JF Tornado GR1 RELEASED

[miragecy]

yep that was my first thought too but it happens only in the tornado not in other planes

Same case with me

Andy

 

[ZsoltB]

I believe I've sorted out this one. I get a consistent CTD (FSX) if I launch the GR1 with hotfix in full screen mode, but it's fine in windowed mode. Once it's loaded, I can switch to full screen and go.

Hi,

Thanks for idea!
Now work!

 

[swimeye]

Bruce448: Thank you very much, the repaints you have mad are amazing. Too bad your idea about JF hosting them for a good cause did not fall out as planned.

 

[Dumonceau]

Sadly the workaround to have the sim (P3D v2.5) run in windowed mode does not work.

Eagerly awaiting a new hotfix!

Johan

 

[ZsoltB]

Sadly the workaround to have the sim (P3D v2.5) run in windowed mode does not work.

Eagerly awaiting a new hotfix!

Johan

Hi Johan,

Yes!

A little uncomfortable always adjust your "view"
The basic model, will fail many times, out of memory etc

It would be good the suitable service package

Zsolt

 

[YoYo]

I haven't purchased the Tornado (Yet!)

But as a sideline observer, I find it a bid ridiculous to compare the 'fps' of this product, to another aircraft... If your RIG isn't up to running the level of detail in the product, for goodness sake, turn some settings down. I thought we were past this in the hard-core SOH community?

If you're like me, your sim is optimized for the best performance, and display. There are so many hardware differences, so many configurations, and preferences, it's silly to compare just 'FPS' from one product, as opposed to another.

Rather.. Find out what kind of VAS is being used... I doubt this hits as hard as you think.

Unless there is severe code flooding, or just a terribly in-efficient systems model, it's likely the large textures that would stump frame rates.. Maybe more GPU would help?

From the screenshots, the developers have done an incredible job modelling and texturing this aircraft. Wow.. Let's appreciate the next-level graphics on this bird. And accept 20 fps... or further tweak until you can get more. But don't blame the dev., for a superior rendition.

Just humble thoughts..
- Joseph

???

Interesting post ;D. So if I have on my PC very advanced models (with much more advanced avionics than JF Tornado) like PMDG 737 NGX and Majestic Software Dash 8 - Q400 in VC, from front position of pilot 40-45 fps on the ground (VRS F/A-18E + TacPack too with all systems ON!) in the airport of the same situation and here 20-24 is it ok for You? Maybe yes, but for me "No". It means than a model has a problem, not a soft or hardware of user or settings in this case. We don't compare JF Tornado with Piper Cub, default Cessna or JF DHC-1, just with very similar models & military jets, two seaters too.

I have i7 4770 with OC 4,3 GHz + R9 R290X, memory 8Gb 1600MHz, Z87 Intel Chipset and FSX only on SSD disc. Is it minimum of requirements ? Gosh....

Here is an interestng example for You from the last few days: "Batman: Arkham Knight for PC pulled by Warner Bros after bugs and disastrous launch" (performances problems on PC).
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...fter-bugs-and-disastrous-launch-10344079.html

Poor people, developer released very buggy game ("B:AC") but users must change a hardware according You...

I belive than great Team of JT Tornado will do everything for perfomance of this model like in others, according me Canberra was the great success, I (or We) can wait for sure for new patches for this and I'm sure than in the final everything will be ok for happy flying .
My fingers are crossed.

 

[Dumonceau]

???

Interesting post ;D. So if I have on my PC very advanced models (with much more advanced avionics than JF Tornado) like PMDG 737 NGX and in Majestic Software Dash 8 - Q400 in VC, from front position of pilot 40-45 fps on the ground (VRS F/A-18E + TacPack too) in the airport of the same situation and here 20-24 is it ok for You? Maybe yes, but for me "No". It means than a model has a problem, not a soft or hardware of user or settings in this case.

I have i7 4770 with OC 4,3 GHz + R9 R290X, memory 8Gb 1600MHz, Z87 Intel Chipset and FSX only on SSD disc. Is it minimum of requirements ? Gosh....

Here is an interestng example for You from the last few days: "Batman: Arkham Knight for PC pulled by Warner Bros after bugs and disastrous launch".
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...fter-bugs-and-disastrous-launch-10344079.html

Poor people, developer realesed very buggy game ("B:AC") but users must change a hardware according You...

I belive than great Team of JT Tornado will do everything for perfomance of this model like in others, according me Canberra was the great success, I (or We) can wait for sure for new patches for this and I'm sure than in the final everything will be ok for happy flying .
My fingers are crossed.

Yoyo,

Agreed 150%! But I'm pretty sure that Justflight will come up with a suitable patch!

I'm also pretty sure that they are working right now and very hard on the necessary things. My rig is comparable to yours and there should be no need to turn the settings down just for one model.

On a more positive note: the model is gorgeous, so in the end we will have a real winner!

Cheers,

Johan

 

[menef]

Pre-ordered for the 1st. and last time I simply ate to buy a product and wait after the release for patching. It seems that beta-testers use only world-record performance hardware. Just Flight I' m very disappointed.

 

[DaveB]

An interesting comparison as Yo-Yo mentioned the Majestic Dash8. I'm solid in the 30's with everything turned on (same startup situation as the Tornado) which is well over double what I get from the Tornado with everything turned off and 4x faster than pre-patch.

Oo-er!!

ATB
DaveB

 

[menef]

I meant hate not ate sorry but English is not my native tongue

 

[Dumonceau]

I wonder whether the beta testers all have rigs with 3 x GTX 970 in SLI, 32 Gb's of RAM and a CPU running at 5.6 Ghz!

 

[menef]

You are wrong ! They all have more powerfull rigs!!!

 

[Dumonceau]

ok, time for some truth or dare!

Dear Betatesters, we dare you to share with us the specs of your testing rigs!!

Johan

PS: this is all just in good humour. I always have been and always will be a staunch supporter of JF!

 

[DaveWG]

I think it's possibly the huge size of the mdls that are the problem. The exterior model is 94mb & the VC model over 100mb, with well over 1000 drawcalls! Looking though my hanger, the next biggest is the JF Canberra, but most other complex aircraft are in the 20-30mb range. I appreciate this is a complex & well detailed model, but those file sizes seem excessive to me.

 

[delta558]

I wonder whether the beta testers all have rigs with 3 x GTX 970 in SLI, 32 Gb's of RAM and a CPU running at 5.6 Ghz!

Hardly! I did all my work on an i7 2600 @3.4GHz, 8GB RAM, a single GTX760 with Win7 64 bit operating system. To be honest, I was surprised to see the comments about fps, having not noticed a problem throughout.

To give you an example of what I'm seeing, I took a low-level run through the mountains from Valley to St Athan this morning. GenX photoscenery with treescapes, Active Sky Next real weather with REX textures - it was a grotty morning with plenty of cloud about! I was blatting along at about 420kts, getting the occasional blurring of the photoscenery (I get that with any aircraft low and fast) and my fps remained in the 25 - 32 range in the VC. With film movies generally being 24fps, I consider what I'm getting to be perfectly acceptable considering the fairly high scenery settings I'm running.

I may be wrong, but I don't think any of the testers has a 'monster machine', much as we all might wish for one.

 

[delta558]

ok, time for some truth or dare!

Dear Betatesters, we dare you to share with us the specs of your testing rigs!!

Johan

PS: this is all just in good humour. I always have been and always will be a staunch supporter of JF!

There you go - you've got mine. You must have posted while I was already typing!

 

[Dumonceau]

There you go - you've got mine. You must have posted while I was already typing!

Well, I run an i7 2700K @ 4.3 Ghz, 16 Gb's of RAM and a GTX970 card. I am a P3D v2.5 user though. But P3D resides on an SSD.

Taking off from Marham in clear weather I get about 20 FPS in the VC, 32 outside. That is not normal for a rig like mine.

In the Canberra, I get about 48 FPS in the VC, same scenery in lousy weather. Like DaveWG said, it is the humongous sizes of the models and the many drawcalls.

And no, I really don't want to be a pain.

Johan

 

[delta558]

And no, I really don't want to be a pain.

Johan

I never suggested you did. I think we all want to get this sorted out as soon as possible so that everyone can enjoy the product.

 

[hschuit]

You are wrong ! They all have more powerfull rigs!!!

I have an average spec PC: i7 4770k at 4.0GHz, 8 GB RAM, 1x GTX970. I just made a 1 hour+ flight from RAF Marham to RAF Lossiemouth on the UKMIL Virtual Airline with the hotfix "light" VC and FSX kept an average FPS between 23-29 FPS. VAS consumption: I started using 1,900 Mb, after shutting down at Lossie FSX used 2,500 Mb, no problem there.
My scenery: Orbx England + ACG/MAIW/UKMIL RAF airbases.

Edit: Windows 7 64bit / FSX-MS tweaked according Nick's bible.

 

[Dumonceau]

I have an average spec PC: i7 4770k at 4.0GHz, 8 GB RAM, 1x GTX970. I just made a 1 hour+ flight from RAF Marham to RAF Lossiemouth on the UKMIL Virtual Airline with the hotfix "light" VC and FSX kept an average FPS between 23-29 FPS. VAS consumption: I started using 1,900 Mb, after shutting down at Lossie FSX used 2,500 Mb, no problem there.
My scenery: Orbx England + ACG/MAIW/UKMIL RAF airbases.

The hotfix makes P3D crash Henk...