Iris F-16D Released

[yago9]

lol, lol. . .I guess I'm missing something here. So you guys want to take the Aerosoft F-16 VC from the "C" model and move it into David's "D" model, which apparently causes you to lose the back seat (which is the whole idea of the "D" model) and to what end? So you have what you feel is the better of the two VC's. . .what a slap. Unbelievable.

You sure missing something ,no doubt, to ask "to what end " whe it was explained very clear,to what end .Sure ,you are the only person in the world who can seat on two different places at the same time,or change seats during flights..Now that is realistic indeed :toilet:..You don,t have to do it, you realise that ?What slap ?..it is without doubt a much nicer VC and with much better frame rates ..It,s a payware , an expensive one i may add , paid the dues so I can say what I like and I don,t like about it..Problems ? There are so many good double seater out there without the back seat option..(not to mention a bunch made by IRIS ,like th F15) , but you didn,t chocked on that little detail until now..hmmm that is interesting..I think a new model should be made with the aim of beating or at least to matching the quality of older versions, not only the price ..Do you think was the case here ? Honest !?

[CodyValkyrie]

I'll take a venture that it is hard on frames, simply because it has more systems modelling than the Aerosoft one. Polygons aside, and having worked on the Aerosoft model as well, it cannot do half the things this model can. For those with good systems, it shouldn't be a problem. I never myself noticed any issue with the bird. I hold it undeniably true that while the Aerosoft VC has more polygons (thus perhaps looking better to some), the Iris VC does indeed have a much higher fidelity in systems modelling. Point in case, I actually explained to Dave how the ECM control box worked, which was implemented to a level I feel is absolutely reasonable. I tried this with Aerosoft, however due to constraints and issues within the team, it was never implemented. Not a big deal, but for someone who worked on these in the USAF, the Iris model represents a better simulation.

I love both, but in different ways.

In the end, I guess it is up to the user for them to decide what works best however.

[MenendezDiego]

I have a pretty good system, a pretty damn good one if I may say so, yet the MFD's and HUD make the experience lacking (As in FPS loss, not visual)

I love the systems, and that can be an indication also to the FPS loss, but wasn't this advertised as a FPS friendly alternative to the AS F-16?

[Quixoticish]

I must admit one thing the team at IRIS worked hard on was keeping frames playable and it was something we always kept an eye on whilst testing. I for one couldn't actually use the Aerosoft F-16 it was so bad, however the IRIS F-16 remained completely smooth and playable for me throughout development.

If I can offer a tip; some of the few fps losses that exist in the VC for me come with the HUD; the HUD panel next to the sidestick controller will let you turn off various elements as you see fit, and by flicking the VV/VAH and ATT/FPM you can kill the sliding bars on the side of the HUD and the ladder bars and it should free up some fps.

[dswo]

This thread started out as a release thread, showing off David and triple-six's handy work and giving kudo's to the developers for their hard work and has disintegrated into. . .what can we do to make this better based on my standards. If you want to talk about modifying aircraft to suit your expectations, then start a thread and do it there, don't insult David and the IRIS staff by doing it here.

I say the following respectfully, falcon409.

I'm excited about this product, esp. if -- as advertised -- it gets better framerates than the Aerosoft version (which I have reviewed and also like). But IRIS, like most companies in this business (Flight1 being the exception), doesn't take returns. If you buy it and it doesn't perform as expected, you have two options: suck it up, or try to fix it. I'd like to see this thread take its course. It's informative to prospective buyers -- where else are you going to get an independent evaluation of a military jet than Sim-Outhouse? -- and to those who have made the purchase already it's a way to get more enjoyment from what they already have.

It was Diego who started the thread, so obviously he's enthusiastic about the product. But if he's struggling with framerates, he's not having fun. He's not bashing the product, but he wants to get more out of it; I think that's normal.

I grant you, it's not the sort of thing that a developer wants to hear -- but that's what happens when you sell something. People compare notes; they swap workarounds (like Chris H just offered); they criticize. That's normal too, and healthy.

[MenendezDiego]

Thanks for the tip Chris, I actually tried that earlier and it does indeed work. However, I'd hate to fly with only half, or even one fourth of the HUD symbology.



I have to say though, the exterior is marvelous!

Diego

EDIT: dswo, you are indeed right, I am enthusiastic about this! The thing I love about this place, is when someone has issues, the community as a whole comes together to try and resolve them. Imagine a world with no Sim-Outhouse.

[gajit]

I say the following respectfully, falcon409.

I'm excited about this product, esp. if -- as advertised -- it gets better framerates than the Aerosoft version (which I have reviewed and also like). But IRIS, like most companies in this business (Flight1 being the exception), doesn't take returns. If you buy it and it doesn't perform as expected, you have two options: suck it up, or try to fix it. I'd like to see this thread take its course. It's informative to prospective buyers -- where else are you going to get an independent evaluation of a military jet than Sim-Outhouse? -- and to those who have made the purchase already it's a way to get more enjoyment from what they already have.

It was Diego who started the thread, so obviously he's enthusiastic about the product. But if he's struggling with framerates, he's not having fun. He's not bashing the product, but he wants to get more out of it; I think that's normal.

I grant you, it's not the sort of thing that a developer wants to hear -- but that's what happens when you sell something. People compare notes; they swap workarounds (like Chris H just offered); they criticize. That's normal too, and healthy.

Very well put DSWO

[yago9]

I thought i was supposed to be frame rate friendly,but after i start turning in desperation all knobs and switches to fix all the warning lights , i realised it,s unflyable..it jolts and stops, move and stops..I can decent handle the Aerosoft F16 wich is a tough one on the system and not this VC..Remember Iris F15 ? We had to get the coral HUD to able to fly that thing..They don,t know how to do it right or they just dont care..cause it,s a long time issue with their gauges..but they did topped the aerosoft price without second thoughts..I don,t know what to make out of this.."it,s s better system simulation " deal...
When I told Aerosoft that more eye kandy details were left out..like wheel chocks ,intake cover, removable pilot ,the works,..they came up with the same crap.." oh no,it,s system simulation,that what we aimed for "It turned out,half of their knobs and system didn,t actualy work,thank God for that..but no eye kandy details either..
Same goes with Iris now.."it,s not as pretty ,it,s more of a system simulation" wich works fine if you don,t turn it on.Realy ? so what is left on then? an ugly two seater bath tub with the lights off ,no thank you.So how about you developers start making 100% beautiful and friendly models like Lotus here, wich kinda crushed every single one of you ,including captain sim team..Looks, performance, inventivity ,blows you away..it doeasn,t have the removable pilots or the choks but that is minor because of the rest been perfect..So it can be done,it is possible
If nobody said anything bad about that guys work ,it,s because it,s nothing bad to be said..simple as that..I didn,t say a bad word about the Iris Vulcan either..I think i,m fair.

[CodyValkyrie]

So how about you developers start making 100% beautiful and friendly models like Lotus here, wich kinda crushed every single one of you ,including captain sim team..

No disrespect to Lotus or Iris here, but there is a huge difference in performance between 3d and 2d gauges. Inherently, glass cockpits require 2d gauge work, and thus they take a hit. This is also why you have seen many developers move from the 2d to the 3d gauges for steam aircraft. Model manipulation (where FS excels, at least in this regard....) versus coding and visual representation.

Lotus' aircraft doesn't take that hit because it doesn't have a full glass cockpit, which is as it should be for that aircraft. Period.

[jmig]

I haven't found and problems with frame rates. It seems to do just fine on my rig.

Now, i haven't flown it that much. Maybe an hour. Something about Real Life gettingin the way.

[CodyValkyrie]

Yes, I am with John. I have had no issues with the versions that I received in the FPS department. Of course, I am not running a stock Vista either. I have mine severely tweaked for gaming performance.

[yago9]

No disrespect to Lotus or Iris here, but there is a huge difference in performance between 3d and 2d gauges. Inherently, glass cockpits require 2d gauge work, and thus they take a hit. This is also why you have seen many developers move from the 2d to the 3d gauges for steam aircraft. Model manipulation (where FS excels, at least in this regard....) versus coding and visual representation.

Lotus' aircraft doesn't take that hit because it doesn't have a full glass cockpit, which is as it should be for that aircraft. Period.

I wish I could belive you, that the 3d and 2d gauges make the whole difference between Lotus style of modeling and the rest..it,s more to it..but ok,he will probably prove you are wrong with another release.
But do explain a bit more then..Coral F15 HUD gauge vs IRIS F15 HUD gauge...one fine ,one criminal..same kind of 2d gauges right ?
If i can run the aerosoft VC and not the iris VC then I have to switch it regardless whom freeks out or not..Does it makes any sense to you now Falcon ? Maybe someone else has the same problem and my solution gives him an option to enjoy a nice two seater exterior...regardless of the back seat compromise..I did it for the Thunderbird8 only ,wich has one single pilot in the front seat anyway..No bombing ,no shooting from a show bird,so it makes more and more sense.If you do it right,watching over the sholder you will see a thunderbird clean wing like you,r suppose too..

[JIMJAM]

This is why I am glad I like round gauges and not glass pits. I have had 3 FAST computers since FSX was released and I have never been happy with any of my mfd/HUD planes. The Asoft 16 runs fine on my system. But any other mfd equiped plane,heli ran like crap.
Make it a fast mover and I have got to sit back and read alot of forums like this one before I buy. A slide show payware not matter how pretty is worthless. I have a certain f-15 I flew maybe 5x.

[CodyValkyrie]

There are a lot of factors here, but let me lay down some basic rules.

1) 3d gauges perform more smoothly and are more responsive and FPS friendly than their 2d counterparts. This is a true statement, because movement is based on an animation versus pure coding. Almost all glass cockpit simulations perform worse than their 3d counterparts. Flight1 Mustang, PMDG MD-11 and 747-400X, FeelThere/Wilco Tiltrotor, etc. I could go on and on. What it has to do with is the amount of CPU cycles and checks necessary to complete the same task. A great example is the default C172 versus the C172 with the G1000. If for example the A2A 377 was built entirely in 2d, the plane would lose easily 5 FPS, and more than likely more.

2) Combined with the above, background tasks on your computer can cause major and intensive CPU cycles to get bogged down. For example, try doing a search for a hidden file on your computer while trying to record a DVD. A single core on a CPU can only handle one task at a time, and then from that prioritizes the tasks to make the work efficient. The truth still however is that when you are trying to cram code down the CPU pipeline, it is trying to cram millions of other lines of code for the game, the OS, background tasks (such as auto update, firewall, virus check, etc etc etc.) This is also why the advent of the GPU was so important, it takes the calls to draw 3d architecture off of the CPU and places it on the GPU. Another reason why 3d gauges perform better.....

Having a clean computer (free of any unrequired background tasks) can do a lot to improve performance. Things like defrags, and removing unnecessary drivers can also go a long way to improving not only the performance in FS, but in ALL games. Even something as simple as having your FS on the same hard drive as your FS install can bog performance as along with the CPU, your hard drive can only do one thing at a time. This is important when looking at multiple hard drives as well as multi core CPUs.

3) Polygon counts. While FSX can contain as we know it an unlimited polygon count, each polygon takes a cycle on your CPU and GPU. Higher polygon counts mean that the computer has to work harder to render the image. Computers that can run FSX are able to handle very high polygon counts (500,000 and up, not including the aircraft), however eventually with a high enough polygon count it simply starts to crawl after a while.

4) Texture resolution can make a difference depending on the bandwidth your GPU will allow. On similar systems, the GPU can make all the difference here.

5) Sim! This is a big one. In FS2004, calls for things like HUDs can reduce refresh rate by half for every instrument. This was lifted in FSX, however if models are not done through the SDK for FSX, issues can still occur. Not to mention that models made through the FSX SDK simply perform better anyways. That is why port overs perform worse than their true FSX counterparts. This may also explain some of the problems with the Iris F-15 HUD. It is all in the coding baby, but let me warn you that what may seem like a simple HUD is thousands of lines of code and often months of work.

To sum it up, there are a LOT of factors not only based on the computer, but the coding. FSX is a tough cookie to crack. While some may find performance acceptable or quite fine, others may find that there are huge FPS issues on even mundane aircraft. This creates major issues for designers as there is no set of true rules that can fix everything. While for example with the Iris plane I see very little performance drop and find a larger hit from the Aerosoft model, others are seeing almost exactly the opposite.

There is also a double edged sword here too. People want FPS friendly, but that often comes at the cost of systems or visual representation. That is just the reality of it all. The people that are fairing the best in this regards are the folks that are able to model their planes in 3d, including gauges. For some planes, like the F-16, this simply isn't an option.

This is also why we may never see a full glass cockpit plane with all the widgets you might for example see in an Accusim or Lotus product without a significant FPS drop. Until faster computers (significantly faster) or a better sim with better optimization of coding, calls all the while taking advantage of the available hardware, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[taseal]

very good explanation Cody...

I betad for the AS F16, and it was very FPS intensive....

I'll give this one a shot, and see how it works out... from what it seems like it'll be more FPS intensive from the VC

the exterior doesn't look as nice as the AS F16 too, but i'll find out when I DL it I guess...

[gajit]

Wow - Cody - interesting - thanks for taking the time for that insight.

[CodyValkyrie]

The biggest reason the AS version ran slow was the extremely high polygon count. This has less than 1/5th the polygons that the AS version had if I remember, however it has better systems. Tit for tat. It does however run better (not HUGE, but better) than the AS version FPS wise on my rig. That is not to say that it will do that for everyone however. I'm running a Core i7 920 OC'ed to 3.8GHz with a Nvidia 8800GTX w/ 768MB VRAM and 6GB DDR3 Corsair RAM on Vista 64 and am constantly ensuring my system is in tip top shape for my work. On my computer most programs have a LOT of room to spare when rendering or running code. It's like a sedan driving on a mostly empty 8 lane highway.

[yago9]

There are a lot of factors here, but let me lay down some basic rules.

.

Oh brother,if i can run a very heavy aerosoft f16 then it,s nothing wrong with the system..why are we chasing the tail . That would make a Iris F16 problem .Makes sense now ? Unless is official that Iris F16 is heavier on frame rates than AS F16 wich it seems to be the case due to all those systems and gauges

[CodyValkyrie]

Yago, you are looking at it black and white. Simply put, the Aerosoft plane is making more calls on your GPU than your CPU. The Iris/666 F-16 is making more calls on your CPU versus your GPU.

I'm not trying to argue with you, but I am trying to help explain the reasoning. As I said, on my system, which is apparently opposite performance wise than yours, I get better FPS on the Iris plane. I believe you that what you are saying is true. I'm just stating that it isn't as black and white as that one plane performs better than another. There are so many factors involved, it cannot be quantified that simply. They were both built from the ground up with completely different goals in mind, along with completely different design techniques.

Also, for the record, I never insinuated that your system was not up to par... but, just because you can run one thing better than another doesn't mean something isn't wrong. I for example can run FSX quite fine, but I am finding as of recently some newer games are giving me CTDs. Understanding a computer is like trying to be a brain surgeon. You can do it as a hobby your whole life and still learn new stuff every day.

I found BTW, for some folks that are interested, if I disable (read, uncheck) Anti-Aliasing in FSX and let my video card handle it such as the Nvidia Control Panel (not using DX10), I jump several FPS.

[taseal]

The biggest reason the AS version ran slow was the extremely high polygon count. This has less than 1/5th the polygons that the AS version had if I remember, however it has better systems. Tit for tat. It does however run better (not HUGE, but better) than the AS version FPS wise on my rig. That is not to say that it will do that for everyone however. I'm running a Core i7 920 OC'ed to 3.8GHz with a Nvidia 8800GTX w/ 768MB VRAM and 6GB DDR3 Corsair RAM on Vista 64 and am constantly ensuring my system is in tip top shape for my work. On my computer most programs have a LOT of room to spare when rendering or running code. It's like a sedan driving on a mostly empty 8 lane highway.

Mine could perhaps use a newer CPU, but it runs everything in the 'middle' and with the lotus L39, its locked in at 31, and drops to about 26 with heavy clouds (REX, full HD)

I use E4400@3.0ghz with 8800 GTS and 4gb ram on Vista 64...

I'm hoping I don't waste my money on this, but I guess only 1 way to find out...

my computer runs the Flight 1 Mustang pretty poor (at around 10 fps) unless I drop everything to FSX minimums...

[CodyValkyrie]

My computer is a horrible benchmark for people to compare their system too since I upgraded. I tend to run most sims very well, especially ones that others tend to have major issues with like the Bush Hawk or the F1 Mustang. I attribute that to the CPU. My world isn't perfect with FSX mind you, but the single biggest bottleneck in FS is the CPU.

I wouldn't recommend anyone take my advise regarding FPS performance unless they have a similar system as mine... and even then. I also don't want anyone to spend a bunch of money as if I was giving advice. I don't want anyone waiting for me outside in a dark shadow with a knife...

[CodyValkyrie]

Oh, might I also recommend turning off the FPS lock? Set it to unlimited. Some claim it changes some things in the sim and can degrade performance elsewhere, however, in the 2 and a half years I have been doing this I have not found it to be true. In all circumstances, with FPS unlocked and set to unlimited, I have increased FPS significantly with no other side effect.

[falcon409]

This is my "IMHO" opinion. Yago. . .you are a strange dude, no doubt. You are also an amazing artist and I have to respect that. You pull off work that is just beyond comparison. . .good for you.

I don't like your attitude though, pure and simple. There is such a thing as decorum, common sense and respect for others, whose work is the backbone of this Sim we enjoy so much. I don't agree also with your "I paid my dues", "I can say what I want" reference. . .it simply shows a lack of respect.

It obviously doesn't bother David or Triple-Six and so I'm not sure why it should bother me. It just does.

I think the direction this thread took in the last few pages could be better served in another thread, that's my opinion and whatever it was you said in response to my post (kinda hard to decipher) really matters very little.
You are who you are Yago. . .good, bad or otherwise. Just understand that others have opinions as well, and they count to, even if they don't agree with yours.

[yago9]

[QUOTE=CodyValkyrie;237326]

It,s ok, no sabre rattling ,i know my system is modest but i was happy with it until I turned the Iris VC on like a chrismas tree ,than i wasn,t.That made me unhappy, but not enough to bring it out this way..it,s Falcon with this Smilie that made me unravel why I did what I did with the VC swap.No,i,m not stupid nor retarded to muck me like that or to "poke me in the head". He want to turn it personal, it,s ok ,I wont fall for that one ..I know the truth is though to bear for the Iris chearleaders but those are pure fact..You buy a car you can sell anytime or you can tell that the car sucked because of that reason or that reason, and it,s ok..you say something about a FS product it,s rude or offensive..no it is not....it,s a merchandise like any, and I can review it honestly without been intimidated by the always cheerleading gang..This is not the Iris site or an "official " thread..don,t get why would i be muzzled here ?

[Rezabrya]

This is a very weird issue. I have noticed that with this F-16 and the F-14, it isn't really the HUD or MFD's that hit me. It seems to be the afterburner and movement. When I am sitting still on the runway with HUD and MFD's and everything on, I am getting 38 FPS solid. it is when I hit the throttle and start moving that the framerate decreases. I have never seen this before besides in these two planes. Even so, it is a great plane and I would never even think of chopping it up and using someone elses VC in it. That would be disrespectful right?