Seeing as the radar doesn't work (yet) I'm pretty sure this isn't the cause of the stutters.  

oops!

 

Thanks Christopher.  Really valuable to me.  I thought that people would probably feel that way, but really wanted to do something that felt like (most of the time) you were an actual spectator at an airshow.  Alas, people aren't really looking for that I guess, I didn't convey that well enough, or internet attention span perhaps.  Easy fix for future videos.

 

I absolutely understand your desire to make people feel like they are at an actual airshow. In fact, that's exactly what I thought you were intending with your video, so you are obviously doing something right  :smile:  It would be useful to know what others think about this, because my own opinion may not be that of the majority.

The stutters are probably caused by recording the playback using Action.  Try something else.

 

We get a rock solid 50+ FPS on even the lowest machines in the test beds...

Seeing as the radar doesn't work (yet) I'm pretty sure this isn't the cause of the stutters.  

 

Thanks!

 

I absolutely understand your desire to make people feel like they are at an actual airshow. In fact, that's exactly what I thought you were intending with your video, so you are obviously doing something right  :smile:  It would be useful to know what others think about this, because my own opinion may not be that of the majority.

 

 

Cool, thanks.  Well, I can't get any feedback from anyone else.  I've posted here, and on Milviz.  Will post on some other forums.  But no replies here, at Milviz or in YT comments section.  However, I can see YT analytics info.  The video has 98 views as of this writing.  The average view time is 3:14.  3:14 isn't bad at all for this day and age.  However, that's only approximately 18% of the total video time.  So if they didn't make to the end or within--I guess--30 seconds of the end, then I really haven't hooked them.  And they haven't walked away feeling "I really enjoyed that XYZ."  That's what my goal is, to have them finish the video and walk away having very much enjoyed it, and wanting to subscribe.  My desire is to build an audience and continue to do this.

 

I did expect an average view time longer than 18%; knowing the flight sim community, we can be pretty darn geeky, and we have a lot of patience.  Sitting down spending 30 minutes to an hour to figure out how to go from cold and dark to takeoff ready on a new aircraft.  That takes plenty of patience.  But, maybe that isn't the majority?

 

My thoughts on why average view time is 18%:

 

It's just too long for a YT/internet video.  Attention spans are very short these days.  Heck, the video probably got them excited about a fighter jet or high performance aircraft they have, then during some point when the aircraft was far away was when I lost their interest, and they probably said "well, I think I'll go fly XYZ fighter jet now!"

 

I have actually already completely edited the video and dropped the time down to 8 minutes by removing almost all sequences where the AC was far away.  Also cut out a redundant maneuver.  It's not available yet, as I am going to create a new channel for these aircraft videos.

 

Thanks again for your feedback.   :smile:

 

 

The stutters are probably caused by recording the playback using Action.  Try something else.

 

We get a rock solid 50+ FPS on even the lowest machines in the test beds...

 

 

Hey Colin.  I tried ShadowPlay and 4 other video recorders.  Action worked the best with the least amount of stutters.  Just yesterday I enabled Hyper Threading and made some P3D CFG changes.  I am going to try ShadowPlay again.  Works great in Assetto Corsa.

 

In the Cub I get 31 FPS looking straight forward with unlimited frame rate.  In the F-4 I get 18 FPS looking straight forward.  Capping frame rate to 25, 20, or 18 doesn't help at all; yes it makes it a bit smoother, but the frame rate is just way too low at 15 FPS.  Is going from 31 FPS in Cub to 18 in the F-4 about what you would expect?  Obviously external view has higher frame rate, and for recording the video I locked it at 25 FPS and that worked good.

 

System specs:  P3d V2.5  CPU OC'd to 3.6 GHz

 

I haven't flown it in a while and there have been 2 or 3 updates since then. But I can tell you that the Radar caused stutters in the version I flew. I cannot remember exactly where the file is but it the panels.cfg (I think) and if you comment out entry 33 (I think) you will see its for the radar, the stutters will be gone. Of course the radar won't work either. Here is a video that I made after making that change:

 

Having watched your video I would say that the radar is at least partially responsible for the stutters :-)

Nice video. Good mix of formation flying and inside the cockpit.  The marking on the jet looks like it was from the weapos school at Nellis AFB. Terry

The stutters are probably caused by recording the playback using Action.  Try something else.

 

We get a rock solid 50+ FPS on even the lowest machines in the test beds...

 

I'm sorry Milviz, but you are being downright deceptive telling people that your F-4 product delivers 50+ FPS even on the lowest spec machines you tested.      I can personally assure everyone reading this that the Milviz F-4 is in fact the most hardware taxing add-on for P3D that I've ever encountered, hands down.     I can run all PMDG and A2A products, as well as the VRS F-18 on my 4.4 ghz Core I7/GTX 760 rig with a relatively smooth experience all around.     Not so with the Milviz F-4; this thing will DEFINITELY cause stuttering unless I scale back graphic settings across the board.     I can't even run mipmapping in the virtual cockpit with the F-4 without a huge performance hit.    

 

Please just be honest with your customers and potential customers, Milviz.     The F-4 simply requires a high end machine to run smoothly unless one can settle with minimal anti-aliasing and screen resolution.     There is simply NO WAY anyone is getting a rock solid 50+ FPS on low end or medium range computer systems.   

Actually, I'm not being deceptive at all.  If you turn off mipmapping (we do not use that EVER, so you're forcing the system to create them on the fly), lower your settings and remove all scenery/weather addons, you will get about the same results as we do.  We have to test with multiple scenarios but when doing FPS tests, we ONLY test for that without anything other than default setups.

 

That's the main issue with peoples FPS issues is that they have too much stuff and settings that are too high.

 

We are pretty clear about what the minimum requirements are...  and if you don't meet them...

 

And finally, we've got TWO full VC's in there... so it's no surprise some of you are getting FPS on lower end machines.

 

All that said, we've have very few complaints about FPS and, in nearly all cases, our clients are happy with the product.

 

If you're not and are looking for a way to get more FPS, please hit up our support forums.

Yes, but they need those addons and settings to make the simulator look good enough for their requirements. People don't purchase high detail planes to fly them around in barren, low detail environments. Having said that, those same people need to make sure that they have PC systems powerful enough to run the addons that they want to use!

it's all about balance.  If you don't have a good system, and put tons of high end addons on... don't expect good results.

 

Comparing other devs products to this one is akin to comparing apples and oranges.  The F-4 has TWO VC's plus a ton of weapons.  Neither of the previous products mentioned do.  You have to decide what's best for you but, as you would/will see on our forums, we have NO one who has had an issue with frame rates.  No one.

I'm sorry Milviz, but you are being downright deceptive telling people that your F-4 product delivers 50+ FPS even on the lowest spec machines you tested.      I can personally assure everyone reading this that the Milviz F-4 is in fact the most hardware taxing add-on for P3D that I've ever encountered, hands down.     I can run all PMDG and A2A products, as well as the VRS F-18 on my 4.4 ghz Core I7/GTX 760 rig with a relatively smooth experience all around.     Not so with the Milviz F-4; this thing will DEFINITELY cause stuttering unless I scale back graphic settings across the board.     I can't even run mipmapping in the virtual cockpit with the F-4 without a huge performance hit.    

 

Please just be honest with your customers and potential customers, Milviz.     The F-4 simply requires a high end machine to run smoothly unless one can settle with minimal anti-aliasing and screen resolution.     There is simply NO WAY anyone is getting a rock solid 50+ FPS on low end or medium range computer systems.   

 

 

I didn't think he was being deceptive.  The disconnect comes down to their testing methodology--no add ons, lower graphics settings--which I believe is how almost all developers test, because they can't account for all the different add-on variables out there that people may have installed.  Perhaps he should have made that clear in his post.  But, anytime I read any FPS stats from any devs I fully expect that to be barebones FSX/P3d and lower settings.

 

 

But I think it would be a good idea if devs did some testing on higher end machines with FTX Global, and FTX Global vector installed.  I think that is the most popular scenery product and it covers the entire globe.  They can advertise FPS on a low end machine with no add-ons, and a med and high end machine with those two products installed.  Just my two cents.

 

 

 

Actually, I'm not being deceptive at all.  If you turn off mipmapping (we do not use that EVER, so you're forcing the system to create them on the fly), lower your settings and remove all scenery/weather addons, you will get about the same results as we do.  We have to test with multiple scenarios but when doing FPS tests, we ONLY test for that without anything other than default setups.

 

That's the main issue with peoples FPS issues is that they have too much stuff and settings that are too high.

 

We are pretty clear about what the minimum requirements are...  and if you don't meet them...

 

And finally, we've got TWO full VC's in there... so it's no surprise some of you are getting FPS on lower end machines.

 

All that said, we've have very few complaints about FPS and, in nearly all cases, our clients are happy with the product.

 

If you're not and are looking for a way to get more FPS, please hit up our support forums.

 

 

Did not know one should turn off mip mapping.  But even though, it creates them during initial loading then places them in VRAM, right?  So it slows down loading time, and may increase VRAM usage slightly, but a big performance hit?

 

Well, I will definitely try disabling it.

 

 

Yes, but they need those addons and settings to make the simulator look good enough for their requirements. People don't purchase high detail planes to fly them around in barren, low detail environments. Having said that, those same people need to make sure that they have PC systems powerful enough to run the addons that they want to use!

 

 

True.

Yes, but they need those addons and settings to make the simulator look good enough for their requirements. People don't purchase high detail planes to fly them around in barren, low detail environments.

 

RE:  Milviz F-4 performance hit

 

EXACTLY as stated above.    

Actually, I'm not being deceptive at all.  If you turn off mipmapping (we do not use that EVER, so you're forcing the system to create them on the fly), lower your settings and remove all scenery/weather addons, you will get about the same results as we do.  We have to test with multiple scenarios but when doing FPS tests, we ONLY test for that without anything other than default setups.

 

That's the main issue with peoples FPS issues is that they have too much stuff and settings that are too high.

 

We are pretty clear about what the minimum requirements are...  and if you don't meet them...

 

And finally, we've got TWO full VC's in there... so it's no surprise some of you are getting FPS on lower end machines.

 

All that said, we've have very few complaints about FPS and, in nearly all cases, our clients are happy with the product.

 

If you're not and are looking for a way to get more FPS, please hit up our support forums.

 

 

That's all I'm asking, just that you are clear about to get a smooth, stutter free experience with the Milviz F-4, one either has to have a relatively high-end computer or if not, graphic and scenery settings will have to be turned down on mid to lower end machines.      I'm personally not happy with having to turn down anti-aliasing and resolution settings  to have a stutter-free experience while using the Milviz F-4 with my machine, but other customers may or may not feel the same way.     As long as everyone simply has a clear understanding of true hardware requirements to run this product and the limitations in performance with less than high end machines, we are good.       

Hey Cat_Dad, I thought you might like to read this since you are quite familiar with the F-4

 

Davidpf051 posted this on the Milviz forums:

 

A few comments on the flight model from a retired Navy type with 1100 hours in various Navy/Marine F-4 models including B/N and J/S. First, Milviz is head and shoulders above any other F-4 model I've tried and I've tried everyone I can find. You can spot check an F-4 model by taking it to cruise and setting 3000 lbs/hr on the engines. That was normal cruise setting and--depending on drag count--the plane should stable out at around 300 KIAS up till around mach 0.7 something. Yours does that. Nice job. Checked the on speed AOA at normal carrier landing weights and they appear spot on.

 

Also checked some of the more esoteric aspects of F-4 performance. F-4 experienced adverse roll due to yaw when trying to roll at high AOA with ailerons since they were actually a spoiler/flaperon combination. Try to roll right at high AOA and the right spoiler pops up with the left flaperon going down. Spoiler has little affect at high AOA while the flaperon's dominant affect is drag that yaws the plane toward the flaperon pulling the off wing into the airflow and inducing a roll. In sum, you want to roll right so you give right stick. Result is yaw and roll left. You roll right with rudder at high AOA. Your model captured both effects nicely. That is very impressive modeling. Also found I could fly the F-4 down to about 120 KIAS with half flap and burner at about 30 degrees nose up. Slow fights with F-4 against F-4 often wound up there. Again, very impressive.

Completely reedited video at new topic:

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/488106-milviz-f-4j-airshow-film-the-triumph-of-thrust-over-aerodynamics-orbx-ftx/

Hey Cat_Dad, I thought you might like to read this since you are quite familiar with the F-4

 

Davidpf051 posted this on the Milviz forums:

 

A few comments on the flight model from a retired Navy type with 1100 hours in various Navy/Marine F-4 models including B/N and J/S. First, Milviz is head and shoulders above any other F-4 model I've tried and I've tried everyone I can find. You can spot check an F-4 model by taking it to cruise and setting 3000 lbs/hr on the engines. That was normal cruise setting and--depending on drag count--the plane should stable out at around 300 KIAS up till around mach 0.7 something. Yours does that. Nice job. Checked the on speed AOA at normal carrier landing weights and they appear spot on.

 

Also checked some of the more esoteric aspects of F-4 performance. F-4 experienced adverse roll due to yaw when trying to roll at high AOA with ailerons since they were actually a spoiler/flaperon combination. Try to roll right at high AOA and the right spoiler pops up with the left flaperon going down. Spoiler has little affect at high AOA while the flaperon's dominant affect is drag that yaws the plane toward the flaperon pulling the off wing into the airflow and inducing a roll. In sum, you want to roll right so you give right stick. Result is yaw and roll left. You roll right with rudder at high AOA. Your model captured both effects nicely. That is very impressive modeling. Also found I could fly the F-4 down to about 120 KIAS with half flap and burner at about 30 degrees nose up. Slow fights with F-4 against F-4 often wound up there. Again, very impressive.

Thanks for the heads up on the flight report. It has been quite a whale (35 years) since I have flown the F-4C aircraft and the F-4E simulator. After watching several of the videos that are linked to yours (the F-4E video) a lot of the numbers and procedures have started to come back. 

 

I do remember they use to train the student pilots to use the rudder to roll when in a high AOA condition. I also remember that we had a ARI (aileron rudder interconnect) that did a good job of keeping things under control but you still could not fly with your feet flat on the floor either.

 

We had a "Hard Over" rudder failure we would give usually on short final or when the instructor wanted the crew to punch out. I seem to remember if you were quick enough to hit the paddle switch on the stick, you then could reach over and pull the ARI C/B and regain control. We had 7  C/Bs in the front seat and several hundred back seat. I spent a entire night shift trouble shooting a INS write-up along with a retired sim tech without any idea why it would not work. We knew our mainframe computer that ran the entire sim, the interface system,and the INS box in the cockpit were all good. While leaning over the side of the cockpit setting it up for our daily pref light inspection, I noticed one of those two hundred thirty C/Bs pulled out. That is why the INS would not work. Pushed it back in and signed off the 781 forms and we we good to go. The only way you could view most of those C/Bs was to stand on your head so I do not know how they pulled it in flight unless they ran the seat all they way down to the cockpit floor.

 

Have you ever noticed how many of the switches and levers in the cockpit are a specific shape? When you are busy flying the jet (looking outside) you do not want to have to put your head down/inside to  do something like switching fuel tanks, operating the flaps or selecting guns or missiles.  I am not sure if the modern day aircraft still have this feature or maybe it is done now with computers. 

 

Terry

 

PS: Is the F-4 payware or freeware? I have not seen it in the AVSIM library before. I am flying the T-45 freeware they have and it would be nice to fly some heavier iron.