VR Implementation Entirely Unacceptable

[jbienz]

I bought RF9 for VR practice. When it ran terribly, I built a whole new machine just to get better performance. My new machine is insane. Here are the specs:

• CPU: Intel i9 10900K 10 core at up to 5 Ghz
• GPU: 1080 TI with 43 GB of GPU memory
• RAM: 64 GB DDR 3200
• HDD: NVME verified delivering 3,000 Megabytes of data per second

Yet RF9 still only runs between 49 and 73 FPS on average. The only time I can get it to run faster is looking straight down at the ground or straight up at the sky. But then of course then I can't see my plane.

There is absolutely NO reason this PC should be running this slow. When the VR headset isn't on I'm getting a solid 250 FPS.

I've already read the VR Tips page and I don't see anything helpful. Has anyone managed to do anything to get this title running at a decent speed in VR? I'm at the point of just asking for a refund from Steam.

 

[csgill75]

first your 1080ti only has 11gb of Vram. I had one before an upgrade so it's 11GB..

With VR, You aren't going to get a very high FPS, It's going to max out at the Refresh Rate, Usually 90hz so 90FPS would be the maximum frame rate you would ever get with VR. Also your GPU is rendering the Picture twice which is taxing on the GPU but the 1080ti should be fine. A better GPU like the 2080ti would do better, and would lock you in at 90 most of the time. However RF9 is perfectly usable at 40FPS and above in VR

RF9 is still a DirectX9 application with just a little bit of DX11 added for just VR compatibility, but it does have Graphics limitations due to being primarily DX9 based.

 

[technoid]

first your 1080ti only has 11gb of Vram. I had one before an upgrade so it's 11GB..

With VR, You aren't going to get a very high FPS, It's going to max out at the Refresh Rate, Usually 90hz so 90FPS would be the maximum frame rate you would ever get with VR. Also your GPU is rendering the Picture twice which is taxing on the GPU but the 1080ti should be fine. A better GPU like the 2080ti would do better, and would lock you in at 90 most of the time. However RF9 is perfectly usable at 40FPS and above in VR

RF9 is still a DirectX9 application with just a little bit of DX11 added for just VR compatibility, but it does have Graphics limitations due to being primarily DX9 based.

Hey I haven't heard about your new system mind letting me know what you got, maybe a PM. Thanks!

 

[jbienz]

first your 1080ti only has 11gb of Vram. I had one before an upgrade so it's 11GB

Yes, sorry. If we're being specific then it has an 11 GB frame buffer and 32 GB shared memory. I do feel that's a bit of a moot point since the 2080 TI has the same size frame buffer. The point is that the memory configuration of this card is entirely sufficient for any VR title.

With VR, You aren't going to get a very high FPS, It's going to max out at the Refresh Rate, Usually 90hz so 90FPS would be the maximum frame rate you would ever get with VR

Yes, I am quite familiar with how VR works since I happen to be a software engineer in that industry. Personally I have a Valve Index, and while usually I do run the headset at 90 Hz I can run it at 120 Hz or even 144 Hz. No matter which refresh rate I choose, though, RF9 doesn't perform any better.

Also your GPU is rendering the Picture twice which is taxing on the GPU but the 1080ti should be fine.

I don't think you work for RealFlight and I think you're genuinely trying to be helpful, but that part honestly comes across as making an excuse for RealFlight. Yes, I'm aware that RealFlight needs to render the picture twice. This is true of all VR titles. However, my Steam library contains (and I am not exaggerating) 132 VR titles. This includes some of the most demanding titles made, and I can maintain 90 or very close to 90 FPS in all of them. I played through Half-Life Alyx maintained close to a solid 90 FPS for the entire title (and I know because I was running fpsVR the whole time). RealFlight 9 is the only title in my entire library that can't get anywhere close to 90. RealFlight 9 is the only title that can't even manage solidly remain above 65 FPS.

RF9 is perfectly usable at 40FPS

This is an opinion and not a statement of fact. I don't agree that any VR title is playable at 40 FPS. At 40 FPS you're asking Late Stage Reprojection to make up for more than 50% of the frames. When this is happening, motion is jerky. You'll see doubles / ghosts of the aircraft. And if you happen to be susceptible to simulator sickness as I am, you'll get sick. I adamantly disagree that RF9 is usable at 40 FPS. And for me personally I wouldn't say it's usable at anything less than mid to low 80s.

RF9 is still a DirectX9 application with just a little bit of DX11 added for just VR compatibility, but it does have Graphics limitations due to being primarily DX9 based.

Again I do apologize if you work for RealFlight, but this is simply not an acceptable excuse. Oculus themselves dropped support for DirectX 9 in 2015 before they even shipped the CV1. (Link) This happened well before any modern consumer VR headsets could even be purchased. RealFlight's decision to sell a VR title without upgrading it to a supported DirectX should not be excused. I do believe this is likely the main reason why the title can't perform anywhere close to other titles on the same hardware, and I feel this is something RealFlight needs to address.

 

[Paolo.67]

Hello,

I find rc model FMS T-28 Trojan, but i find only gasoline engime.

there is a model elettric?

Thank you in advance for your help.

By Paolo

 

[csgill75]

Hey I haven't heard about your new system mind letting me know what you got, maybe a PM. Thanks!

Not much of an upgrade but I did move up to the 2080ti, and maxed out the ram to 64gb on the same 7700k and motherboard. I use X-Plane, Prepar3d V5 with add on's for better quality and those things really needed more power than what the 1080ti could provide. I installed a second NVMe drive on the board for an extra TB of space for quicker loading. I'll probably take out the SATA drives as I really don't access files on them very often and put them on a a NAS.

 

[TomC]

I bought RF9 for VR practice. When it ran terribly, I built a whole new machine just to get better performance. My new machine is insane. Here are the specs:

• CPU: Intel i9 10900K 10 core at up to 5 Ghz
• GPU: 1080 TI with 43 GB of GPU memory
• RAM: 64 GB DDR 3200
• HDD: NVME verified delivering 3,000 Megabytes of data per second

Yet RF9 still only runs between 49 and 73 FPS on average. The only time I can get it to run faster is looking straight down at the ground or straight up at the sky. But then of course then I can't see my plane.

There is absolutely NO reason this PC should be running this slow. When the VR headset isn't on I'm getting a solid 250 FPS.

I've already read the VR Tips page and I don't see anything helpful. Has anyone managed to do anything to get this title running at a decent speed in VR? I'm at the point of just asking for a refund from Steam.

I have pretty well an identical PC setup as you and I have no problem getting a solid 90fps on both my Rift cv1 and Vive Pro (both headsets have 90Hz refresh rates) with RF9. Also, I get ~1,300 fps in non-VR mode with the same settings. So, I'm not sure why you are only seeing 250fps in non-VR mode. This is in the 3d field, Obstacle field btw.

What VR headset do you have? Maybe read through the RF8 VR tips (VR never changed from RF8 to RF9) again. Sounds like you might either have too high graphics settings (RF9 and maybe nvidia) or some processes running in the background. Good luck sorting this out mate.

 

[technoid]

Not much of an upgrade but I did move up to the 2080ti, and maxed out the ram to 64gb on the same 7700k and motherboard. I use X-Plane, Prepar3d V5 with add on's for better quality and those things really needed more power than what the 1080ti could provide. I installed a second NVMe drive on the board for an extra TB of space for quicker loading. I'll probably take out the SATA drives as I really don't access files on them very often and put them on a a NAS.

Okay thanks I was just curious. I figured you got a 2080ti. Ha.. I'm still using a 1080 but I plan to get the new 3080 when it comes out and when Intel finally releases a desktop version of a 7nm CPU I'll upgrade to that. I'm still on the I7 6700K with 32GB of RAM. Thanks for the info!

 

[csgill75]

Okay thanks I was just curious. I figured you got a 2080ti. Ha.. I'm still using a 1080 but I plan to get the new 3080 when it comes out and when Intel finally releases a desktop version of a 7nm CPU I'll upgrade to that. I'm still on the I7 6700K with 32GB of RAM. Thanks for the info!

Yeah those 3080's might be in my future as well... I'll probably end up with one eventually, and sell the 2080ti. For now, I get excellent performance and My CPU still isn't really a bottleneck yet so I'll keep it until something substantially faster comes around.

 

[technoid]

Yeah those 3080's might be in my future as well... I'll probably end up with one eventually, and sell the 2080ti. For now, I get excellent performance and My CPU still isn't really a bottleneck yet so I'll keep it until something substantially faster comes around.

That's why I'm waiting for Intel to release a 7nm desktop processor I want clock speed not 16 cores games don't use cores as well as clock speed. At least the ones I play and know about. Give me 8 cores with a higher clockspeed.

 

[skaman]

I wanted to try RF9 in VR again after updating my PC and I can say that ... it really sucks! a colossal garbage!

Even at medium settings, I always see the planes doubled.
With my PC and medium settings, in 2D I go over 1000fps, obviously in VR I have a constant 40fps but the experience is the most hallucinating.
DCS, Xplane11, Aerofly RC8, Reflex XTR2 (demo) ... they all run without any problem.

I really have no words ...

 

[12oclockhigh]

I wanted to try RF9 in VR again after updating my PC and I can say that ... it really sucks! a colossal (s) garbage!
I really have no words ...

So, if you really wanted help, you would post the system hardware specifics, GPU, VR brand etc. Remember this is a user to user forum. You can try calling HorizonHobby technical support. KE does not provide support for this product. You sure make everyone want to help you with derogatory comments.

 

[skaman]

...derogatory comments? really? and I thought I had complimented this masterpiece...
My system:
i5 9600K @ 5Ghz liquid cooled
Asus Prime Z390A
32GB RAM 3200Mhz
RX5700XT Nitro+
RF9 on SSD M2
Oculus Rift S

Again, the FPS in VR are 40 and they are constant, it is RF that is a masterpiss...ops.., is a masterpiece

 

[TomC]

...derogatory comments? really? and I thought I had complimented this masterpiece...
My system:
i5 9600K @ 5Ghz liquid cooled
Asus Prime Z390A
32GB RAM 3200Mhz
RX5700XT Nitro+
RF9 on SSD M2
Oculus Rift S

Again, the FPS in VR are 40 and they are constant, it is RF that is a masterpiss...ops.., is a masterpiece

Try lower super sampling and turn ASW off. There should be no reason why you can’t achieve 80fps with your Rift S (max fps with its 80hz refresh rate) in most 3d fields ( which are best to use in VR). This should fix your ghosting problem imho.

Please read through the RF8 VR tips thread and also the one that explains how to adjust Oculus and SteamVR SS. RF9 VR has not changed since RF8 btw.

Unfortunately even when you get it running well with your Rift (S or cv1) the colors look very washed out because Oculus screens are only 8-bit. Looks much nicer with my Vive Pro. Alternatively you may want to consider aerofly rc8. This looks much better in VR and works well with the Interlink DX controller. The software cost about 2x RF9 though.

 

[skaman]

Try lower super sampling and turn ASW off. There should be no reason why you can’t achieve 80fps with your Rift S (max fps with its 80hz refresh rate) in most 3d fields ( which are best to use in VR). This should fix your ghosting problem imho.

Please read through the RF8 VR tips thread and also the one that explains how to adjust Oculus and SteamVR SS. RF9 VR has not changed since RF8 btw.

Unfortunately even when you get it running well with your Rift (S or cv1) the colors look very washed out because Oculus screens are only 8-bit. Looks much nicer with my Vive Pro. Alternatively you may want to consider aerofly rc8. This looks much better in VR and works well with the Interlink DX controller. The software cost about 2x RF9 though.

Mine is not a Steam version...
However, yes, the colors are washed out, but this is not a problem...if i can see only 1 plane.
I already have aerofly RC8, but despite being better in VR, with photographic scenarios, the depth of field is not good and, also it costs double, but RF is not so much economic...

 

[skaman]

I tried one last time, put all graphics settings low, disabled objects, shadows, reflections, details etc.
on screen I also arrive at 1300fps but in VR it drops to 40fps.
I also looked at the tips for VR but there is nothing I have solved.
And anyway I just can't understand why I should keep the quality completely to a minimum, when with much more complex simulators I have absolutely no problem.

It will mean that I will abandon RF forever, it is a great waste of time and money ... in short, junk, expensive junk

Thanks anyway of the interest

 

[TomC]

Mine is not a Steam version...
However, yes, the colors are washed out, but this is not a problem...if i can see only 1 plane.
I already have aerofly RC8, but despite being better in VR, with photographic scenarios, the depth of field is not good and, also it costs double, but RF is not so much economic...

SteamVR setting are not applicable with Oculus headsets with either the Steam or KE versions (I have the direct download version myself). They are applicable with my Vive Pro though. Again, I think you need to do a bit more research on RF8/9 VR settings.

If you VR with aerofly rc8 you should know that you need to use the 4D flying fields. These give much better VR viewing options and look/work great. Even better than the discontinued RF RFX imho. With your Rift S, again you need to make sure your SS settings are not too high (start off with 1.0x) and turn ASW = off.

If you spend a little more time researching all this I think you'll get a good result with your PC mate. Good luck and cheers.

 

[skaman]

Oculus tray tool, supersampling set to 0, ASW set to OFF, graphics settings all low, objects, clouds, particles, shadows ... all off.
I also tried the console command "oculusVRResolutionScale" from 1 to 0.25.
Absolutely nothing has changed.

I've had enough, I don't waste time with this absurd crap anymore

 

[TomC]

Oculus tray tool, supersampling set to 0, ASW set to OFF, graphics settings all low, objects, clouds, particles, shadows ... all off.
I also tried the console command "oculusVRResolutionScale" from 1 to 0.25.
Absolutely nothing has changed.

I've had enough, I don't waste time with this absurd crap anymore

Ya, sometimes it's best to throw in the towel mate, lol! RF9 is still a good RC sim, even in 2D imho.

 

[flyflies]

I am happy with my Oculus Quest 2 running RF 9.5 with usb cable in Lenovo Legion Y720 laptop. I fly 3D close fixed wing and helis and it looks amazing. You can't fly as far but I like the VR experience once in a while but not for too long. I mostly play on external monitor.