, that my hardware only needs 2.8ms to calculate one frame, for 120fps it could use up to 8.3ms. Still RF is not even trying to get more FPS. The Problem with 60fps is, that if the model moves fast it is not synchron over both eyes anymore, there are 2 Planes in front of each other.

What setting is there to get the 120fps?

Btw those graphical Settings give me 500fps on my fullHD Monitor without VR.

Hope somebody can help, RF would be a great use of the VR headset, but its not usable like this.

Peter
Sorry but the Software runs on a very old Graphics API called DX9, it hopeless and it does not matter what CPU you have or Graphics card you can not run it at anything other than less than 50 percent on graphics settings . Even then you get stuttering . I have given up as its simply awful for VR.
 
Sorry but the Software runs on a very old Graphics API called DX9, it hopeless and it does not matter what CPU you have or Graphics card you can not run it at anything other than less than 50 percent on graphics settings . Even then you get stuttering . I have given up as its simply awful for VR.

thanks for the replies.

That is kind of what I feared. I mean I don't think this is a DX9 issue or a single thread performance issue, without VR it runs very well (500fps like I said) this is also DX9 and probably does not use many CPU Cores, but in VR it just does not run well. It also does not look well and I have never had that effect, that an 3d object moves apart between the eyes on any other VR content even with lower frame rates.

I hope the VR functionality of RF get a overhaul soon. The main issue with RC-simulators, in my opinion, compared to the real thing is, that you either see the model or you see where the model is. This would be solved using VR.

Has anyone tried the VR in aerofly? Is that any good? Personally I always liked RF better...

Peter
 
thanks for the replies.

That is kind of what I feared. I mean I don't think this is a DX9 issue or a single thread performance issue, without VR it runs very well (500fps like I said) this is also DX9 and probably does not use many CPU Cores, but in VR it just does not run well. It also does not look well and I have never had that effect, that an 3d object moves apart between the eyes on any other VR content even with lower frame rates.

I hope the VR functionality of RF get a overhaul soon. The main issue with RC-simulators, in my opinion, compared to the real thing is, that you either see the model or you see where the model is. This would be solved using VR.

Has anyone tried the VR in aerofly? Is that any good? Personally I always liked RF better...

Peter
Yes this sim works very well in 2D and on my i9900K at 5.3 ghz and an rtx 2080 it works perfectly so its just VR is hopeless. This VR issue has been raised for a few years here with the developer but it seems they don't see any reason to upgrade the API as it works so well in 2D...

I use aerofly RC8 and in VR its terrific and use the RF hardware . Its expensive software compared to RF but if you like VR you have no choice than to buy it.
 
I use aerofly RC8 and in VR its terrific and use the RF hardware . Its expensive software compared to RF but if you like VR you have no choice than to buy it.

Well I guess I will buy the current aerofly then, I already spend too much on the VR headset and the new graphics card, for not being able to use it for my favorite "game". Besides I saved a lot on real RC Stuff this season due to corona. I could not find, if aerofly supports the Valve Index VR though. I ask them on their support page before I buy.

Peter
 
Well I guess I will buy the current aerofly then, I already spend too much on the VR headset and the new graphics card, for not being able to use it for my favorite "game". Besides I saved a lot on real RC Stuff this season due to corona. I could not find, if aerofly supports the Valve Index VR though. I ask them on their support page before I buy.

Peter
It's like any Sim hobby you will find one never covers everything perfectly so you end up with two or three depending om what you want to do. I use Aerofly Rc8 and RF 9 and I still use RFX . RFX was what Realflight should have evolved into but it got all too hard with the developer as it was a resource hungry program ahead of it's time and copped a lot of complaints as people expected to be able to run it on a computer they used for RF6.6. Then the distributor went broke so they gave up on RFX and went back to developing the decades old RF 7 with a 10 year old Graphics API. If you can get a second hand copy of RFX its worth getting as I still think its superior to RF9 but VR is still crap.
 
thanks for the replies.

That is kind of what I feared. I mean I don't think this is a DX9 issue or a single thread performance issue, without VR it runs very well (500fps like I said) this is also DX9 and probably does not use many CPU Cores, but in VR it just does not run well. It also does not look well and I have never had that effect, that an 3d object moves apart between the eyes on any other VR content even with lower frame rates.

I hope the VR functionality of RF get a overhaul soon. The main issue with RC-simulators, in my opinion, compared to the real thing is, that you either see the model or you see where the model is. This would be solved using VR.

Has anyone tried the VR in aerofly? Is that any good? Personally I always liked RF better...

Peter

I get the best results with my Vive Pro headset (same res as your Index, but oled) at 90fps. I think realistically 90Hz is all you can expect imho. I'd forget about running your Index with 120-144Hz refresh rates.

To do this my 2D settings need to adjusted (don't ask, just play with these yourself) to give me ~1200fps and I can then apply about 160% pixel density in SteamVR. Actually looks pretty good.

I also have Aerofly rc8 and it looks a lot better but maybe the physics are not quite as good as rf9.5, esp. with heli's (which I mainly fly). The rc8 software costs about 2x as much but at least the Interlink DX controller works well with it, lol!

This is with a pretty well spec'd desktop PC (i9 9900k, gtx1080ti, 32Gb ram) btw. In general, AMD currently sucks for good VR, imho. But you probably already know this, lol!
 
Back
Top