Sign in to follow this  
Guest DesiDude2007

RFP - where is the Take-off-Calculator?

Recommended Posts

I was reading the RFP 747 (recently released as freeware) manual which asked me to load the Take-off-calculator to compute the various v1, v2, v3 etc speeds. However, I have not seen this utility installed anywhere in the fs9 folder or subfolders or any of the VMAX folders that the installation creates. I downloaded the RFP file from panelshop.com which is supposed to be same as the one uploaded to avsim. Is this a separate download I can find somewhere ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

In the event the Take-off-Calculator doesn't give you what you want, I recommend a formula used by Jerry Reed in 'Eastbound and Down'.JUST PUT THAT HAMMER DOWN AND GIVE IT HAIL....Cheers,Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to get the RFP Takeoff Calculator download which I believe is available on this site- http://41686.rapidforum.com/topic=100271255680I've registered/ received back an Email with password etc but after two dozen attempts, I cannot log on. Even got a reconfirm of password.Is this site inactive? I have tried every possible combination of password, nickname, user ID. Is the calculator available any where else?Alex Reid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just downloaded it. If you put your emial here, I will send it to you. Put the word dot for the period in you email address so the spammers dont't get it.JimCYWG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim & all who offered help re RFP T/O Calculator- many thanks. Since posting for help, I've done some further experimenting and brief test flights with the 742. It looks quite challenging- BUT regretably is more than a match for my ancient AMD 1.8 GHz system. RFP with triple views on 3 monitors, yields a frame rate too low to be viable. I can make it run (sort of) with only two views (Fwd,RFwd), but you have to go down to only View Fwd to really get adequate fluidity of motion. Remarkably, most of the RFP popup panels themselves do not appreciably affect FPS & can be left open- ready for instant reference. The attachments give an idea of the potential of multi monitors for complex airplanes such as RFP 742. Having been using triple views (180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

january, could you post a shot of you monitor setup doing a 45 degree turn with afew clouds. I've got 2 monitors and like the horizon thing. I would like to see three and see what the horizon looks like in a turn. Also what views do you use on the side monitors?JimCYWG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alex,Have you tried running with the overhead panel turned off? I'm running the RFP 742 on a mediocre system using three monitors (only one view) and the overhead panel is the FR killer for me. R-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim- Hope these are what you are after. Screenshots eliminate the actual bezel separations between images and also present them in a flat plane. My outer monitors are angled toward me- the left @45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron- yes The OH panel needs to be off when not in use to conserve horsepower. Interestingly it's the same with PMDG 747 ! But other panels don't seem to have any real effect on FPS in either plane. I was quite surprised when I found no hit in PMDG when running with both L/R CDU's open. It is the multiple (double or triple) VIEWS that killed RFP for my system. Yet I can run PMDG 747 with 3 views quite comfortably.I did a test: These 2 planes setup cold and dark at the identical location/time/weather etc. ALL panels were then deleted including main panel- just 3 views displayed-LFwd,Fwd,RFwd- nothing else. PMDG 747 ran @ 20-24 fps RFP 742 ran @ 10-12 fps.Nothing was running in the aircraft themselves- cold and dark, but obviously the programme itself was continuing to execute. Perhaps a reflection of airplane complexity and/or differences in code structure and technique. I guess that's the penalty of an old computer! (AMD XP2200 1.8GHZ).But it does work well- no interest in upgrading, but I might yet go up to 2GB of ram!Alex Reid CYYJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I did a test: These 2 planes setup cold and dark at the identical location/time/weather etc. ALL panels were then deleted including main panel- just 3 views displayed-LFwd,Fwd,RFwd- nothing else.PMDG 747 ran @ 20-24 fpsRFP 742 ran @ 10-12 fps."Now that's just weird!REgarding your propsed RAM upgrade:I recently did just that, upgraded from 1GB to 2GB. I saw no difference when using FS9. Running WinXP, FSAutostart to stop unneeded programs and services, and FS9 used less that 1GB before and after the upgrade. FSX, on the other hand, uses about 1.5GB now that 2Gb are available. When 1GB was available, it used about .94GB and obviously was using a swap file for the excess over 1GB.I use Memstatus 2.5 to measure RAM and Video memory usage.R-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron- did some further testing-Cold & Dark each plane, all same settings/location, NO panels- ONLY 3 views displayed. Results:RFP 742: 11- 13 fpsPMDG 747: 20- 24 " 737-800: 20- 23ATR 72: 21- 22DF Baron 58: 18- 19Please note: this was a static test of aircraft fps with NO panels opened- only 3 views- LFwd,Fwd,RFwd.RFP seems to have some built in program overhead- in fairness it may be the most complex of the group. Interestingly, the Baron, which came out slightly slower than some in this Views ONLY test, certainly has the best overall actual flying performance/FPS on my system- perhaps there's less going on when actually flying.Your experience with RAM is interesting and is consistent with much I'm hearing. However, I wonder if my setup with 3 video cards each outputting a different view, may up the need for RAM to feed the GPUs.If/when I add RAM, I will revisit RFP.Alex Reid CYYJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex - I found that the VC in the RFP 742 was a real frame-eater on my modest system, but it's better after merging with the Posky 742 V4, which has no VC. It's a much smoother experience for me overall after the merge. You might give that a try before shelving it completely.John G.KTUS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks january. The centre of the three pictures is amazing. Looks real the way the scenery lines up. I can see why. I'll check out that post.JimCYWG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this