Starting position in Real flight deluxe
Ken Teleis
instead of the side? I spend the beginning of each flight trying to get
it turn to the rear is facing me. Surely there is an easier way..
Stephen Emert
slowly...
"Ken Teleis" <K...@Teleis.com> wrote in message
news:39848156...@Teleis.com...
Ryan
has been in discussion however, so it may become a reality in a future
patch. I just don't have definitive info at this time however.
Sincerely,
Ryan
Real Flight Tech Support
Product Support
Great Planes Model Manufacturing
www.realflight.com
Beavis
<rws...@home.com> writes
>Unfortunately, no there is no way to change that at this time. This idea
>has been in discussion however, so it may become a reality in a future
>patch. I just don't have definitive info at this time however.
Ryan, I don't suppose you know when we're going to be blessed with
translational lift and maybe some ground effect do you :-)
Either or would be nice "for starters.. :-)
Beav
You can E-Mail me at the usual place (Beavis at nachos dot demon dot co dot uk)
Or you can visit my website (Which has undergone recent surgery) Same address as
before..
ecre...@my-deja.com
behind the pilot and observer and that stupid pole that represents the
axis of the hemisphere we are flying in. Both get in the way and are
distracting. Otherwise, it is a nice simulator program.
Ed Cregger
ecre...@my-deja.com
> Ryan, I don't suppose you know when we're going to be blessed with
> translational lift and maybe some ground effect do you :-)
>
> Either or would be nice "for starters.. :-)
>
> Beav
>
> You can E-Mail me at the usual place (Beavis at nachos dot demon dot
co dot uk)
>
> Or you can visit my website (Which has undergone recent surgery) Same
address as
> before..
>
> www.nachos.demon.co.uk
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ryan
with a small added disclaimer. First off, I simply answers questions on the
product, I do not write, program, etc... nor am I present during the
meetings deciding what will and will not be included. The developer for the
product also does not work in the same building, nor in the same state. I
have never met the man, except for a few phone calls and some e-mails. I
however am privy to information on where they are trying to take the
product, and I can also add input for ideas with a little more weight than
the general consumer.
Now with that out of the way, so no one can make any angry comments about
this or that, this is what I can say and still have a job waiting for me
tomorrow. Real Flight is constantly under improvement, and they are always
working on new products. Some examples being the Add-Ons, RF Deluxe, Real
Race, etc... I do know they listen to everyone's comments, and I make sure
many of them, well the ones I feel are realistically possible :), are
vocally passed on with as much weight as I can add. Further, other
companies are finally releasing programs that can compete on the same level
in terms of realism and graphics. I have tested these, and although I still
feel the physics need some tweaking, especially in the heli area, they are
miles ahead of the level achieved in past attempts. I will not add any
names, although I am sure most of you know of them. In other words, do not
think we will sit by and let the competition pass us.
Simply, be patient, they are trying hard not to disapoint. All your
questions will be answered when either:
A)A new patch is released
or
B)The press guys (they like to be first on that kind of thing) announce a
new product from us.
I again can neither confirm or deny any of the above, but do not think we
are lying when we give the standard "We are always making improvements to
Real Flight to make sure it offers the best and most realistic R/C
experience available for the general consumer."
So now that I have not answered your question, are there any other questions
on the existing product? I finally got a new account setup, and put my
network behind a nice firewall, so I will be more visible on the newsgroups.
Anyone is welcome to reply directly to the e-mail listed here, etc... Just
realize this is a home account, and I do this on my personal time. Nothing
stated here can be considered the word of Great Planes Model Manufacturing,
just my own opinions. Realizing that, if you just gotta be mean, that's
fine, but I don't have to be nice back, or answer, although I will try my
hardest to do both. I am here mainly because I do fly heli's in real life.
I currently fly:
Kyosho Concept 32 VR
OS 32 SX-H Engine
Helimax HH Gyro
Futaba Super 8 radio
I was hovering, although not a pretty one, on my first day thanks to Real
Flight. I can do inverted on the program, although I haven't had the guts
to try in real life. Heli's are expensive even when you work there. Yes I
did pay for it with my own cash. I haven't used the HH yet though, because
I haven't gotten the gain settings right. The tail bounces back and forth
in anything other than a completely calm day. Living in the country, those
don't exist. Was gonna work on that today, but of course as luck would have
it, I get outside, set everything up, start fueling the heli, and it beings
to rain. Maybe next weekend I guess.
Ryan
Product Support
Great Planes Model Manufacturing
www.realflight.com
"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XLfYXMAL...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
> In article <0D1h5.90777$dF.31...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, Ryan
> <rws...@home.com> writes
> >Unfortunately, no there is no way to change that at this time. This idea
> >has been in discussion however, so it may become a reality in a future
> >patch. I just don't have definitive info at this time however.
>
Ryan Slack
easy, and it gets the knocks the head speed up. I then just pop the stick
to full throttle, deflect the elevator to full up, the heli does a nice semi
circle, leveling off a foot or so above the ground hovering inverted. I am
not insane enough to try it in real life, although the lead heli guy that
showed it to me said he had a few times. It's a pretty easy trick though,
one of the few I can do at my early level of training. I figure before I
start doing the crazy stuff, I should get good at autorotation, since it
will probably save me more than a few times. I can do it most of the time,
but I always change the pitch a bit too soon, so instead of leveling off to
an easy landing, it kinda jumps up a few feet. I can still land with no
prob, but it isn't nearly as pretty as it should be, and the heli skids a
little bit. This is fine on concrete, but could give me major probs on
grass. Anyone have any tips?
Ryan
"Stephen Emert" <sem...@USIT.NET> wrote in message
news:bO0h5.5605$1V.3...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> Just take it up 1/4 to 1/2 throttle and it is easy to swing it around
> slowly...
>
Ryan
and throw it into idle up, on the rf controller, or into idle up 2 on my own
radio.
Ryan
"Ryan Slack" <rws...@home.com> wrote in message
news:gz7h5.91592$dF.32...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
Beavis
<rws...@home.com> writes
>Let me say what I can, being of course as cryptic and vague as possible,
>with a small added disclaimer. First off, I simply answers questions on the
>product, I do not write, program, etc... nor am I present during the
>meetings deciding what will and will not be included. The developer for the
>product also does not work in the same building, nor in the same state. I
>have never met the man, except for a few phone calls and some e-mails. I
>however am privy to information on where they are trying to take the
>product, and I can also add input for ideas with a little more weight than
>the general consumer.
Well the "general consumer" happens to be the one who pays for the
product, and in my world that puts him "top of the tree".
>
>Now with that out of the way, so no one can make any angry comments about
>this or that, this is what I can say and still have a job waiting for me
>tomorrow. Real Flight is constantly under improvement, and they are always
>working on new products.
That's as may be Ryan, but what about the products they've already made,
but aren't up to snuff?
> Some examples being the Add-Ons, RF Deluxe, Real
>Race, etc... I do know they listen to everyone's comments, and I make sure
>many of them, well the ones I feel are realistically possible :), are
>vocally passed on with as much weight as I can add.
And exactly how much weight IS that?
> Further, other
>companies are finally releasing programs that can compete on the same level
>in terms of realism and graphics.
On realism, RealFlight falls WAY behind the rest. Graphically, it's very
good, and I actually think it's important to have a realistic LOOKING
sim, but it needs backing up with realistic flight modelling too. After
all, it's supposed to simulate FLIGHT more than looks. (isn't it?) What
are Great Planes doing to sort out the failings?
> I have tested these, and although I still
>feel the physics need some tweaking, especially in the heli area, they are
>miles ahead of the level achieved in past attempts.
I can't speak about how things were, not that I think that matters in
the least, only how things are, and I think "tweaking" the flight
physics is probably the wrong word. Overhauling would be closer.
> I will not add any
>names, although I am sure most of you know of them.
Are you talking about other MANUFACTURERS sims? If so, the flight
modelling of MOST of the other sims reaches beyond that of RealFlight.
> In other words, do not
>think we will sit by and let the competition pass us.
RealFlight, being probably the LAST heli sim to hit the market, aren't
in the position of letting the competition "pass them", rather they're
in the position of having ALL the competitions products to LEARN from
IMPROVE on and BETTER. Apparently none of which they did.
>
>Simply, be patient, they are trying hard not to disapoint. All your
>questions will be answered when either:
>
>A)A new patch is released
Which is due out when?
>
>or
>
>B)The press guys (they like to be first on that kind of thing) announce a
>new product from us.
Which will also be when?
>
>I again can neither confirm or deny any of the above,
And boy do we love secrets, carrot dangling, jobsworths and those who
profess to be "in the know" but keep their mouths closed.
>but do not think we
>are lying when we give the standard "We are always making improvements to
>Real Flight to make sure it offers the best and most realistic R/C
>experience available for the general consumer."
When are we going to SEE these improvements?
>
>So now that I have not answered your question, are there any other questions
>on the existing product?
More questions to not answer? I don't think so.
> I finally got a new account setup, and put my
>network behind a nice firewall, so I will be more visible on the newsgroups.
Being visible isn't any use unless you've got some useful information to
share, instead of what you've "shared" in this post. Sorry to be so
harsh, but re-read what you've written and tell me I'm wrong.
>Anyone is welcome to reply directly to the e-mail listed here, etc... Just
>realize this is a home account, and I do this on my personal time.
We all do it on our personal time.
> Nothing
>stated here can be considered the word of Great Planes Model Manufacturing,
>just my own opinions.
Not to be too picky, but what use are your opinions if they differ from
GP's?
> Realizing that, if you just gotta be mean, that's
>fine, but I don't have to be nice back, or answer, although I will try my
>hardest to do both. I am here mainly because I do fly heli's in real life.
>I currently fly:
>
>Kyosho Concept 32 VR
>OS 32 SX-H Engine
>Helimax HH Gyro
>Futaba Super 8 radio
>
>I was hovering, although not a pretty one, on my first day thanks to Real
>Flight.
RealFlight IS good for getting to grips with hovering. No doubt about
it.
> I can do inverted on the program, although I haven't had the guts
>to try in real life.
Don't! It's not realistic.
> Heli's are expensive even when you work there. Yes I
>did pay for it with my own cash. I haven't used the HH yet though, because
>I haven't gotten the gain settings right. The tail bounces back and forth
>in anything other than a completely calm day. Living in the country, those
>don't exist. Was gonna work on that today, but of course as luck would have
>it, I get outside, set everything up, start fueling the heli, and it beings
>to rain. Maybe next weekend I guess.
Hopefully, but stay away from flipping to inverted :-)
Timothy Morris
"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XLfYXMAL...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
> In article <0D1h5.90777$dF.31...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, Ryan
> <rws...@home.com> writes
> >Unfortunately, no there is no way to change that at this time. This idea
> >has been in discussion however, so it may become a reality in a future
> >patch. I just don't have definitive info at this time however.
>
> Ryan, I don't suppose you know when we're going to be blessed with
> translational lift and maybe some ground effect do you :-)
>
> Either or would be nice "for starters.. :-)
>
>
The information I have from the horse's mouth (Scott Kemp), is that they are
working on Windows 2000 compatability at the moment, and have a long list of
improvements to make to the product. Improving the heli flight model is
pretty near to the top of the list.
Tim.
Beavis
morris.org.us> writes
>
>"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:XLfYXMAL...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <0D1h5.90777$dF.31...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, Ryan
>> <rws...@home.com> writes
>> >Unfortunately, no there is no way to change that at this time. This idea
>> >has been in discussion however, so it may become a reality in a future
>> >patch. I just don't have definitive info at this time however.
>>
>> Ryan, I don't suppose you know when we're going to be blessed with
>> translational lift and maybe some ground effect do you :-)
>>
>> Either or would be nice "for starters.. :-)
>>
>>
>Beav,
>
>The information I have from the horse's mouth (Scott Kemp), is that they are
>working on Windows 2000 compatability at the moment,
And very good it will "probably" be Tim, but I don't HAVE W2000 and have
no intention of getting it anytime soon either. I'd much prefer that GP
got the sim right for the platform is was originally intended for.
>and have a long list of
>improvements to make to the product.
I bet they have :-)
>Improving the heli flight model is
>pretty near to the top of the list.
How near is pretty near? This month, next month, next year? The problems
with RFD aren't "new" as they've been there since it's introduction.
Ryan
said are essentially true, but it takes time. Computers are a weird thing.
You can work on something for weeks, think you are making great progress,
find one bug, and then suddenly realize all the work and all the lines of
code you have written are going to have to be redone. This is true for any
program, including I am sad to say, many of my own, and is one of the main
factors standard development time for a new product is generally in the
range of 15 months to two years. Would you rather we release something
partially working now, probably creating more bugs in the process, or
release something we know works, and that the public is guaranteed to like?
Ryan
"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0nhQ8PAz$gh5...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
fjre...@my-deja.com
for quite a while before getting RFD and thought that RFD was quite an
improvement over CSM. The graphics, sound and adjustablility are tops.
The flight model is a little wierd, but not as completely broken as
Beavis makes it sound (just my opinion, it flies close enough to the
real helis I own). The one feature that the CSM sim had that RealFlight
absolutely needs, however, is object collison detection. While we're at
it, things to fly around and through would also be nice. The CSM sim
excelled in this aspect, and made me a much better pilot as I flew
through the various goal posts, tunnels, tents and power poles. Flying
around just trying to avoid the ground is fine while hovering, but gets
very boring beyond that. Not that you'd actually do these things in
real life, but it really adds to the replay factor if you ask me.
In article <Lsrh5.124994$dF.32...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>,
rc...@my-deja.com
Beavis <Bea...@XXXXnachos.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8m4lev$t6v$2...@gxsn.com>, Timothy Morris <mail@timothy-
> morris.org.us> writes
> >that they are working on Windows 2000 compatability at the moment,
>
> And very good it will "probably" be Tim, but I don't HAVE W2000 and
> have no intention of getting it anytime soon either. I'd much prefer
> that GP got the sim right for the platform is was originally intended
> for.
Likewise. There's a bunch of us who blew $200 or so on this product
and got something that does NOT live up the claims made in the
advertisements or on the packaging. Does it really make sense to spend
development resources adding a new feature, when they could be working
on backing up the claims they've already made?
This seems double silly when that new feature is compatibility with an
operating system that is not even intended for consumer use. Win2k is
an NT derivative and intended for the business/office user. Win98 is
the system in use in homes right now.
Great Planes / Knife Edge claims "the most authentic flight replication
ever created," and they claim this on Windows 98 (quote from
http://www.realflight.com/deluxe.html).
They claim absolutely nothing about Windows 2000.
I ask again, does it makes sense to spend development resources
(people, time, money) on new features when there are products in the
field that do not live up to the claims made in the promotional
materials?
> >Improving the heli flight model is
> >pretty near to the top of the list.
>
> How near is pretty near? This month, next month, next year? The
> problems with RFD aren't "new" as they've been there since it's
> introduction.
Amen.
I for one would much rather see bugs fixed than new features added.
Ryan, I know you cannot answer these questions directly and I can
appreicate the position you're in. I ask rhetorically in order to
better make my point. All I ask of you is that you relay them to the
powers that be. Thanks for pitching in here, it IS appreciated.
--
Attention Spammers! These folks urgently need to know how
unsolicited bulk mailing works, from the recipient's
perspective: coun...@the-dma.org, or if you prefer,
<a href="mailto:coun...@the-dma.org">coun...@the-dma.org</a>
rc...@my-deja.com
fjre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Not everyone is as disappointed as Beavis. I flew the CSM simulator
> for quite a while before getting RFD and thought that RFD was quite an
> improvement over CSM. The graphics, sound and adjustablility are tops.
The graphics and sound are great. The adjustability LOOKS fascinating,
and in fact it was one of the main things that attracted me to RFD.
However, when you adjust the parameters, the changes are not
representative of reality.
Most glaringly, a 5 gram rotor blade in RFD still exhibits more post-
flare hang time than a 75 gram blade on my Concept 30. Heavy paddles
slow the roll rate some, but they don't fix the fast-forward-flight
pitching tendencies.
Adjustability is useless when it doesn't match reality to begin with
and the adjustments don't even make sense in RFD's parallel universe.
Timothy Morris
<rc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8m5kej$3pr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <0nhQ8PAz$gh5...@nachos.demon.co.uk>,
> Beavis <Bea...@XXXXnachos.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <8m4lev$t6v$2...@gxsn.com>, Timothy Morris <mail@timothy-
> > morris.org.us> writes
> > >The information I have from the horse's mouth (Scott Kemp), is
> > >that they are working on Windows 2000 compatability at the moment,
> >
> > And very good it will "probably" be Tim, but I don't HAVE W2000 and
> > have no intention of getting it anytime soon either. I'd much prefer
> > that GP got the sim right for the platform is was originally intended
> > for.
>
> Likewise. There's a bunch of us who blew $200 or so on this product
> and got something that does NOT live up the claims made in the
> advertisements or on the packaging. Does it really make sense to spend
> development resources adding a new feature, when they could be working
> on backing up the claims they've already made?
>
Realflight, but I think more consumers are using Win 2000 than you think. It
is far more stable than Win 98, and I know of at least four people who run
it on their home PCs. More than anything, if you have kids that fiddle with
your PC's software settings, you can lock them out from changing functions.
The reason they are working on it is that more people have asked for a
Windows 2000 patch than have asked for improvements in the heli flight
model. The problem is that they need to write a new driver for the
controller/interface, which, from what Scott has told me is being written by
a sub-contractor anyway. However the one thing I do agree with, is that I
would rather see improvements to the flight model *first*.
As for the flight model, I'm flying the model designed by Guillaume, and
apart from lack of translational lift, it is pretty good. However, the
parameters he has entered bear no resemblance to reality. Until I got this
model, the program really was unusable. The two most obvious problems are
pitch down, and roll left in forward flight, which really should have been
picked up when the product was first developed. I WILL post the model here,
but it does need some tweaking so that less experienced pilots will be able
to fly it.
Tim.
Ryan
make a few clarifications below. Just realize again, I am simply trying to
help out from the knowledge I have available. You don't have to like it,
but don't flame me for things I have no control over. This thread is
starting to go into areas I don't think is beneficial for anyone on this
group however, so this will be my last thought. I will offer help if
someone asks, but I don't think anyone wants to see a long series of
pointless threads begin on things none of us has any control over.
"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:veYGiFAX...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
> In article <Ag6h5.91303$dF.32...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, Ryan
> <rws...@home.com> writes
> >Let me say what I can, being of course as cryptic and vague as possible,
> >with a small added disclaimer. First off, I simply answers questions on
the
> >product, I do not write, program, etc... nor am I present during the
> >meetings deciding what will and will not be included. The developer for
the
> >product also does not work in the same building, nor in the same state.
I
> >have never met the man, except for a few phone calls and some e-mails. I
> >however am privy to information on where they are trying to take the
> >product, and I can also add input for ideas with a little more weight
than
> >the general consumer.
>
> Well the "general consumer" happens to be the one who pays for the
> product, and in my world that puts him "top of the tree".
I meant in the sense I can talk directly to the people that do make
decisions, whereas you can only send e-mail to people like myself in the
hopes it will get passed along, or noticed in newsgroups like this. Again,
we do listen, and try to implement things as such.
> >
> >Now with that out of the way, so no one can make any angry comments about
> >this or that, this is what I can say and still have a job waiting for me
> >tomorrow. Real Flight is constantly under improvement, and they are
always
> >working on new products.
>
> That's as may be Ryan, but what about the products they've already made,
> but aren't up to snuff?
"Real Flight is constantly under improvement" nuff said
>
> > Some examples being the Add-Ons, RF Deluxe, Real
> >Race, etc... I do know they listen to everyone's comments, and I make
sure
> >many of them, well the ones I feel are realistically possible :), are
> >vocally passed on with as much weight as I can add.
>
> And exactly how much weight IS that?
As much weight as e-mail every day to the people that make the decisions can
add. I make no promises, but I do try to help improve upon the product with
consumers and my own ideas.
>
> > Further, other
> >companies are finally releasing programs that can compete on the same
level
> >in terms of realism and graphics.
>
> On realism, RealFlight falls WAY behind the rest. Graphically, it's very
> good, and I actually think it's important to have a realistic LOOKING
> sim, but it needs backing up with realistic flight modelling too. After
> all, it's supposed to simulate FLIGHT more than looks. (isn't it?) What
> are Great Planes doing to sort out the failings?
What programs have you been flying? I have tried several of the
competitions offerings. I can throttle up, stick the thing in a hover, get
a drink and come back with it still waiting for me.
>
> > I have tested these, and although I still
> >feel the physics need some tweaking, especially in the heli area, they
are
> >miles ahead of the level achieved in past attempts.
>
> I can't speak about how things were, not that I think that matters in
> the least, only how things are, and I think "tweaking" the flight
> physics is probably the wrong word. Overhauling would be closer.
>
> > I will not add any
> >names, although I am sure most of you know of them.
>
> Are you talking about other MANUFACTURERS sims? If so, the flight
> modelling of MOST of the other sims reaches beyond that of RealFlight.
I am referring to other R/C sims. MS FS 2000 etc... may be more realistic,
but aren't exactly modeled to the R/C community.
>
> > In other words, do not
> >think we will sit by and let the competition pass us.
>
> RealFlight, being probably the LAST heli sim to hit the market, aren't
> in the position of letting the competition "pass them", rather they're
> in the position of having ALL the competitions products to LEARN from
> IMPROVE on and BETTER. Apparently none of which they did.
Again which products are you referring to? I have yet to find an R/C sim
that is as realistic in the heli and plane area.
> >
> >Simply, be patient, they are trying hard not to disapoint. All your
> >questions will be answered when either:
> >
> >A)A new patch is released
>
> Which is due out when?
We tend to release a patch every few months, which is far better than many
other companies bost. Again most of these are not to fix bugs, but to
simply add features.
> >
> >or
> >
> >B)The press guys (they like to be first on that kind of thing) announce a
> >new product from us.
>
> Which will also be when?
When a press announcment is made, I can't say anything else on if or when
this will happen.
> >
> >I again can neither confirm or deny any of the above,
>
> And boy do we love secrets, carrot dangling, jobsworths and those who
> profess to be "in the know" but keep their mouths closed.
Sorry not trying to do that, I am simply trying to say we are not going to
just leave the product be and go on to other things. I just don't feel it
is my place to say anything more. I am in a delicate position, and I feel
caution is the better side to stay on.
>
> >but do not think we
> >are lying when we give the standard "We are always making improvements to
> >Real Flight to make sure it offers the best and most realistic R/C
> >experience available for the general consumer."
>
> When are we going to SEE these improvements?
> >
> >So now that I have not answered your question, are there any other
questions
> >on the existing product?
>
> More questions to not answer? I don't think so.
>
> > I finally got a new account setup, and put my
> >network behind a nice firewall, so I will be more visible on the
newsgroups.
>
> Being visible isn't any use unless you've got some useful information to
> share, instead of what you've "shared" in this post. Sorry to be so
> harsh, but re-read what you've written and tell me I'm wrong.
I stated that as a wholehearted offer to help anyone who has questions or
problems with the program, since you may be able to get an answer out of me
sooner than Great Planes. I just can't talk about things that will be
happening in the future. That seems reasonable right? Just put yourself in
my shoes.
>
> >Anyone is welcome to reply directly to the e-mail listed here, etc...
Just
> >realize this is a home account, and I do this on my personal time.
>
> We all do it on our personal time.
Yeah and taking that further, this is supposed to be a hobby. I came here
to further my knowledge in it, and maybe meet a few people. I have no
problems with you, I have heard far worse believe me, so lets just try and
focus on the good things, since this is supposed to be fun. That was my
point, stating there is no reason to be angry, etc...
>
> > Nothing
> >stated here can be considered the word of Great Planes Model
Manufacturing,
> >just my own opinions.
>
> Not to be too picky, but what use are your opinions if they differ from
> GP's?
Taking that form of logic, what use are your opinions since you don't even
work there? Obviously, if you didn't think your opinion held some weight,
you would not waste the time with this lengthy reply. Basically, I am doing
this on my own free time. If someone sees this, they should see it as my
thoughts, and not take what I say as say a Great Planes press release, for
example. Therefore, whether my opinions differ from Great Planes or not is
irrelevant.
We shall see, I have heard the opposite from others as well. I'm not
suicidal or cocky either though. Even if I could fly the program 10 times
out of 10 inverted, I would not try it without someone more experienced
watching over.
Ryan
Ryan
physics model for Real Flight is a lot more complex than CSM's. Add the
graphics model into that, and it takes up quite a lot of cpu cycles. When
the program was first made, it had to have system requirements that did not
require a top of the line computer. We could not assume everyone would own
a 10,000 dollar computer. Compromises were made, as is the case in any
product. Collision detection was not considered as important as making the
plane fly as realistic as possible. Now that we have much more powerful
cpu's and graphics cards, they can add in more features. This has been
discussed, and I know there is great interest in adding this in.
Being a CS and Math major, this feature interests me more than most. There
are people that spend there lives simply making algorithms for collision
detection. The math can be extremely complicated, and there are many
different ways to implement it. Basically, its not a simple cut and paste.
I could spend months just optimizing and tweaking various algorithms to work
better in a physics engine. People that do this for a living obviously
cannot devote that many resources, but they will want a system to be as
realistic as needed, while not being so complicated to overly burden the
system. That alone is what makes the idea so robust, and why there are so
many people spending time on the subject.
Ryan
<fjre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8m5imq$2ka$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Not everyone is as disappointed as Beavis. I flew the CSM simulator
> for quite a while before getting RFD and thought that RFD was quite an
> improvement over CSM. The graphics, sound and adjustablility are tops.
> > "Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:0nhQ8PAz$gh5...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
> > > In article <8m4lev$t6v$2...@gxsn.com>, Timothy Morris <mail@timothy-
> > > morris.org.us> writes
> > > >
> > > >"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >news:XLfYXMAL...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
> > > >> In article <0D1h5.90777$dF.31...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, Ryan
> > > >> <rws...@home.com> writes
> > > >> >Unfortunately, no there is no way to change that at this time.
> This
> > idea
> > > >> >has been in discussion however, so it may become a reality in a
> future
> > > >> >patch. I just don't have definitive info at this time however.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ryan, I don't suppose you know when we're going to be blessed
> with
> > > >> translational lift and maybe some ground effect do you :-)
> > > >>
> > > >> Either or would be nice "for starters.. :-)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >Beav,
> > > >
> > > >The information I have from the horse's mouth (Scott Kemp), is
> that they
> > are
> > > >working on Windows 2000 compatability at the moment,
> > >
> > > And very good it will "probably" be Tim, but I don't HAVE W2000 and
> have
> > > no intention of getting it anytime soon either. I'd much prefer
> that GP
> > > got the sim right for the platform is was originally intended for.
> > >
> > > >and have a long list of
> > > >improvements to make to the product.
> > >
> > > I bet they have :-)
> > >
> > > >Improving the heli flight model is
> > > >pretty near to the top of the list.
> > >
> > > How near is pretty near? This month, next month, next year? The
> problems
> > > with RFD aren't "new" as they've been there since it's introduction.
> > >
> > > Beav
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You can E-Mail me at the usual place (Beavis at nachos dot demon
> dot co
> > dot uk)
> > >
> > > Or you can visit my website (Which has undergone recent surgery)
> Same
> > address as
> > > before..
> > >
> > > www.nachos.demon.co.uk
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Timothy Morris
"Ryan" <rws...@home.com> wrote in message
news:D3vh5.125248$dF.32...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> >
> > On realism, RealFlight falls WAY behind the rest. Graphically, it's very
> > good, and I actually think it's important to have a realistic LOOKING
> > sim, but it needs backing up with realistic flight modelling too. After
> > all, it's supposed to simulate FLIGHT more than looks. (isn't it?) What
> > are Great Planes doing to sort out the failings?
>
> What programs have you been flying? I have tried several of the
> competitions offerings. I can throttle up, stick the thing in a hover,
get
> a drink and come back with it still waiting for me.
>
Ryan, I think perhaps you are wearing rose coloured spectacles. I can't
comment on the plane physics, because I don't fly them. Compare Realflight
to CSM. Realflight is more immersive, especially with Revelator 3D glasses,
but measure a model, enter all the data, and fly it in the sim. You're a
math major. When in forward flight, with a clockwise rotating heli the left
hand side of the rotor disc (forward going blade), produces more lift than
the right. You would therefore expect the heli to roll to the right. In
Realflight it rolls to the left. For similar reasons, helis can pitch up in
forward flight. What happens with Realflight? They pitch down. When you are
in forward flight with a real heli, you can reduce pitch to around 1-2
degrees, Realflight needs the same pitch as when hovering. Take one of the
built in models, trim it for the hover and then fly it. Then come back and
comment. The ground handling in Realflight, is poor, the heli behaves as if
it is landing on ice.
Don't get me wrong. I think it has a lot of potential, the physics model is
obviously more complicated than CSM, but it is far less accurate. That is
what most of us are referring to. The one thing I would love to know, is who
actually test flew the thing in the first place?
Tim.
Beavis
>Like I said earlier, be patient,
I am patient.
> you wont be disappointed.
AND disappointed :-)
>Both things Tim
>said are essentially true, but it takes time.
But that time should've been take BEFORE RFD was released as a fully
functioning sim for helicopters. Or do you think a half finished product
is Ok to sell?
> Computers are a weird thing.
Computers are machines. Nothing more and certainly nothing mysterious or
special for which the normal rules don't apply. Computer programmers are
notorious for "pumping themselves up" and TRYING to give the "I'm the
only one around here who knows what he's talking about" argument, in
order to cover up their own shortcomings, but it falls on deaf ears when
it falls on mine.
>You can work on something for weeks, think you are making great progress,
>find one bug, and then suddenly realize all the work and all the lines of
>code you have written are going to have to be redone.
It's called development, and it should be done BEFORE the program is
offered for sale.
> This is true for any
>program,
This isn't a "computer program only" problem, this is LIFE. We ALL have
hurdles we need to overcome, but we don't all sell our products before
we test them to ensure they do the job they're intended for properly.
> including I am sad to say, many of my own, and is one of the main
>factors standard development time for a new product is generally in the
>range of 15 months to two years.
In that case, RFD should be totally bug free by now.
> Would you rather we release something
>partially working now,
You've done that already.
> probably creating more bugs in the process, or
>release something we know works, and that the public is guaranteed to like?
I'd simply like what you HAVE released to do what it's supposed to do
the day I buy (bought) it. Not "some time in the future" when you've
"ironed out" all the bugs, and not get a raft of excuses as to why it
doesn't. If RFD was a horse, it's be a pot of glue by now.
Beavis
>> for quite a while before getting RFD and thought that RFD was quite an
>> improvement over CSM. The graphics, sound and adjustablility are tops.
>
>and in fact it was one of the main things that attracted me to RFD.
>However, when you adjust the parameters, the changes are not
>representative of reality.
>
>Most glaringly, a 5 gram rotor blade in RFD still exhibits more post-
>flare hang time than a 75 gram blade on my Concept 30. Heavy paddles
>slow the roll rate some, but they don't fix the fast-forward-flight
>pitching tendencies.
Correct. For that you need a dollop of forward C/G which totally buggers
up the inverted flight. Nose heavy and a little back trim stops the
pitching in FFF, but then you need to hold on far too much forward stick
when you're legs up.
>
>Adjustability is useless when it doesn't match reality to begin with
>and the adjustments don't even make sense in RFD's parallel universe.
Agreed.
Beavis
morris.org.us> writes
>
><rc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8m5kej$3pr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <0nhQ8PAz$gh5...@nachos.demon.co.uk>,
>> Beavis <Bea...@XXXXnachos.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > >that they are working on Windows 2000 compatability at the moment,
>> >
>> > And very good it will "probably" be Tim, but I don't HAVE W2000 and
>> > have no intention of getting it anytime soon either. I'd much prefer
>> > that GP got the sim right for the platform is was originally intended
>> > for.
>>
>> and got something that does NOT live up the claims made in the
>> advertisements or on the packaging. Does it really make sense to spend
>> development resources adding a new feature, when they could be working
>> on backing up the claims they've already made?
>>
>I do agree with you. I don't like dual booting into Windows 98 to run
>Realflight, but I think more consumers are using Win 2000 than you think. It
>is far more stable than Win 98, and I know of at least four people who run
>it on their home PCs. More than anything, if you have kids that fiddle with
>your PC's software settings, you can lock them out from changing functions.
Tim, I don't think a discussion on the pro's and con's of W2K will take
us anywhere other than somewhere we don't want to go, and it's just
muddying the waters.
>The reason they are working on it is that more people have asked for a
>Windows 2000 patch than have asked for improvements in the heli flight
>model.
So bollocks to all the W98 users? I actually doubt that claim anyway.
>The problem is that they need to write a new driver for the
>controller/interface, which, from what Scott has told me is being written by
>a sub-contractor anyway.
They also needed to do something for those PCM 10 users (like me) who
were told that RFD is compatible with their Tx's, but how long did it
take for THAT to happen?
> However the one thing I do agree with, is that I
>would rather see improvements to the flight model *first*.
As would anyone who can fly a heli like a heli is capable of being
flown.
>
>As for the flight model, I'm flying the model designed by Guillaume, and
>apart from lack of translational lift, it is pretty good. However, the
>parameters he has entered bear no resemblance to reality. Until I got this
>model, the program really was unusable. The two most obvious problems are
>pitch down, and roll left in forward flight, which really should have been
>picked up when the product was first developed.
Not to mention that VERY basic lack of TL.
>I WILL post the model here,
>but it does need some tweaking so that less experienced pilots will be able
>to fly it.
Guillaume's model is just a little twitchy, but otherwise usable by
anyone. Post it "as is" Tim, and let the masses decide/adjust to taste.
Beavis
> Not everyone is as disappointed as Beavis.
I suspect some are even MORE disappointed than me.
> I flew the CSM simulator
>for quite a while before getting RFD and thought that RFD was quite an
>improvement over CSM. The graphics, sound and adjustablility are tops.
The graphics ARE tops, no arguments there, but "adjustability"? I don't
think there's one parameter on RFD that equates to real life heli's.
Even the wind is pissed. Crank it up to 10 mph and the thing is almost
unflyable. Crash the heli with a 10mph wind and watch it get blown along
the ground. Now that IS RealFlight.
>The flight model is a little wierd, but not as completely broken as
>Beavis makes it sound (just my opinion, it flies close enough to the
>real helis I own).
So your heli's don't pick up translational lift, the tail rotors are
only as effective when you fly forwards as they are in the hover, they
roll to the left (for a clockwise rotor system) and dive to the ground
at any speed close to "normal" FFF. Let's just look at that for a sec.
Trim a clockwise rotating heli for a good hover and then go immediately
to FFF. If you don't re-trim, your heli will roll to the RIGHT, it will
CLIMB and it will be dragged or pushed into a right yaw turn by
increased tail rotor effectiveness. RFD simulates this just about as
badly as it's possible to simulate it. It does EVERYTHING arse about
face. It rolls LEFT, it DIVES and nothing happens to the yaw!
Also, the blades have so much inertia that you can hover for a month at
the end of an auto, the nose drops like a brick when the throttle hold
switch is flipped for an auto and you need to go back to positive pitch
(thereby losing rotor speed) before you can raise it again? Not that it
matters, because even with a rotor speed of next to nothing, you can
still land the thing.
> The one feature that the CSM sim had that RealFlight
>absolutely needs, however, is object collison detection.
Then there's that of course.
> While we're at
>it, things to fly around and through would also be nice. The CSM sim
>excelled in this aspect, and made me a much better pilot as I flew
>through the various goal posts, tunnels, tents and power poles. Flying
>around just trying to avoid the ground is fine while hovering, but gets
>very boring beyond that. Not that you'd actually do these things in
>real life,
But some of us DO do those things. Flying through goal posts is a
national pastime at our field.
>but it really adds to the replay factor if you ask me.
As does flying a sim that flies like a model.
When I first got RFD, I thought it was pretty good, but as I've had more
time on it, the shortcomings became more apparent. I won't say it sucks,
but I will say it s :-)
Beavis
<rws...@home.com> writes
>One more statement because there was a reason that was left out. The
>physics model for Real Flight is a lot more complex than CSM's.
Ok Ryan, help an old man out. You say RFD's physics are more complex,
yet the CSM physics better represent how a real model flies. How's that
do you suppose?.
> Add the
>graphics model into that, and it takes up quite a lot of cpu cycles.
Most of them being handles by the graphics accelerator cards.
> When
>the program was first made, it had to have system requirements that did not
>require a top of the line computer. We could not assume everyone would own
>a 10,000 dollar computer.
"We"?
> Compromises were made, as is the case in any
>product. Collision detection was not considered as important as making the
>plane fly as realistic as possible.
Apparently the realism for helicopters wasn't considered as important
either.
> Now that we have much more powerful
>cpu's and graphics cards, they can add in more features.
New features aren't needed, bug fixes are.
> This has been
>discussed, and I know there is great interest in adding this in.
>
>Being a CS and Math major, this feature interests me more than most.
Again, not to sound too argumentative, but what have YOUR personal
interests got to do with the realism of the heli modelling? Your job (or
what you enjoy doing while you're at work) has no bearing on what the
sim NEEDS.
> There
>are people that spend there lives simply making algorithms for collision
>detection. The math can be extremely complicated, and there are many
>different ways to implement it. Basically, its not a simple cut and paste.
>I could spend months just optimizing and tweaking various algorithms to work
>better in a physics engine. People that do this for a living obviously
>cannot devote that many resources, but they will want a system to be as
>realistic as needed, while not being so complicated to overly burden the
>system.
Overly burden the system to the same extent as CSM, PLEASE!
> That alone is what makes the idea so robust, and why there are so
>many people spending time on the subject.
And how many would that be? And how many are spending any time on
getting the realism up to par?
Beavis
<rws...@home.com> writes
>I am not going to fully try and pick everything apart, but I will try and
>make a few clarifications below. Just realize again, I am simply trying to
>help out from the knowledge I have available.
I can see where you THINK you're helping Ryan, but the truth is your
answers are evasive to the point of being non answers.
> You don't have to like it,
>but don't flame me for things I have no control over.
There's been no hint of a flame session.
> This thread is
>starting to go into areas I don't think is beneficial for anyone on this
>group however,
Where would that be?
And yet you now consider these to be "pointless threads!"
> Again,
>we do listen, and try to implement things as such.
Such as what as such? I've seen NO improvement in RFD and I've not HEARD
of any improvements either.
>
>> >
>> >Now with that out of the way, so no one can make any angry comments about
>> >this or that, this is what I can say and still have a job waiting for me
>> >tomorrow. Real Flight is constantly under improvement, and they are
>always
>> >working on new products.
>>
>> That's as may be Ryan, but what about the products they've already made,
>> but aren't up to snuff?
>
>"Real Flight is constantly under improvement" nuff said
Nuff said??? Hardly. Inform us of the improvements that have been
developed and are available either for download or purchase and you get
a bit closer to "nuff said", but not before.
>
>>
>> > Some examples being the Add-Ons, RF Deluxe, Real
>> >Race, etc... I do know they listen to everyone's comments, and I make
>sure
>> >many of them, well the ones I feel are realistically possible :), are
>> >vocally passed on with as much weight as I can add.
>>
>> And exactly how much weight IS that?
>
>As much weight as e-mail every day to the people that make the decisions can
>add. I make no promises, but I do try to help improve upon the product with
>consumers and my own ideas.
And how many of these ideas and improvements have made their way onto
the CD?
>
>>
>> > Further, other
>> >companies are finally releasing programs that can compete on the same
>level
>> >in terms of realism and graphics.
>>
>> On realism, RealFlight falls WAY behind the rest. Graphically, it's very
>> good, and I actually think it's important to have a realistic LOOKING
>> sim, but it needs backing up with realistic flight modelling too. After
>> all, it's supposed to simulate FLIGHT more than looks. (isn't it?) What
>> are Great Planes doing to sort out the failings?
>
>What programs have you been flying?
I've tried the majority over the years, from the original Aerochopper
for the Atari (which you most CERTAINLY wouldn't throttle up into a
hover and walk away from) through 3 versions of Tru-Flite and 2 versions
of CSM. ALL simulate heli's better than RFD.
> I have tried several of the
>competitions offerings. I can throttle up, stick the thing in a hover, get
>a drink and come back with it still waiting for me.
Try the original Ambrosia Aerochopper on the Atari. The one with the
separate interface for the port in the side of the ST, not the later
versions.
>
>>
>> > I have tested these, and although I still
>> >feel the physics need some tweaking, especially in the heli area, they
>are
>> >miles ahead of the level achieved in past attempts.
>>
>> I can't speak about how things were, not that I think that matters in
>> the least, only how things are, and I think "tweaking" the flight
>> physics is probably the wrong word. Overhauling would be closer.
>>
>> > I will not add any
>> >names, although I am sure most of you know of them.
>>
>> Are you talking about other MANUFACTURERS sims? If so, the flight
>> modelling of MOST of the other sims reaches beyond that of RealFlight.
>
>I am referring to other R/C sims.
So am I.
> MS FS 2000 etc... may be more realistic,
FS is totally UN realistic, but it's not even up for discussion. Apples
and oranges.
>but aren't exactly modeled to the R/C community.
For that reason.
>
>>
>> > In other words, do not
>> >think we will sit by and let the competition pass us.
>>
>> RealFlight, being probably the LAST heli sim to hit the market, aren't
>> in the position of letting the competition "pass them", rather they're
>> in the position of having ALL the competitions products to LEARN from
>> IMPROVE on and BETTER. Apparently none of which they did.
>
>Again which products are you referring to?
Tru-Flite, Aerochopper, CSM you name 'em.
> I have yet to find an R/C sim
>that is as realistic in the heli and plane area.
If you think that RFD simulates heli flying well, then you need to spend
some REAL time flying helicopters. I've done it for 26 years and I've
not found ONE heli in RFD that flies like the HUNDREDS of real heli's
I've flown.
>
>> >
>> >Simply, be patient, they are trying hard not to disapoint. All your
>> >questions will be answered when either:
>> >
>> >A)A new patch is released
>>
>> Which is due out when?
>
>We tend to release a patch every few months, which is far better than many
>other companies bost.
A patch (in computerspeak) is usually something to fix a bug, not
something to draw our attention AWAY from the bug, so in this case, RFD
aren't "patching" anything.
> Again most of these are not to fix bugs, but to
>simply add features.
But it's the BUGS that are causing the problems. New features are all
well and good, but if the basic program is flawed, then it needs sorting
before adding "features".
>
>> >
>> >or
>> >
>> >B)The press guys (they like to be first on that kind of thing) announce a
>> >new product from us.
>>
>> Which will also be when?
>
>When a press announcment is made, I can't say anything else on if or when
>this will happen.
>
>> >
>> >I again can neither confirm or deny any of the above,
>>
>> And boy do we love secrets, carrot dangling, jobsworths and those who
>> profess to be "in the know" but keep their mouths closed.
>
>Sorry not trying to do that, I am simply trying to say we are not going to
>just leave the product be and go on to other things.
So we can expect RFD to simulate heli's a little more "RealFlightly"
when?
> I just don't feel it
>is my place to say anything more. I am in a delicate position, and I feel
>caution is the better side to stay on.
Like I said. Jobsworth.
>
>>
>> >but do not think we
>> >are lying when we give the standard "We are always making improvements to
>> >Real Flight to make sure it offers the best and most realistic R/C
>> >experience available for the general consumer."
>>
>> When are we going to SEE these improvements?
>> >
>> >So now that I have not answered your question, are there any other
>questions
>> >on the existing product?
>>
>> More questions to not answer? I don't think so.
>>
>> > I finally got a new account setup, and put my
>> >network behind a nice firewall, so I will be more visible on the
>newsgroups.
>>
>> Being visible isn't any use unless you've got some useful information to
>> share, instead of what you've "shared" in this post. Sorry to be so
>> harsh, but re-read what you've written and tell me I'm wrong.
>
>I stated that as a wholehearted offer to help anyone who has questions or
>problems with the program, since you may be able to get an answer out of me
>sooner than Great Planes.
It doesn't appear that we CAN get an answer out of you though does it?
> I just can't talk about things that will be
>happening in the future.
Well talking about things in the past is going to get pretty boring
pretty quickly.
> That seems reasonable right?
To not talk about things that will be happening in the future? Not at
all reasonable. The words "Cop out" spring to mind.
> Just put yourself in
>my shoes.
I couldn't do that. I always speak my mind and bollocks to the
consequences.
>
>>
>> >Anyone is welcome to reply directly to the e-mail listed here, etc...
>Just
>> >realize this is a home account, and I do this on my personal time.
>>
>> We all do it on our personal time.
>
>Yeah and taking that further, this is supposed to be a hobby.
So it is, but when I spend the money on a product that's vaunted as "the
best" only to find it's actually the worst, I feel I have the right to
ask why that is. I'm only sorry you don't feel the need to answer is as
strong as my need to ask.
> I came here
>to further my knowledge in it, and maybe meet a few people. I have no
>problems with you, I have heard far worse believe me, so lets just try and
>focus on the good things, since this is supposed to be fun. That was my
>point, stating there is no reason to be angry, etc...
I don't detect any anger. I'm not angry anyway, but inquisitive to the
point where I've asked a question, for which I received a non answer.
>
>>
>> > Nothing
>> >stated here can be considered the word of Great Planes Model
>Manufacturing,
>> >just my own opinions.
>>
>> Not to be too picky, but what use are your opinions if they differ from
>> GP's?
>
>Taking that form of logic, what use are your opinions since you don't even
>work there?
First of all I don't come on here "representing" anyone but me, unlike
you who comes here presenting yourself as the voice of RFD and I don't
need to work there to know the sim isn't a good sim.
> Obviously, if you didn't think your opinion held some weight,
>you would not waste the time with this lengthy reply. Basically, I am doing
>this on my own free time. If someone sees this, they should see it as my
>thoughts, and not take what I say as say a Great Planes press release,
I'm sure no one DOES think of your comments as a GP release.
Others who can already do the manoeuvre learn how to deal with the
differences.
NMVS
put my RFD up for sale months ago at a price well below 'new retail' but
nobody wanted to buy it... :-(
The "RealPhysics(tm)" <LOL> flight model is impossible - feed in anything
like true figures for my 'flip abouts' and the damn thing goes completely
haywire, squirrely as hell... The _only_ good thing about RFD is the pretty
graphics - Smoke & a realistic looking heli do help regain orientation when
it has gone haywire... <LOL>
Horse => Glue... Haha, it is so knackered they wouldn't even bother with
that, just burn it...
CSM's flight modelling may have less user input but at least a heli flies
much like the Real Thing...
NB: I have ZERO commercial connection with CSM...
Ciao...
Nick...
--
Nick M.V.Salmon... Southwest UK... NM...@dial.pipex.com
"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote
Ryan
> >physics model for Real Flight is a lot more complex than CSM's.
>
> yet the CSM physics better represent how a real model flies. How's that
> do you suppose?.
>
> >graphics model into that, and it takes up quite a lot of cpu cycles.
>
Not true, Transform, lighting, and clipping are still done on the cpu, and
can be some of the most intensive parts of the rendering process. Add that
in with the physics model, whereas CSM only has to deal with physics and
some very basic 2d rendering, and the system requirements start to rise
heavily.
>
> > When
> >the program was first made, it had to have system requirements that did
not
> >require a top of the line computer. We could not assume everyone would
own
> >a 10,000 dollar computer.
>
> "We"?
As in the company I work for, that distributes the program. I am part of
Real Flight, for better or worse, hence I can say we and have it be legal.
>
> > Compromises were made, as is the case in any
> >product. Collision detection was not considered as important as making
the
> >plane fly as realistic as possible.
>
> Apparently the realism for helicopters wasn't considered as important
> either.
Helicopters werent part of the program at that time, this was in 1997 when
Real Flight standard had first come out.
>
> > Now that we have much more powerful
> >cpu's and graphics cards, they can add in more features.
>
> New features aren't needed, bug fixes are.
Get the latest version, 1.20.191, look at the control panel, uninstaller,
etc... and take your foot out of your mouth.
>
> > This has been
> >discussed, and I know there is great interest in adding this in.
> >
> >Being a CS and Math major, this feature interests me more than most.
>
> Again, not to sound too argumentative, but what have YOUR personal
> interests got to do with the realism of the heli modelling? Your job (or
> what you enjoy doing while you're at work) has no bearing on what the
> sim NEEDS.
Where did I ever in that statement make a correlation to Real Flight.
Everyone has things that interest them, and ideas behind Collision
Detection, Curved Surfaces, and 3d Modeling happen to be a few of mine. How
does Real Flight fit into that statement?
> > There
> >are people that spend there lives simply making algorithms for collision
> >detection. The math can be extremely complicated, and there are many
> >different ways to implement it. Basically, its not a simple cut and
paste.
> >I could spend months just optimizing and tweaking various algorithms to
work
> >better in a physics engine. People that do this for a living obviously
> >cannot devote that many resources, but they will want a system to be as
> >realistic as needed, while not being so complicated to overly burden the
> >system.
>
> Overly burden the system to the same extent as CSM, PLEASE!
Read my statement above about the added graphics modeling, or better yet
goto a hardware site and read on what actually happens in the rendering
process. CSM does not burden the system as much because it uses an older
less intensive modeling system for graphics. 3D can take up almost 80% of
the cpus cycles at times, even with an accelerator card.
>
> > That alone is what makes the idea so robust, and why there are so
> >many people spending time on the subject.
>
> And how many would that be? And how many are spending any time on
> getting the realism up to par?
Sir, this is in general, with very respected people in the 3D graphics
field, at places like SGI, Universities, etc.... Why do you have this
constant thought process that every statement I make is related to what goes
on inside Knife Edge.
Ryan
MArmitstead
> The one thing I would love to know, is who
> actually test flew the thing in the first place?
>
> Tim.
Tim,
There's a rolling credits screen under help,the test flyers names
come up there.Dwight Shilling,Steve Poretz and Ron Osinski were some of
the names probably asked to fly the heli's.
Stephen Emert
Please give me one example of a complicated piece of software that worked
perfectly with no bugs when it was released.
I too am a programmer and reading your rants on here has made me realize
that you have very little knowledge of what really goes into programming
today's software.
Program development includes teams of programmers, each responsible for
little pieces that makeup the whole. Most of the time you are lucky if
everyone actually speaks English.
The programmers are only part of the problem. You also have to consider the
GUI used today. We are talking MICROSOFT WINDOWS! How can you make a piece
of bug free software when it is expected to run through an interface FULL OF
BUGS!
What is worse is the fact that if you can get MS to admit to the bug, they
are so secretive about their stuff that you will be lucky to get it worked
out in time to get your software to market.
Plug and Prey is no help either.
If a software company actually stopped and tried to make a program bug free
for Win95/98,
by the time they got it working, they would be broke because no one would
still have Win95/98 installed on their computers.
Of course, as I said earlier, because of all the problems in Win95/98,
making a bug free program is impossible......
With that aside..... your arguments with the flight physics may be
viable.....
All I know is that I have gotten many recommendations for using this
software as a first step to heli flight. Unless the government funds the
development of an R/C simulator... they will never be "Just like the real
thing" that you are requesting. In my research into the purchase of sims I
have discovered that there is at least a dozen of you for every sim on the
market. So in my eyes, saying "this one or that one is better because...."
is pointless.....
You will never be truly pleased with what will be available,so don't buy
them.
Why would you want one since you are a seasoned pilot anyways?
The basic point of the sim in my eyes is to get used to the stick
orientation vs. visual without a real crash. Which RFD does as well as any.
I am suffering from "panic=airplane" disease...
Or I should say was suffering, now............
You are right that they should do something for those people with
(in)compatible radios...
They should refund their money, which they would probably do if asked.
(Otherwise they might get a lawsuit)...
Why would anyone want a "real" simulation of R/C? The point is supposed to
be to get out and do it in the physical world.....
I, as a newbie to Heli's appreciate your contribution to this list. They
have been very helpful, but when you start classifying people as seen here:
> special for which the normal rules don't apply. Computer programmers are
> notorious for "pumping themselves up" and TRYING to give the "I'm the
> only one around here who knows what he's talking about" argument, in
> order to cover up their own shortcomings, but it falls on deaf ears when
> it falls on mine.
You may be harming your image more than you think. I for one take personal
offense at that statement.
I think this thread, beyond the first couple of posts has been completely
non-productive..........
Stephen Emert
sem...@usit.net
she...@tntech.edu
s...@ornl.gov
http://rdfnstuff.webjump.com
"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:69Fz6KAi...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
> In article <Lsrh5.124994$dF.32...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, Ryan
> <rws...@home.com> writes
> >Like I said earlier, be patient,
>
> I am patient.
>
> > you wont be disappointed.
>
> AND disappointed :-)
>
Stephen Emert
people in general.....
That was the reason for the numerous examples of things that complicate a
programming project.
As for the reality of an R/C sim....
I still cannot see how it could viably allow one to practice a real world
experience.
It appears that most of the companies producing these are too small to ever
develop the system to perfection. Look at Falcon 3.0, the flight sim. The
only reason it was so good is because the technology used in it was
developed by them for the Governments own simulator. We (as taxpayers) all
put millions of dollars into the technology that produced that sim and the
ones which followed (through technology license). And people say they suck
for hundreds of reasons!
That will never happen with R/C sims..... Unless the Gov. develops an R/C
airforce...
I also cannot see how, beyond simple orientation, a sim can be useful. The
screen is too small. A model at 10 ft in a sim looks nothing like a model at
10 ft. in real life. Until we all have our own Holo-decks.... I just don't
see it.
Now maybe if we had a few supercomputers and a 360 degree screen like in the
military sims, it might be more realistic.
If you say the other sims are better, then I will believe that, because you
have been at this a lot longer than I. But like I said, there are people who
can list a dozen problems or more with each on the market.
Why did you not simply demand a refund since you think it sucks so bad?
As a veteran salesman, I am sure you know that the customers final choice in
where they spend their money is the ultimate form of customer feedback...
Buy the other one and never look back....
Like you said, I plan on selling mine as soon as I have mastered that stick
orientation problem and stop thinking of planes in a panic...(really close
now on nose in).......
I have looked at the box and it does make a lot of tall claims. But I have
never bought anything that lives up to it's claims. Vitamins don't make you
feel better. Driving a hot car doesn't guarantee you will get laid.
Etc........Etc........ you get my drift..... You were in sales!
The thing I think is really stupid about RFD is in the license agreement
they say that I can never sell the system to anyone else... That is true
BS!
But then all the software companies are doing it.... (Bastards!)
I am not going to Email them complaints about it when I know it will not
help, but I will look twice before I purchase another software product from
that company.
As for the choice of reading your posts..... How can I not.....???
I might miss something really important or useful..... How can you expect me
to ignore them?
The voice of experience is still the most valuable asset that costs us
nothing......
When there are those who are willing to share....
and I know a good deal when I see it.....
"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Fg6sNNAe...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
> In article <kCIh5.7977$SM4.5...@nntp2.onemain.com>, Stephen Emert
> <sem...@USIT.NET> writes
> >Beav,
> >
> >Please give me one example of a complicated piece of software that worked
> >perfectly with no bugs when it was released.
>
> Can't. but there ARE examples of software users being listened to and
> their questions being answered. There are also examples of software
> being improved.
> >
> >I too am a programmer and reading your rants on here has made me realize
> >that you have very little knowledge of what really goes into programming
> >today's software.
>
> I have NO knowledge of programming, but I DID retire at 38 after a very
> short lifetime in sales. You don't do that by selling something that
> doesn't live up to it's claims.
> >
> >Program development includes teams of programmers, each responsible for
> >little pieces that makeup the whole. Most of the time you are lucky if
> >everyone actually speaks English.
>
> Not interested Stephen. The world is FULL of people ready to blame
> someone else and quite frankly it's a poor excuse.
> >
> >The programmers are only part of the problem. You also have to consider
the
> >GUI used today. We are talking MICROSOFT WINDOWS! How can you make a
piece
> >of bug free software when it is expected to run through an interface FULL
OF
> >BUGS!
>
> The bugs in RFD have nothing to do with the bugs in Windows. You know it
> and I know it. There isn't a problem RUNNING RealFlight, the problem is
> in the realism. Tru-Flite 3D has translational lift and their heli's
> don't "fall over" in FFF. Why?
> >
> >What is worse is the fact that if you can get MS to admit to the bug,
they
> >are so secretive about their stuff that you will be lucky to get it
worked
> >out in time to get your software to market.
>
> MS isn't the issue.
> >
> >Plug and Prey is no help either.
> >
> >If a software company actually stopped and tried to make a program bug
free
> >for Win95/98,
> >by the time they got it working, they would be broke because no one would
> >still have Win95/98 installed on their computers.
>
> >
> >Of course, as I said earlier, because of all the problems in Win95/98,
> >making a bug free program is impossible......
>
> And a bad workman always blames his tools.
> >
> >With that aside..... your arguments with the flight physics may be
> >viable.....
>
> They ARE viable. RFD doesn't "do it" where the majority of other RC sims
> do. I just think it would be nice if RFD told us what they're doing
> about it and when (if) they're going to fix it.
> >
> >All I know is that I have gotten many recommendations for using this
> >software as a first step to heli flight. Unless the government funds the
> >development of an R/C simulator... they will never be "Just like the real
> >thing" that you are requesting.
>
> CSM is streets ahead in the realism department, and disputing that will
> bring LOTS of arguments.
>
> >In my research into the purchase of sims I
> >have discovered that there is at least a dozen of you for every sim on
the
> >market. So in my eyes, saying "this one or that one is better
because...."
> >is pointless.....
> >
> >You will never be truly pleased with what will be available,so don't buy
> >them.
> >Why would you want one since you are a seasoned pilot anyways?
>
> Why would I want one? Same reason as most folk here. They're "supposed"
> to be fun and they do allow for some enjoyment when the weather
> precludes a trip to the field. Simple really when you think about it.
> >
> >The basic point of the sim in my eyes is to get used to the stick
> >orientation vs. visual without a real crash. Which RFD does as well as
any.
>
> This is a very basic use of the RFD sim and it does that very well, but
> as you progress to more advanced flying, you may want to try out your
> planned manoeuvres on the sim before attempting them in the real world.
> Do it with "RealFlight" and the manoeuvres aren't even close to being
> real. But going from what you've said, you'd have sold yours when
> orientation ceases to be a problem anyway.
>
> >I am suffering from "panic=airplane" disease...
> >Or I should say was suffering, now............
> >
> >You are right that they should do something for those people with
> >(in)compatible radios...
> >They should refund their money, which they would probably do if asked.
> >(Otherwise they might get a lawsuit)...
>
> When I got RealFlight I intended using my "everyday" radio which is a
> PCM 10. No mention from RealFlight that it wasn't compatible with the
> 10's, in fact quite the opposite. Not exactly "up front" I'd say, but I
> was fortunate in that I also had a Robbe FC28 sitting here which I've
> used ever since I discovered this. Not everyone has this option.
> >
> >Why would anyone want a "real" simulation of R/C?
>
> ????
>
> >The point is supposed to
> >be to get out and do it in the physical world.....
>
> The point is that a sim can help in coming BACK from the physical world
> with an intact heli.
> >
> >I, as a newbie to Heli's appreciate your contribution to this list. They
> >have been very helpful, but when you start classifying people as seen
here:
> >
> >> special for which the normal rules don't apply. Computer programmers
are
> >> notorious for "pumping themselves up" and TRYING to give the "I'm the
> >> only one around here who knows what he's talking about" argument, in
> >> order to cover up their own shortcomings, but it falls on deaf ears
when
> >> it falls on mine.
> >
> >You may be harming your image more than you think.
>
> I'm not into ego tripping so "harming my image" doesn't come into it.
>
> >I for one take personal
> >offense at that statement.
>
> That's your prerogative. I fly regularly with 3 full time programmers
> and they ALL try the "blinding with science" thing and they all ADMIT
> they do, especially when they're discussing computers with non computer
> literates.
> >
> >I think this thread, beyond the first couple of posts has been completely
> >non-productive..........
>
> There's an option available.
Timothy Morris
Stephen,
I think the point that Beavis is trying to make is that there are a number
of simulators that don't have "real" in the title, don't have 200 parameters
to enter, have been around for a while, but simulate the flight of models
far better.
Sure stick movements are fine when you are learning to hover, but when you
want to start using the sim to practise circuits or autorotations, the sim
needs to be a much closer match to reality. When you want to start inverted
flight, or 3D (which is the sort of thing advanced pilots like Beavis want
ot use a sim for), the sim needs to be a closer match to reality.
Great Planes and Knifeedge have been aware that the modelling of heli flight
is inadequate compared to competitve sims since it was first released. I
pre-ordered it from the US, and have been trying to fly it since the early
days, and certainly made Scott Kemp aware of it within a couple of weeks. I
have tried to hook him up with one of the top fliers on this list to help
him with testing, but he only replies to about 10% of my emails, even though
I am trying to help him fix his product. Since then we have seen nothing
from them on this, BUT they have produced add-on disks. As a programmer
think of this much simplified analogy. You are paid to produce a Celsius to
Farenheit calculator, and after release are informed that it is not
accurate. Should you not have tested the program more thoroughly? Rather
than fix the original code, you start selling an add-on that converts
Celsius to Kelvin. How would your customers who had bought the original
package in good faith feel? I think that part of the problem is that
helicopter pilots are in the minority, and there is more revenue in
producing more "plane-type" add-ons than improving the flight-model so that
more heli pilots convert from othe sims.
The thing that winds him up (I know, I spoke to him today), is that the
party line from Great Planes (Ryan) is that "Realflight is better than the
other sims out there" when it is clear to anyone who has progressed beyond
basic hovering that it is not. Scott has told me that they wil be working on
the heli flight model. The question is: Why has it taken so long, and when
will those of us who have had a deficient product for some time get what we
were sold?
Now I don't think anyone can call that a rant. If you know of any further
information, then please feel free to let me know.
Tim
Beavis
<rws...@home.com> writes
>> In article <Yivh5.125251$dF.32...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, Ryan
>> <rws...@home.com> writes
>> >physics model for Real Flight is a lot more complex than CSM's.
>>
>> yet the CSM physics better represent how a real model flies. How's that
>> do you suppose?.
>>
>> >graphics model into that, and it takes up quite a lot of cpu cycles.
>>
>
>Not true, Transform, lighting, and clipping are still done on the cpu, and
>can be some of the most intensive parts of the rendering process. Add that
>in with the physics model, whereas CSM only has to deal with physics and
>some very basic 2d rendering, and the system requirements start to rise
>heavily.
Ok, I don't profess to be a computer 'spurt, but RFD seems to work well
enough with my ancient AMD 400. Not exactly a 10 HUNDRED dollar machine,
let alone a 10 THOUSAND dollar one.
>
>>
>> > When
>> >the program was first made, it had to have system requirements that did
>not
>> >require a top of the line computer. We could not assume everyone would
>own
>> >a 10,000 dollar computer.
>>
>> "We"?
>
>As in the company I work for, that distributes the program. I am part of
>Real Flight, for better or worse, hence I can say we and have it be legal.
We then.
>
>>
>> > Compromises were made, as is the case in any
>> >product. Collision detection was not considered as important as making
>the
>> >plane fly as realistic as possible.
>>
>> Apparently the realism for helicopters wasn't considered as important
>> either.
>
>Helicopters werent part of the program at that time, this was in 1997 when
>Real Flight standard had first come out.
You released "Deluxe" so presumable you did some development work on the
heli side of things before selling it? How come the realism aspect
wasn't considered then?
>
>>
>> > Now that we have much more powerful
>> >cpu's and graphics cards, they can add in more features.
>>
>> New features aren't needed, bug fixes are.
>
>Get the latest version, 1.20.191, look at the control panel, uninstaller,
>etc... and take your foot out of your mouth.
I've GOT the latest version. The thing STILL doesn't handle like a
helicopter, but of course you wouldn't know that. (See, I can be as
shitty as you!)
>
>>
>> > This has been
>> >discussed, and I know there is great interest in adding this in.
>> >
>> >Being a CS and Math major, this feature interests me more than most.
>>
>> Again, not to sound too argumentative, but what have YOUR personal
>> interests got to do with the realism of the heli modelling? Your job (or
>> what you enjoy doing while you're at work) has no bearing on what the
>> sim NEEDS.
>
>Where did I ever in that statement make a correlation to Real Flight.
What are we TALKING about if not RealFlight?.
>Everyone has things that interest them, and ideas behind Collision
>Detection, Curved Surfaces, and 3d Modeling happen to be a few of mine. How
>does Real Flight fit into that statement?
Well RFD contains some of those features for a start.
>
>> > There
>> >are people that spend there lives simply making algorithms for collision
>> >detection. The math can be extremely complicated, and there are many
>> >different ways to implement it. Basically, its not a simple cut and
>paste.
>> >I could spend months just optimizing and tweaking various algorithms to
>work
>> >better in a physics engine. People that do this for a living obviously
>> >cannot devote that many resources, but they will want a system to be as
>> >realistic as needed, while not being so complicated to overly burden the
>> >system.
>>
>> Overly burden the system to the same extent as CSM, PLEASE!
>
>Read my statement above about the added graphics modeling, or better yet
>goto a hardware site and read on what actually happens in the rendering
>process.
I have absolutely NO interest in rendering, computers or mathematical
algorithms, I simply want what I buy to do what the ads say it does, and
if it doesn't, I want to know why.
>CSM does not burden the system as much because it uses an older
>less intensive modeling system for graphics. 3D can take up almost 80% of
>the cpus cycles at times, even with an accelerator card.
And all these cycles mean a sacrifice in translational lift and poor
aerodynamics?
>
>>
>> > That alone is what makes the idea so robust, and why there are so
>> >many people spending time on the subject.
>>
>> And how many would that be? And how many are spending any time on
>> getting the realism up to par?
>
>Sir, this is in general, with very respected people in the 3D graphics
>field, at places like SGI, Universities, etc.... Why do you have this
>constant thought process that every statement I make is related to what goes
>on inside Knife Edge.
Other than the fact that this discussion is centred around Knife Edge's
RealFlight Deluxe 3D, and your announcement that you work for and will
answer questions on behalf of Great Planes, who ARE responsible for
launching RFD onto the unsuspecting heli flyers of the world, I have NO
idea!
Beavis
writes
>DITTO Beavis - I'm fed up of waiting for what was originaly advertised..! I
>put my RFD up for sale months ago at a price well below 'new retail' but
>nobody wanted to buy it... :-(
I can see why too!
>
>The "RealPhysics(tm)" <LOL>
Hehehehe
> flight model is impossible - feed in anything
>like true figures for my 'flip abouts' and the damn thing goes completely
>haywire, squirrely as hell...
Yep.
> The _only_ good thing about RFD is the pretty
>graphics - Smoke & a realistic looking heli do help regain orientation when
>it has gone haywire... <LOL>
Hahaha :-)
>
>Horse => Glue... Haha, it is so knackered they wouldn't even bother with
>that, just burn it...
Worse yet. They'd use it as fuel to burn something useful :-)
>
>CSM's flight modelling may have less user input but at least a heli flies
>much like the Real Thing...
Wanna swap?
>
>NB: I have ZERO commercial connection with CSM...
Or me.
Later Nick
Beavis
>
>Please give me one example of a complicated piece of software that worked
>perfectly with no bugs when it was released.
Can't. but there ARE examples of software users being listened to and
their questions being answered. There are also examples of software
being improved.
>
>I too am a programmer and reading your rants on here has made me realize
>that you have very little knowledge of what really goes into programming
>today's software.
I have NO knowledge of programming, but I DID retire at 38 after a very
short lifetime in sales. You don't do that by selling something that
doesn't live up to it's claims.
>
>Program development includes teams of programmers, each responsible for
>little pieces that makeup the whole. Most of the time you are lucky if
>everyone actually speaks English.
Not interested Stephen. The world is FULL of people ready to blame
someone else and quite frankly it's a poor excuse.
>
>The programmers are only part of the problem. You also have to consider the
>GUI used today. We are talking MICROSOFT WINDOWS! How can you make a piece
>of bug free software when it is expected to run through an interface FULL OF
>BUGS!
The bugs in RFD have nothing to do with the bugs in Windows. You know it
and I know it. There isn't a problem RUNNING RealFlight, the problem is
in the realism. Tru-Flite 3D has translational lift and their heli's
don't "fall over" in FFF. Why?
>
>What is worse is the fact that if you can get MS to admit to the bug, they
>are so secretive about their stuff that you will be lucky to get it worked
>out in time to get your software to market.
MS isn't the issue.
>
>Plug and Prey is no help either.
>
>If a software company actually stopped and tried to make a program bug free
>for Win95/98,
>by the time they got it working, they would be broke because no one would
>still have Win95/98 installed on their computers.
>
>Of course, as I said earlier, because of all the problems in Win95/98,
>making a bug free program is impossible......
And a bad workman always blames his tools.
>
>With that aside..... your arguments with the flight physics may be
>viable.....
They ARE viable. RFD doesn't "do it" where the majority of other RC sims
do. I just think it would be nice if RFD told us what they're doing
about it and when (if) they're going to fix it.
>
>All I know is that I have gotten many recommendations for using this
>software as a first step to heli flight. Unless the government funds the
>development of an R/C simulator... they will never be "Just like the real
>thing" that you are requesting.
CSM is streets ahead in the realism department, and disputing that will
bring LOTS of arguments.
>In my research into the purchase of sims I
>have discovered that there is at least a dozen of you for every sim on the
>market. So in my eyes, saying "this one or that one is better because...."
>is pointless.....
>
>You will never be truly pleased with what will be available,so don't buy
>them.
>Why would you want one since you are a seasoned pilot anyways?
Why would I want one? Same reason as most folk here. They're "supposed"
to be fun and they do allow for some enjoyment when the weather
precludes a trip to the field. Simple really when you think about it.
>
>The basic point of the sim in my eyes is to get used to the stick
>orientation vs. visual without a real crash. Which RFD does as well as any.
This is a very basic use of the RFD sim and it does that very well, but
as you progress to more advanced flying, you may want to try out your
planned manoeuvres on the sim before attempting them in the real world.
Do it with "RealFlight" and the manoeuvres aren't even close to being
real. But going from what you've said, you'd have sold yours when
orientation ceases to be a problem anyway.
>I am suffering from "panic=airplane" disease...
>Or I should say was suffering, now............
>
>You are right that they should do something for those people with
>(in)compatible radios...
>They should refund their money, which they would probably do if asked.
>(Otherwise they might get a lawsuit)...
When I got RealFlight I intended using my "everyday" radio which is a
PCM 10. No mention from RealFlight that it wasn't compatible with the
10's, in fact quite the opposite. Not exactly "up front" I'd say, but I
was fortunate in that I also had a Robbe FC28 sitting here which I've
used ever since I discovered this. Not everyone has this option.
>
>Why would anyone want a "real" simulation of R/C?
????
>The point is supposed to
>be to get out and do it in the physical world.....
The point is that a sim can help in coming BACK from the physical world
with an intact heli.
>
>I, as a newbie to Heli's appreciate your contribution to this list. They
>have been very helpful, but when you start classifying people as seen here:
>
>> special for which the normal rules don't apply. Computer programmers are
>> notorious for "pumping themselves up" and TRYING to give the "I'm the
>> only one around here who knows what he's talking about" argument, in
>> order to cover up their own shortcomings, but it falls on deaf ears when
>> it falls on mine.
>
>You may be harming your image more than you think.
I'm not into ego tripping so "harming my image" doesn't come into it.
>I for one take personal
>offense at that statement.
That's your prerogative. I fly regularly with 3 full time programmers
and they ALL try the "blinding with science" thing and they all ADMIT
they do, especially when they're discussing computers with non computer
literates.
>
>I think this thread, beyond the first couple of posts has been completely
>non-productive..........
There's an option available.
fjre...@my-deja.com
Beavis <Bea...@XXXXnachos.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8m5imq$2ka$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fjre...@my-deja.com writes
> > Not everyone is as disappointed as Beavis.
>
> I suspect some are even MORE disappointed than me.
>
And maybe some less...
> > I flew the CSM simulator
> >for quite a while before getting RFD and thought that RFD was quite
an
> >improvement over CSM. The graphics, sound and adjustablility are
tops.
>
> The graphics ARE tops, no arguments there, but "adjustability"? I
don't
> think there's one parameter on RFD that equates to real life heli's.
> Even the wind is pissed. Crank it up to 10 mph and the thing is almost
> unflyable. Crash the heli with a 10mph wind and watch it get blown
along
> the ground. Now that IS RealFlight.
Sounds like you're looking for the holy grail of simulators.
Considering that RFD priced out ($220) pretty close to CSM($190) when I
bought it (one of the first shipments), I think it showed an advance
for the money.
>
> >The flight model is a little wierd, but not as completely broken as
> >Beavis makes it sound (just my opinion, it flies close enough to the
> >real helis I own).
>
> So your heli's don't pick up translational lift, the tail rotors are
> only as effective when you fly forwards as they are in the hover, they
> roll to the left (for a clockwise rotor system) and dive to the ground
> at any speed close to "normal" FFF. Let's just look at that for a sec.
>
> Trim a clockwise rotating heli for a good hover and then go
immediately
> to FFF. If you don't re-trim, your heli will roll to the RIGHT, it
will
> CLIMB and it will be dragged or pushed into a right yaw turn by
> increased tail rotor effectiveness. RFD simulates this just about as
> badly as it's possible to simulate it. It does EVERYTHING arse about
> face. It rolls LEFT, it DIVES and nothing happens to the yaw!
>
Funny, I don't remember much of that from my old CSM v9 either. If it
was there it wasn't all that noticable I guess.
> Also, the blades have so much inertia that you can hover for a month
at
> the end of an auto,
In all honesty, the CSM sim is much easier to auto than RFD, at least
for me.
>the nose drops like a brick when the throttle hold
> switch is flipped for an auto and you need to go back to positive
pitch
> (thereby losing rotor speed) before you can raise it again? Not that
it
> matters, because even with a rotor speed of next to nothing, you can
> still land the thing.
>
> > The one feature that the CSM sim had that RealFlight
> >absolutely needs, however, is object collison detection.
>
> Then there's that of course.
>
> > While we're at
> >it, things to fly around and through would also be nice. The CSM sim
> >excelled in this aspect, and made me a much better pilot as I flew
> >through the various goal posts, tunnels, tents and power poles.
Flying
> >around just trying to avoid the ground is fine while hovering, but
gets
> >very boring beyond that. Not that you'd actually do these things in
> >real life,
>
> But some of us DO do those things. Flying through goal posts is a
> national pastime at our field.
>
> >but it really adds to the replay factor if you ask me.
>
> As does flying a sim that flies like a model.
>
> When I first got RFD, I thought it was pretty good, but as I've had
more
> time on it, the shortcomings became more apparent. I won't say it
sucks,
> but I will say it s :-)
>
Well I can guarantee, unless you were a beta tester, that I've had it
as long as you and I don't think it's that bad. Everything is relative,
and you can't expect everything in the first version of anything. I
think it shows an improvement over the CSM sim and it paved the way for
a more serious approach to heli sims for R/C. Sure it has shortcomings,
what doesn't, still it's good enough to practice on and it has already
saved alot of people (including me) it's cost in crash repairs.
> Beav
>
> You can E-Mail me at the usual place (Beavis at nachos dot demon dot
co dot uk)
>
> Or you can visit my website (Which has undergone recent surgery) Same
address as
> before..
>
> www.nachos.demon.co.uk
>
>
Timothy Morris
"Stephen Emert" <sem...@USIT.NET> wrote in message
news:XtLh5.6583$1V.6...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> Most of my post was simply expressing my dislike of your stereotyping CSc.
> people in general.....
> That was the reason for the numerous examples of things that complicate a
> programming project.
>
> As for the reality of an R/C sim....
>
> I still cannot see how it could viably allow one to practice a real world
> experience.
> It appears that most of the companies producing these are too small to
ever
> develop the system to perfection. Look at Falcon 3.0, the flight sim. The
> only reason it was so good is because the technology used in it was
> developed by them for the Governments own simulator. We (as taxpayers) all
> put millions of dollars into the technology that produced that sim and the
> ones which followed (through technology license). And people say they suck
> for hundreds of reasons!
>
Nonsense. Probably THE most realistic sim in terms of both Avionics, and
flight model is SSIs Flanker 2.0. I was a member of the beta team, and as
well as making it look VERY pretty, the programmers spent ages studying
feedback from real pilots (yes real SU-27 pilots - they have a lot of time
on their hands, as the Russians cannot afford to fly as much as they used
to, and it was a way for them to earn some extra cash). All Knifeedge needed
to do was read a few days worth of posts on this newsgroup, cherry pick the
best, and most experienced fliers, and invite them to take part in a beta
flying measured models and ask for feedback. I'll be posting a model on
here, certainly by the weekend, which flies as close to the model as I have
seen, but it has limitations:
1. There is no translational lift to speak of.
2. The tail-rotor does not become more effective in FF (again translational
lift)
3. As soon as you engage throttle hold the nose drops.
The numbers used to get the model as close as this bear absolutely no
relation to real-world numbers so how can the physics be anything like real?
The flight model is fundamentally flawed, and probably needs re-writing from
scratch. Perhaps that is why we haven't seen an update.
> That will never happen with R/C sims..... Unless the Gov. develops an R/C
> airforce...
>
> I also cannot see how, beyond simple orientation, a sim can be useful. The
> screen is too small. A model at 10 ft in a sim looks nothing like a model
at
> 10 ft. in real life. Until we all have our own Holo-decks.... I just don't
> see it.
>
> Now maybe if we had a few supercomputers and a 360 degree screen like in
the
> military sims, it might be more realistic.
Try it with a pair of 3D Revelator glasses. Wait until you start flying
circuits. I had a massive problem with left hand turns, and had a couple of
nasty crashes as a result. I spent hours on the sim - crashing on the same
manouver at first, but gradually improving over time. If you are only at the
hovering stage, then how can you talk with experience?
>
> If you say the other sims are better, then I will believe that, because
you
> have been at this a lot longer than I. But like I said, there are people
who
> can list a dozen problems or more with each on the market.
The only problem with the CSM sim is its Auto performance, and the fact that
the engines are slightly overpowered. OK it isn't pretty, and as a result it
does have the "realism" problems you talked about in the paragraphs above.
>
> Why did you not simply demand a refund since you think it sucks so bad?
It is computer software. Stores in this country do not give refunds as
readily as those in the US. In fact it is almost impossible to get a refund
for software once you have opened the box.
>
> As a veteran salesman, I am sure you know that the customers final choice
in
> where they spend their money is the ultimate form of customer feedback...
Read the box. Does it live up to the hype?
>
> Buy the other one and never look back....
>
> Like you said, I plan on selling mine as soon as I have mastered that
stick
> orientation problem and stop thinking of planes in a panic...(really close
> now on nose in).......
Keep it. With a bit of luck they will have sorted out the problems by then.
When you want to start flying 3D, unless you are incredibly talented, the
sim will save you a lot of money - provided they fix it. Why is it that
Guillaume Hastoy did 80% of his Poting Cup practice on a simulator if they
are so bad for anything other than hovering?
>
> I have looked at the box and it does make a lot of tall claims. But I have
> never bought anything that lives up to it's claims. Vitamins don't make
you
> feel better. Driving a hot car doesn't guarantee you will get laid.
> Etc........Etc........ you get my drift..... You were in sales!
I was in sales too, and was forced to retire at 28 for medical reasons. I
was selling Eurobonds in the institutional investment market ($10M average
trade - about a dozen trades a week). Regulation, coupled with the fact that
clients would talk to a number of different salesmen from different banks,
made it impossible to make false claims. I did pretty well. And I have
bought loads of things that live up to their claims. I'll give you a list if
you like.
>snip<
I see that you didn't bother to reply to what I think was a considered post,
maybe you'll do me the courtesy, both to this one, and the last.
Tim.
Timothy Morris
<snip>
> Well I can guarantee, unless you were a beta tester, that I've had it
> as long as you and I don't think it's that bad. Everything is relative,
> and you can't expect everything in the first version of anything. I
> think it shows an improvement over the CSM sim and it paved the way for
> a more serious approach to heli sims for R/C. Sure it has shortcomings,
> what doesn't, still it's good enough to practice on and it has already
> saved alot of people (including me) it's cost in crash repairs.
>
It is prettier. Try doing some flips, or inverted flying on CSM, (I've just
started - so I'm not the best to comment), and then come back and do the
same on Realflight. They are vastly different. I think if you do a straw
poll here of people that CAN fly, and have flown both, they wil tell you
that CSM is the more accurate sim.
Tim.
fjre...@my-deja.com
Everybody has to make the own decision I guess. I read some people
think it's crap and then I turn around and read that the guy who
practically invented 3D and inverted flying loves it. Unless maybe he
got paid to say he did :)
>
> Tim.
Beavis
>In article <bcYridAU...@nachos.demon.co.uk>,
> Beavis <Bea...@XXXXnachos.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <8m5imq$2ka$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fjre...@my-deja.com writes
>>
>> I suspect some are even MORE disappointed than me.
>>
>
> And maybe some less...
Without a doubt some are less, but maybe those who ARE less disappointed
aren't experienced enough with the real thing to notice the shortfall.
>
>> > I flew the CSM simulator
>> >for quite a while before getting RFD and thought that RFD was quite
>an
>> >improvement over CSM. The graphics, sound and adjustablility are
>tops.
>>
>> The graphics ARE tops, no arguments there, but "adjustability"? I
>don't
>> think there's one parameter on RFD that equates to real life heli's.
>> Even the wind is pissed. Crank it up to 10 mph and the thing is almost
>> unflyable. Crash the heli with a 10mph wind and watch it get blown
>along
>> the ground. Now that IS RealFlight.
>
> Sounds like you're looking for the holy grail of simulators.
I'd be happy with a sim that actually simulated how a heli flies.
>Considering that RFD priced out ($220) pretty close to CSM($190) when I
>bought it (one of the first shipments), I think it showed an advance
>for the money.
In some areas it does, in other, more important areas, it lags way
behind.
>
>>
>> >The flight model is a little wierd, but not as completely broken as
>> >Beavis makes it sound (just my opinion, it flies close enough to the
>> >real helis I own).
>>
>> So your heli's don't pick up translational lift, the tail rotors are
>> only as effective when you fly forwards as they are in the hover, they
>> roll to the left (for a clockwise rotor system) and dive to the ground
>> at any speed close to "normal" FFF. Let's just look at that for a sec.
>>
>> Trim a clockwise rotating heli for a good hover and then go
>immediately
>> to FFF. If you don't re-trim, your heli will roll to the RIGHT, it
>will
>> CLIMB and it will be dragged or pushed into a right yaw turn by
>> increased tail rotor effectiveness. RFD simulates this just about as
>> badly as it's possible to simulate it. It does EVERYTHING arse about
>> face. It rolls LEFT, it DIVES and nothing happens to the yaw!
>>
>
>Funny, I don't remember much of that from my old CSM v9 either. If it
>was there it wasn't all that noticable I guess.
You guess!
>
>> Also, the blades have so much inertia that you can hover for a month
>at
>> the end of an auto,
>
>In all honesty, the CSM sim is much easier to auto than RFD, at least
>for me.
Non of the sims simulate auto's very well, apart from Ambrosia's which
does, so I haven't laboured that point.
>>
>> When I first got RFD, I thought it was pretty good, but as I've had
>more
>> time on it, the shortcomings became more apparent. I won't say it
>sucks,
>> but I will say it s :-)
>>
>
>Well I can guarantee, unless you were a beta tester, that I've had it
>as long as you and I don't think it's that bad.
I didn't need it for more than an hour before I spotted some of the
faults I did spot. Having it for longer only served to show even MORE
shortcomings and the length of time we've both had it isn't relevant.
> Everything is relative,
>and you can't expect everything in the first version of anything.
Granted, but I DO expect follow ups that address KNOWN problems, and RF
have known about the problems for probably longer than even YOU'VE had
your sim, and we STILL haven't even been informed when or if a fix is in
the cards.
>I
>think it shows an improvement over the CSM sim and it paved the way for
>a more serious approach to heli sims for R/C. Sure it has shortcomings,
>what doesn't, still it's good enough to practice on and it has already
>saved alot of people (including me) it's cost in crash repairs.
I don't remember saying it's not good enough to practice on, but the
KIND of practice needs quantifying. For hovering it's excellent. For
slow forward speed manoeuvres, it's also excellent. For backward flying
it's good, providing the speed is kept down, but go beyond moderate
speeds and it shows, so for learning basic high speed circuits it's not
good, for learning loops it's next to useless, and for learning how to
trim a heli "on the fly" it's absolutely useless.
Beavis
<sem...@USIT.NET> writes
>Most of my post was simply expressing my dislike of your stereotyping CSc.
>people in general.....
A simple "Kiss my arse Beavis" would've got the message across well
enough :-)
>That was the reason for the numerous examples of things that complicate a
>programming project.
>
>As for the reality of an R/C sim....
>
>I still cannot see how it could viably allow one to practice a real world
>experience.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your thought processes here. That's what
simulators are for isn't it? To practice new things without the fear or
expense of a written off heli? Why else have them?
>It appears that most of the companies producing these are too small to ever
>develop the system to perfection.
Perfection would be nice, but I'm not looking for that. All I'm looking
for is a sim that does what the sellers SAY it does. RFD doesn't.
> Look at Falcon 3.0, the flight sim. The
>only reason it was so good is because the technology used in it was
>developed by them for the Governments own simulator. We (as taxpayers) all
>put millions of dollars into the technology that produced that sim and the
>ones which followed (through technology license). And people say they suck
>for hundreds of reasons!
>
>That will never happen with R/C sims..... Unless the Gov. develops an R/C
>airforce...
>
>I also cannot see how, beyond simple orientation, a sim can be useful.
As a RealFlight owner, you'll not learn how a sim can be useful beyond
the orientation problem either. Beyond the hover, RFD doesn't simulate,
it guesses.
>The
>screen is too small. A model at 10 ft in a sim looks nothing like a model at
>10 ft. in real life. Until we all have our own Holo-decks.... I just don't
>see it.
You MUST have heard the saying. "Size doesn't matter" :-)
>
>Now maybe if we had a few supercomputers and a 360 degree screen like in the
>military sims, it might be more realistic.
I don't fly behind me, (no one should either) so a 360 screen wouldn't
be realistic.
>
>If you say the other sims are better, then I will believe that, because you
>have been at this a lot longer than I. But like I said, there are people who
>can list a dozen problems or more with each on the market.
I'm sure they can, but it's the BASIC problems that come with RFD that
have caused my irritation. A sim that sells for close on 200 quid over
here should be capable of simulating more than a simple hover. Go out of
the hover in RF and you enter the realms of fantasy. Heli's in the real
world just don't "fly" like the heli's in RFD.
>
>Why did you not simply demand a refund since you think it sucks so bad?
Because that's akin to burying ones head in the sand or ignoring
spammers. If no one speaks out, then no one knows there's a problem so
nothing is done to address the problems and even MORE people buy a
faulty product. Remember Ralph Nader!
>
>As a veteran salesman, I am sure you know that the customers final choice in
>where they spend their money is the ultimate form of customer feedback...
No it's not. The ultimate form of customer feedback is communication and
working through a problem to a satisfactory conclusion for BOTH parties.
Simply demanding a refund is the "grown up" form of "taking my ball
home" A good salesman doesn't give his customers a choice either, he
simply sells a product that meets his customers needs better than anyone
else's.
>
>Buy the other one and never look back....
>
>Like you said, I plan on selling mine as soon as I have mastered that stick
>orientation problem and stop thinking of planes in a panic...(really close
>now on nose in).......
Keep it up, RFD is excellent for this type of simming.
>
>I have looked at the box and it does make a lot of tall claims. But I have
>never bought anything that lives up to it's claims.
And by saying nothing, the manufacturers see NO problems and continue to
stroke us unabated.
>Vitamins don't make you
>feel better. Driving a hot car doesn't guarantee you will get laid.
>Etc........Etc........ you get my drift..... You were in sales!
I was. I also got laid when I drove my hot wheels :-)
>
>
>The thing I think is really stupid about RFD is in the license agreement
>they say that I can never sell the system to anyone else... That is true
>BS!
Agreed, although I have to say Great Planes were very accommodating when
I wanted to change the registration details.
>But then all the software companies are doing it.... (Bastards!)
>I am not going to Email them complaints about it when I know it will not
>help, but I will look twice before I purchase another software product from
>that company.
Couldn't agree more.
>
>As for the choice of reading your posts..... How can I not.....???
Well RFD posts then :-)
>I might miss something really important or useful..... How can you expect me
>to ignore them?
I'm sure lots of people DO.
>The voice of experience is still the most valuable asset that costs us
>nothing......
>When there are those who are willing to share....
>and I know a good deal when I see it.....
Thanks :-)
RO2R
The CSM is somewhat outdated on the softwareside, but does simulate a RC
helicopter better then anything else, the RealFlightDeLuxe is a graphical
masterpice not not very much else. (I know a little bit about it because i
own both, beeing a computer nerd) The CSM, I use version 10 is giving you
far more for the money when it comes to learn how to fly, but both the
graphics and the sound sucks big time. Who cares as its very easy to set ut
and really teaches to fly. The RealFight (pun intended) is much harder to
set up, needs a bigger computer with a very good graphics card with a LOT of
memory, and in the end look a lot like a playstation. I do agree with most
of Beavis' oservations and working in digital TV using only computers and
felt a all to familiar urge to kick something when I read Stephen Emert's
reply. You buy a piece of equipment supposed to run on software, it always
turns out to be Dreamware and we the users have to pay for it anyway. the
RFDL will in its time be a very good simulator, I agree with Beavis I dont
need all the xtras, just cure all the bugs first. (and P&P is not Plug and
Play it is Plug&Pray, or maybe its Plug&Prey........?)
RO2R
Anthony Cooper
I've just spent a very entertaining lunchtime following all the above
posts - you've said everything I would like to have said but never had
the opportunity to! (about RFD anyway).
For the record:
1) I bought RFD via the states before it was available in the UK, based
on the web advertised claims of "realistic flight". This probably comes
under the Trades Descriptions or Sale of Goods Act in the UK but since
it is a states based web site and I did not buy in the UK....
2) Frustrated, I finally emailed my complaints to Realflight tech
support in May and got zilch reply - not even an apology for my
problems. That's how good their customer support is.
3) As regards W2K compatibility, it is presumably an easier task to
re-write new drivers than to sort out the software problems that
customers have already paid them for.
4) Not much mention has been made of Trueflights latest effort in the
above threads. Having tried TF briefly, I can say that it is a damned
sight more realistic than Realflight.
TF or CSM are definitely better sims (and cheaper) if you want 'Real
Flight' characteristics. Come to mention it, I could almost have bought
both for what I paid for RFD with the add-ons - Ouch!
I live in hope that the upgrade will be released soon - and it had
better be totally FREE to registered users!
Failing that anyone want to offer a decent price for RFD with TX
interface and both Add-ons?
Antman
Gromit
> Please give me one example of a complicated piece of software that worked
> perfectly with no bugs when it was released.
Doom :-)
> I too am a programmer and reading your rants on here has made me realize
> that you have very little knowledge of what really goes into programming
> today's software.
> Program development includes teams of programmers, each responsible for
> little pieces that makeup the whole. Most of the time you are lucky if
> everyone actually speaks English.
Being a programmer you will be familiar with the product life cycle model;
from development through to sales and on to maintenance and support. You can
't
just build a piece of software, throw it out to the market and watch the
money roll in.
Supporting the customer is an integral part of software development. If you
have not delivered what the customer wants, you have to fix it, without
making excuses or accusing the customer of not understanding how complex the
product is.
In any industry, nobody likes to be patronised and told something is not
possible because
of technical reasons beyond their understanding. The customer should not
need *any* knowledge of how the product is build. They should simply
get what they paid for.
It is this "you don't appriciate what programmers do" attitude that gives
programmers
a bad name and causes people to generalise about the industry.
> The programmers are only part of the problem. You also have to consider
the
> GUI used today. We are talking MICROSOFT WINDOWS! How can you make a piece
> of bug free software when it is expected to run through an interface FULL
OF
> BUGS!
Pooey.......scapegoatism.
> > special for which the normal rules don't apply. Computer programmers are
> > notorious for "pumping themselves up" and TRYING to give the "I'm the
> > only one around here who knows what he's talking about" argument, in
> > order to cover up their own shortcomings, but it falls on deaf ears when
> > it falls on mine.
>
> You may be harming your image more than you think. I for one take personal
> offense at that statement.
....because you fit the stereotype?
G
Shawn Lammers
my ATI Furry video card. Have you tried running it on 2000? What problems
did you notice?
Shawn
"Anthony Cooper" <anthony...@eng.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:39882A24...@eng.ox.ac.uk...
Timothy Morris
"Shawn Lammers" <slam...@nospam.smartire.com> wrote in message
news:ygYh5.613$Z2.1...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> I have been running RFD on Windows 2000 for months and it works great with
> my ATI Furry video card. Have you tried running it on 2000? What problems
> did you notice?
>
> Shawn
>
.vxd NT based operating systems need a .sys driver due to the security
requirements.
Tim.
Shawn Lammers
Shawn
"Timothy Morris" <ma...@timothy-morris.org.us> wrote in message
news:8m9l1l$70$1...@gxsn.com...
Beavis
<anthony...@eng.ox.ac.uk> writes
>Nice one Beav
>
>I've just spent a very entertaining lunchtime following all the above
>posts - you've said everything I would like to have said but never had
>the opportunity to! (about RFD anyway).
>
>For the record:
>
>1) I bought RFD via the states before it was available in the UK, based
>on the web advertised claims of "realistic flight". This probably comes
>under the Trades Descriptions or Sale of Goods Act in the UK but since
>it is a states based web site and I did not buy in the UK....
Same here. I didn't buy it in the UK.
>
>2) Frustrated, I finally emailed my complaints to Realflight tech
>support in May and got zilch reply - not even an apology for my
>problems. That's how good their customer support is.
I got a VERY good response from tech support, although I wasn't
complaining at that time, I merely wanted the registration changing.
>
>3) As regards W2K compatibility, it is presumably an easier task to
>re-write new drivers than to sort out the software problems that
>customers have already paid them for.
I would imagine that software fixes ARE hard to implement although
that's just a guess as I'm no "'puter dude", but I do see trying to get
it to work on another platform as a side step.
>
>4) Not much mention has been made of Trueflights latest effort in the
>above threads. Having tried TF briefly, I can say that it is a damned
>sight more realistic than Realflight.
I'm beginning to wish Ant...
>TF or CSM are definitely better sims (and cheaper) if you want 'Real
>Flight' characteristics. Come to mention it, I could almost have bought
>both for what I paid for RFD with the add-ons - Ouch!
>
>I live in hope that the upgrade will be released soon - and it had
>better be totally FREE to registered users!
And what chance is there of that I wonder?
>
>Failing that anyone want to offer a decent price for RFD with TX
>interface and both Add-ons?
Let's see how many offers you get :-)
NMVS
1) The claims to "RealPhysics" in there advertising and on the packaging -Ya
WHAT !?!?!
2) They SOLD it before it was anything like ready IMO and don't seem to have
done anything much about fixing the MAJOR problem - ie. the lack of a
realistic _FF_ flight model - Just piddling about with making the bloody
thing work with other computers when the program itself doesn't work
properly - Argh..!
3) The continuous claims to be 'working on it' yet nothing appropriate is
forthcoming for months, now approaching YEARS..!
4) IMO it is a RIPOFF and I'm willing to say so now because it has been too
long - initialy I left it alone rather than 'digging' at them because Great
Planes were quite fair with me about swapping the interface for one that
would work with my JR PCM10 SXs but it has simply been tooooo long for
anymore patience from me..!
I also mail-ordered mine from abroad - dunno if there's a 'Trade
Descriptions Act' or anything similar in Canada..?
Ciao...
Nick...
--
Nick M.V.Salmon Southwest UK NM...@dial.pipex.com
Real Flight Tech Support
Real Flight Transmitter Interface Upgrade JR 10x comp version - GPMZ4063
same retail price.
Depending where you purchase from, it will cost somewhat less than that.
Also make sure you are a registered user, as they will check that when you
purchase it.
Sincerely,
Ryan
Product Support
Great Planes Model Distributors
www.realflight.com
Ken Teleis <K...@Teleis.com> wrote in message
news:3988C1C5...@Teleis.com...
> speaking of controllers, is the transmitter interface sold separately? I
bought
> the program with the controller box (I didnt want my kids pawing over my
real
> radio), but I might like to try it with my radio as well.. How much is
the
> interface?
>
> Ryan wrote:
>
> > Typing too fast, sorry. For the confused, I meant I leave the stick at
0%
> > and throw it into idle up, on the rf controller, or into idle up 2 on my
own
> > radio.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > "Ryan Slack" <rws...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:gz7h5.91592$dF.32...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> > > I always just leave the stick at 0% and throw it up. The tail comes
> > around
> > > easy, and it gets the knocks the head speed up. I then just pop the
stick
> > > to full throttle, deflect the elevator to full up, the heli does a
nice
> > semi
> > > circle, leveling off a foot or so above the ground hovering inverted.
I
> > am
> > > not insane enough to try it in real life, although the lead heli guy
that
> > > showed it to me said he had a few times. It's a pretty easy trick
though,
> > > one of the few I can do at my early level of training. I figure
before I
> > > start doing the crazy stuff, I should get good at autorotation, since
it
> > > will probably save me more than a few times. I can do it most of the
> > time,
> > > but I always change the pitch a bit too soon, so instead of leveling
off
> > to
> > > an easy landing, it kinda jumps up a few feet. I can still land with
no
> > > prob, but it isn't nearly as pretty as it should be, and the heli
skids a
> > > little bit. This is fine on concrete, but could give me major probs
on
> > > grass. Anyone have any tips?
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > "Stephen Emert" <sem...@USIT.NET> wrote in message
> > > news:bO0h5.5605$1V.3...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> > > > Just take it up 1/4 to 1/2 throttle and it is easy to swing it
around
> > > > slowly...
> > > >
> > > > "Ken Teleis" <K...@Teleis.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:39848156...@Teleis.com...
> > > > > Is there any way in RFD to have the heli start with the tail
facing
> > you,
> > > > > instead of the side? I spend the beginning of each flight trying
to
> > get
> > > > > it turn to the rear is facing me. Surely there is an easier way..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
Gary Quiring
wrote:
>>Get the latest version, 1.20.191, look at the control panel, uninstaller,
>>etc... and take your foot out of your mouth.
>
>I've GOT the latest version. The thing STILL doesn't handle like a
>helicopter, but of course you wouldn't know that. (See, I can be as
>shitty as you!)
How can you say it does not handle like a helicopter? That's not a
fair statement. I started flying R/C heli's in 1976. (DU-BRO Tristar
was my first). So I have experience flying GMP, Schluter, X-Cell,
Heim, Shuttle, Concept's and Raptor's.
I agree that some of the physics are not great, but the sim is far
more usefull than your making it out to be.
As for CSM - DOS based, crude graphics - dated software. Where are
they going to be when Microsoft drops DOS compatability in future
versions of Windows?
Real Flight does the job for beginners or experienced flyers looking
to learn something new without busting their heli.
Gary Quiring
John Smith
that long to write. I'm not ranting. I just
wanted to let others know that this couldn't be a reason for such long
delays in getting the more serious
bugs fixed. And yes, I am a programmer and yes I have written device
drivers.
Reyes
John Smith
> >re-write new drivers than to sort out the software problems that
> >customers have already paid them for.
>
> I would imagine that software fixes ARE hard to implement although
> that's just a guess as I'm no "'puter dude", but I do see trying to get
> it to work on another platform as a side step.
True, but it does depend on how well the software was written. Given the
length of time we have waited for fixes to the "surreal physics", I suspect
large sections of code are being rewritten. Or, perhaps, the realized that
the physics model they chose was not very real. Perhaps it is "theory vs
real life".
> >I live in hope that the upgrade will be released soon - and it had
> >better be totally FREE to registered users!
>
> And what chance is there of that I wonder?
I hate to say it, but the thought of Great Planes giving users fixes to the
flight
model for no additional cost is laughable. Remember, this is the same
company that
wouldn't sell me a transmitter interface that worked with my JR10SXII but
were happy to sell me an interface that didn't work so that I could
immediately
send it back so that they could then send me another package with the
correct
interface [whew]. Besides, all of the posts from Ryan mention fixes in a
new
product release. In the software world, that ususally means you wind up
paying
for the fixes.
Thank you Colin, for making CSM fixes and features available at no cost to
customers for so long.
Reyes
John Smith
> In article <kCIh5.7977$SM4.5...@nntp2.onemain.com>, Stephen Emert
> <sem...@USIT.NET> writes
> >Beav,
> >
> >Please give me one example of a complicated piece of software that worked
> >perfectly with no bugs when it was released.
>
> Can't. but there ARE examples of software users being listened to and
> their questions being answered. There are also examples of software
> being improved.
I don't think anyone is expecting RFD to be perfect. But I do expect the
major
features to work properly. It is pretty obvious that the software wasn't
tested properly. There is no excuse for initial transmitter interface
problems.
I'm glad they were resolved quickly, but basic testing against the claimed
specs would have revealed the problem. I understand the need to ship
a product and get the revenue stream flowing to recoup development costs,
but the basic reason for buying an R/C sim is for use as a sim, not a game.
The smoke and transparent canopy features may look good on the box and
sell some sims, but they seem to want to make money with add-ons etc. I
know my experience with RFD has kept me away from any add-ons or
any other RF software.
> >
> >I too am a programmer and reading your rants on here has made me realize
> >that you have very little knowledge of what really goes into programming
> >today's software.
>
> I have NO knowledge of programming, but I DID retire at 38 after a very
> short lifetime in sales. You don't do that by selling something that
> doesn't live up to it's claims.
I am a programmer. I've been one for a long time. I know that you don't
ship
a product before it's ready or w/out adequate testing. Bug fixing after you
ship is more costly and makes a poor impression.
> >Program development includes teams of programmers, each responsible for
> >little pieces that makeup the whole. Most of the time you are lucky if
> >everyone actually speaks English.
>
> Not interested Stephen. The world is FULL of people ready to blame
> someone else and quite frankly it's a poor excuse.
I doubt KnifeEdge has "teams of programmers". And besides, part of a
programmers job is to make sure his/her components work properly
when used with other components of the software. Integration testing.
> >
> >Of course, as I said earlier, because of all the problems in Win95/98,
> >making a bug free program is impossible......
>
> And a bad workman always blames his tools.
I know Windows is far from perfect, but there are a lot of companies
and programmers that ship quality software despite problems in
Windows.
> >
> >Why would anyone want a "real" simulation of R/C?
>
> ????
I'll answer that one. To try out new things. How about night flying?
Wouldn't you like to try it on a sim and have it be as realistic as possible
before trying it? Isn't that what you are doing? How would you feel
if the sim leaned the wrong way in a hover or had other unrealistic
characteristics that made it unlike hoving a real R/C heli? I'm not
trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to show you how annoying the
flight model can be to others. I just don't have the time to play with
all the parameters to reduce the effect of some of the bugs.
>
> That's your prerogative. I fly regularly with 3 full time programmers
> and they ALL try the "blinding with science" thing and they all ADMIT
> they do, especially when they're discussing computers with non computer
> literates.
It's part of the job description. :-)
> >
> >I think this thread, beyond the first couple of posts has been completely
> >non-productive..........
>
> There's an option available.
Non-productive? Probably. I do hope that somehow we can manage to get the
point across to someone who matters, that some of us aren't very happy about
paying
good money for a product with these problems. Some of us also don't like
hearing very
vague promises. I get the impression that KnifeEdge/Great Planes doesn't
really
care about our problems with the heli portion of the software. They know
heli
flyers are a very small market and besides, they already have some of our
money.
They fixed the install problems and they fixed the interface problem, but
these
are problems that get products returned. I doubt you could return a piece
of
software because it had a poor flight model.
Will I sell mine? Probably not. Will I buy any add-ons? No way. Will I
buy a
new version if it addresses the problems with the flight model? Nope.
Now if CSM were to offer an upgrade with new features, I'd be glad to buy
it.
In fact, I did. V10. IMHO, it is quality software from a company that
isn't
out to get every last dime from us.
John Smith
>
> The thing that winds him up (I know, I spoke to him today), is that the
> party line from Great Planes (Ryan) is that "Realflight is better than the
> other sims out there" when it is clear to anyone who has progressed beyond
> basic hovering that it is not.
I knew that Great Planes was putting a lot of marketing hype into the
product.
Sure, the graphics are good. My test of the flight realism was to enter the
numbers for my X-Cell. It wasn't even close. I can enter the same numbers
into CSM (granted, fewer numbers) and have a heli that flies a lot more like
my X-Cell. I did the same for my old Hirobo Bell 47 gasser. The parameters
are not very useful if they don't have predictable results.
Reyes
John Smith
I wasn't going to get sucked into this thread, but I couldn't resist. I
wanted
to make sure that you knew that it wasn't just one or two folks that were
unhappy with the flight model.
Yes, it takes time to fix the problems. I understand. It doesn't help
when we keep hearing "be patient" with no other specifics. The line
"be patient" only works for a while. I think some of the more pointed
comments you are seeing is a sign of frustration with hearing the
same vague comments repeated again and again.
I'd just like to see an honest answer. If it takes two years and a total
overhaul of RFD, fine. If the fixes will never come, fine. If they
don't know how long it will take, fine. Just don't tease us when
KnifeEdge/Great Planes doesn't want to answer the questions.
None of this should be taken personally. I know you are just the
messenger. I do hope you let "them" know that some of us don't
appreciate words with no substance.
Reyes
"Ryan" <rws...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Lsrh5.124994$dF.32...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> Like I said earlier, be patient, you wont be disappointed. Both things
Tim
> said are essentially true, but it takes time. Computers are a weird
thing.
> You can work on something for weeks, think you are making great progress,
> find one bug, and then suddenly realize all the work and all the lines of
> code you have written are going to have to be redone. This is true for
any
> program, including I am sad to say, many of my own, and is one of the main
> factors standard development time for a new product is generally in the
> range of 15 months to two years. Would you rather we release something
> partially working now, probably creating more bugs in the process, or
> release something we know works, and that the public is guaranteed to
like?
>
> Ryan
>
> "Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:0nhQ8PAz$gh5...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <8m4lev$t6v$2...@gxsn.com>, Timothy Morris <mail@timothy-
> > morris.org.us> writes
> > >
> > >"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:XLfYXMAL...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
> > >> In article <0D1h5.90777$dF.31...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, Ryan
> > >> <rws...@home.com> writes
> > >> >Unfortunately, no there is no way to change that at this time. This
> idea
> > >> >has been in discussion however, so it may become a reality in a
future
> > >> >patch. I just don't have definitive info at this time however.
> > >>
> > >> Ryan, I don't suppose you know when we're going to be blessed with
> > >> translational lift and maybe some ground effect do you :-)
> > >>
> > >> Either or would be nice "for starters.. :-)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Beav,
> > >
> > >The information I have from the horse's mouth (Scott Kemp), is that
they
> are
> > >working on Windows 2000 compatability at the moment,
> >
> > And very good it will "probably" be Tim, but I don't HAVE W2000 and have
> > no intention of getting it anytime soon either. I'd much prefer that GP
> > got the sim right for the platform is was originally intended for.
> >
> > >and have a long list of
> > >improvements to make to the product.
> >
> > I bet they have :-)
> >
> > >Improving the heli flight model is
> > >pretty near to the top of the list.
> >
> > How near is pretty near? This month, next month, next year? The problems
> > with RFD aren't "new" as they've been there since it's introduction.
Ken Teleis
Ken Teleis
actually costs about $10 more than with the transmitter interface, I wouldnt
think the interface should cost more than about $30-$50.. After all, the
controller box is no more than a glorified joystick, valued at perhaps $40-$60,
and if the program with the controller costs more than without, then my cost
estimate should be about right..
I can't say that I'm doing very trying to learn how to fly with the program.
For the price of $239 that I paid, it would be good to see some help files that
actually give some instructional hints on learning how to fly... Perhaps that's
planned for the future too.
I do appreciate the quick response though. Have a great day.
Real Flight Tech Support wrote:
> Real Flight Transmitter Interface Upgrade - GPMZ4061 full retail 109.99
> Real Flight Transmitter Interface Upgrade JR 10x comp version - GPMZ4063
> same retail price.
>
> Depending where you purchase from, it will cost somewhat less than that.
> Also make sure you are a registered user, as they will check that when you
> purchase it.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ryan
> Product Support
> Great Planes Model Distributors
> www.realflight.com
>
> Ken Teleis <K...@Teleis.com> wrote in message
> news:3988C1C5...@Teleis.com...
rc...@my-deja.com
> > for little pieces that makeup the whole. Most of the time you are
> > lucky if everyone actually speaks English.
I write software for a living, and have done so side-by-side with folks
whose native tongues were Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, etc. But that's
irrelevant. The language barrier is not the problem here. The problem
we have here is that the "program development team" lacks a "quality
assurance" group.
How many helicopter flyers tested RFD before it hit the streets? How
much experience did these testers have? What were their contest
histories, for example? Sure there are great flyers who don't bother
to compete, but was ANY effort made to ensure that the testers would
really be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality? How
much effort was taken to ensure that they were able to execute and
critically evaluate at least the basic aspects of heli flight? FFF,
rolls, loops at the very least?
> Supporting the customer is an integral part of software development.
> If you have not delivered what the customer wants, you have to fix
> it, without making excuses or accusing the customer of not
> understanding how complex the product is.
And in this case, such excuses fall flat as soon as the customer points
to CSM. Sure, the graphics pale by comparison, but graphics are not
the issue here. In 1996, CSM had a flight model that ran on a 90 Mhz
Pentium (not Pentium III or Pentium II or even Pentium Pro, just
Pentium) and was an order of magnitude better than what RFD provides
today.
> > The programmers are only part of the problem. You also have to
> > consider the GUI used today. We are talking MICROSOFT WINDOWS!
> > How can you make a piece of bug free software when it is
> > expected to run through an interface FULL OF BUGS!
>
> Pooey.......scapegoatism.
And a red herring as well. The problems with RFD's flight model have
absolutely nothing to do with bugs in the operating system.
For the record, I have nothing but respect for the programming talent
at Knife Edge. The problem stems from bad management, not from poor
programming.
It was a bad MANAGEMENT decision to release a product that had not
been properly tested by experienced helicopter flyers. Unless the
programmers were themselves expert helicopter flyers, they should NOT
be blamed for the 'feel' of the RFD simulation. The management team
deserves blame for not making sure the programmers the feedback they
needed to refine the equations that govern the simulation.
So, who will be testing the next flight model? How many people? How
much experience do they have with helicopters? What do their contest
histories look like? If they have none, what other evidence did Knife
Edge use to determine their suitability for the testing team?
How does the current testing team feel about the level of realism in
the current flight model? :-) If they're already satisfied with it as
it is, I'd like to know, so I can put my copy on eBay in hopes that an
airplane flyer will want it. I hear the airplane simulation isn't bad
at all.
--
Attention Spammers! These folks urgently need to know how
unsolicited bulk mailing works, from the recipient's
perspective: coun...@the-dma.org, or if you prefer,
<a href="mailto:coun...@the-dma.org">coun...@the-dma.org</a>
rc...@my-deja.com
fjre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Everybody has to make the own decision I guess. I read some people
> think it's crap and then I turn around and read that the guy who
> practically invented 3D and inverted flying loves it. Unless maybe he
> got paid to say he did :)
I quit buying Rotory a couple years ago, due to the fact that most of
the 'reviews' were written by people who worked for the manufacturer
or distributor of the product in question.
Someone left the "RFD" issue of Rotory with me though... It makes me
want to puke. Mas may have been one of the first to fly switchless
inverted, but I'm pretty sure that one of the following is true:
a) He isn't flying a whole lot these days, and doesn't realize that
when you trim out a modern helicopter in a hover, you can do a full
throttle straight-and-level pass with little or no trim change.
Real helis do NOT nose-dive and/or roll left into the ground the way
RFD's helis do.
b) Or maybe he knows exactly how modern helis fly, but he simply
doesn't take simulators seriously. I know lots of people who don't.
They sit down at the machine and their mind goes into 'video game' mode
and they simply can't bring themselve to take it seriously. They don't
expect much from it, they don't get much out of it.
c) Or maybe he knows how a heli should fly, but he's never flown CSM,
or any other simulator that does a good job, and doesn't realize what
a good simulator is capable of.
Whatever the case, his review doesn't reflect reality. More telling
is the review that never was - I've spoken briefly with another rather
well-known helicopter flyer who was given a copy to review. He gave
it back before he wrote anything down, knowing that it would be a
negative review and thus would most likely never be printed.
People who known how helis fly, and know what simulators are capable
of, aren't happy with RFD. People who ARE happy with RFD are
invariably in the early stages of learning to fly, or they have no
experience with a good simulator with which to compare their
experiences with RFD.
Had I known it was going to take this long before the heli simulation
was fixed, I would have sent the thing back as soon as I received it.
It's never fun to fork out a couple hundred bucks and end up with
something that not only doesn't live up to its claims, but that is
overshadowed by software that predates it by three years.
"RealPhysics™, the most authentic flight replication ever created."
- http://www.realflight.com/deluxe.html
"The most authentic RC flight simulation system ever."
"RealPhysics™, the most accurate representation of RC flight possible."
- the box
"The physics are way behind CSM v8.3, which I've been using since 1996."
- me
Stephen Emert
"Gromit" <m...@nonet.com> wrote in message
news:3988...@ni-news.utvinternet.com...
worked
> > perfectly with no bugs when it was released.
>
Sorry, but Doom was far from perfect when shipped......
>
> > I too am a programmer and reading your rants on here has made me realize
> > that you have very little knowledge of what really goes into programming
> > today's software.
>
> > Program development includes teams of programmers, each responsible for
> > little pieces that makeup the whole. Most of the time you are lucky if
> > everyone actually speaks English.
>
> Being a programmer you will be familiar with the product life cycle model;
> from development through to sales and on to maintenance and support. You
can
> 't
> just build a piece of software, throw it out to the market and watch the
> money roll in.
> Supporting the customer is an integral part of software development. If
you
> have not delivered what the customer wants, you have to fix it, without
> making excuses or accusing the customer of not understanding how complex
the
> product is.
>
> In any industry, nobody likes to be patronised and told something is not
> possible because
> of technical reasons beyond their understanding. The customer should not
> need *any* knowledge of how the product is build. They should simply
> get what they paid for.
>
> It is this "you don't appriciate what programmers do" attitude that gives
> programmers
> a bad name and causes people to generalise about the industry.
>
> > The programmers are only part of the problem. You also have to consider
> the
> > GUI used today. We are talking MICROSOFT WINDOWS! How can you make a
piece
> > of bug free software when it is expected to run through an interface
FULL
> OF
> > BUGS!
>
> Pooey.......scapegoatism.
>
Stephen Emert
"Stephen Emert" <sem...@USIT.NET> wrote in message
news:HIki5.9806$mt6.7...@nntp3.onemain.com...
Beavis
<gqui...@netlabs.net> writes
>On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 01:34:58 +0100, Beavis <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>Get the latest version, 1.20.191, look at the control panel, uninstaller,
>>>etc... and take your foot out of your mouth.
>>
>>I've GOT the latest version. The thing STILL doesn't handle like a
>>helicopter, but of course you wouldn't know that. (See, I can be as
>>shitty as you!)
>
>How can you say it does not handle like a helicopter? That's not a
>fair statement.
How's that? Do your heli's not gain translational lift as airspeed
increases? Does the tail rotor not become more effective in FFF? Do your
heli's adopt an immediate nose down attitude when you flip the throttle
hold switch and require you go back to positive pitch to raise it again?
Do your heli's not gain lift from ground effect?
> I started flying R/C heli's in 1976. (DU-BRO Tristar
>was my first). So I have experience flying GMP, Schluter, X-Cell,
>Heim, Shuttle, Concept's and Raptor's.
Just to set the record straight, I've been flying slightly longer than
you (since '75) and currently have around 20 helicopters in my fleet.
I've flown all those you listed and lots more besides and RFD doesn't
fly (in FFF) like a single one of them.
>
>I agree that some of the physics are not great, but the sim is far
>more usefull than your making it out to be.
I didn't say it wasn't useful. I said for certain manoeuvres it was
EXCELLENT, for other's it's GOOD and for some it IS useless.
>
>As for CSM - DOS based, crude graphics - dated software.
Crude graphics yes, dated software, maybe, but what about realism which
is what I'm referring to? Up there with the real models. Even
Aerochopper is better in FFF than RFD.
> Where are
>they going to be when Microsoft drops DOS compatability in future
>versions of Windows?
I don't CARE where they'll be. It's not relevant to the shortcomings in
RFD.
>
>Real Flight does the job for beginners or experienced flyers looking
>to learn something new without busting their heli.
We all have our opinions Gary, and I respect your right to have yours,
even though I don't totally agree with it. For beginners learning to
hover and fly SLOW manoeuvres, it's probably the best there is, but for
advanced fliers who simply want to have fun and learn all the 3D shit,
it's not up to the job.
Beavis
<no...@nowwhere.com> writes
>> In article <39882A24...@eng.ox.ac.uk>, Anthony Cooper
>> >3) As regards W2K compatibility, it is presumably an easier task to
>> >re-write new drivers than to sort out the software problems that
>> >customers have already paid them for.
>>
>> I would imagine that software fixes ARE hard to implement although
>> that's just a guess as I'm no "'puter dude", but I do see trying to get
>> it to work on another platform as a side step.
>
>True, but it does depend on how well the software was written. Given the
>length of time we have waited for fixes to the "surreal physics", I suspect
>large sections of code are being rewritten.
A note (or something) from GP to their customers TELLING them a re-write
is underway would be good though, instead of all this "be patient" and
"Wait for a press announcement" garbage. Even a "Get stuffed, we screwed
you" would stop us wondering :-)
> Or, perhaps, the realized that
>the physics model they chose was not very real. Perhaps it is "theory vs
>real life".
>
>> >I live in hope that the upgrade will be released soon - and it had
>> >better be totally FREE to registered users!
>>
>> And what chance is there of that I wonder?
>
>I hate to say it, but the thought of Great Planes giving users fixes to the
>flight
>model for no additional cost is laughable. Remember, this is the same
>company that
>wouldn't sell me a transmitter interface that worked with my JR10SXII but
>were happy to sell me an interface that didn't work so that I could
>immediately
>send it back so that they could then send me another package with the
>correct
>interface [whew].
Wow!! Sounds like SOMEONE'S on the ball over there :-)
> Besides, all of the posts from Ryan mention fixes in a
>new
>product release. In the software world, that ususally means you wind up
>paying
>for the fixes.
Absolutely. New product release MEANS "New product" and no-one gets
those for free, even if the original 200 quid package is flawed.
>
>Thank you Colin, for making CSM fixes and features available at no cost to
>customers for so long.
That wasn't a "dig" was it Reyes? :-)
Beavis
<no...@nowwhere.com> writes
>
>"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Fg6sNNAe...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <kCIh5.7977$SM4.5...@nntp2.onemain.com>, Stephen Emert
>> <sem...@USIT.NET> writes
>> >Beav,
>> >
>> >Please give me one example of a complicated piece of software that worked
>> >perfectly with no bugs when it was released.
>>
>> Can't. but there ARE examples of software users being listened to and
>> their questions being answered. There are also examples of software
>> being improved.
>
>I don't think anyone is expecting RFD to be perfect. But I do expect the
>major
>features to work properly. It is pretty obvious that the software wasn't
>tested properly. There is no excuse for initial transmitter interface
>problems.
>I'm glad they were resolved quickly, but basic testing against the claimed
>specs would have revealed the problem. I understand the need to ship
>a product and get the revenue stream flowing to recoup development costs,
>but the basic reason for buying an R/C sim is for use as a sim, not a game.
>The smoke and transparent canopy features may look good on the box and
>sell some sims, but they seem to want to make money with add-ons etc. I
>know my experience with RFD has kept me away from any add-ons or
>any other RF software.
That just about sums my feelings up. I've bought ONE product from Knife
edge, but it's the ONLY one I'll ever own. I wouldn't even be interested
in a "Blobbie".
btw, I was talking to Colin Mill some time ago and he's working on a 3D
version of his sim. I won't even bother LOOKING at it when it hit's the
market, I'll just buy it sight unseen. I have a "little" more faith in
him than I do in GP.
Timothy Morris
>
> A note (or something) from GP to their customers TELLING them a re-write
> is underway would be good though, instead of all this "be patient" and
> "Wait for a press announcement" garbage. Even a "Get stuffed, we screwed
> you" would stop us wondering :-)
>
I have an email from Scott Kemp telling me that they are now working on it,
but they do seem reluctant to post this officially on any public forum. I
was told to expect to see a beta version "in about a month" (godwilling),
about a month ago. Unfortunatley I mis-read the email whe it arrived, and
only discovered this last night. Beta testers though, are not allowed to
discuss beta software, so I won't be allowed to post here when I see it :(
> Absolutely. New product release MEANS "New product" and no-one gets
> those for free, even if the original 200 quid package is flawed.
>
I have it on very good authority that it will be a downloadable patch.
Tim.
rc...@my-deja.com
"Stephen Emert" <sem...@USIT.NET> wrote:
>
> I still cannot see how it could viably allow one to practice a
> real world experience. It appears that most of the companies
> producing these are too small to ever develop the system to
> perfection.
I don't expect perfection. I expect something that performs as well
as the competitor's product performed in 1996, only with better
graphics. Don't try to tell me that's too much to task.
> I also cannot see how, beyond simple orientation, a sim can be
> useful. The screen is too small. A model at 10 ft in a sim looks
> nothing like a model at 10 ft. in real life. Until we all have our
> own Holo-decks.... I just don't see it.
Sims have their limits. But if you're willing to take the simulator
seriously, you might be surprised what it can teach you. If you can
look past the visual shortcomings and work within the practical limits
of the sim, you can learn an awful lot. I did.
But, you get out what you put in. If you believe that a simulator
can't teach you anything beyond hovering, you're not going to learning
anything from it beyond hovering. That says a lot more about you and
your own opinions than it says about simulators and their inherent
value.
> Now maybe if we had a few supercomputers and a 360 degree screen like
> in the military sims, it might be more realistic.
I think you're overly concerned with graphics. Better graphics would
help, but you can learn a lot from a sim with cheesy graphics. I
learned a LOT - and continue to learn a lot - from CSM v8.3. Having
something that looks like reality is, IMO, way less important than
having something that flies like reality. I'm already quite familiar
with what helicopters look like, I use the simulator to get more
familiar with how they handle.
> If you say the other sims are better, then I will believe that,
> because you have been at this a lot longer than I.
Would you believe me if I told you that you could learn rolling
tailslides, pirouetting tumbles, backward inverted circuits, pirouette
loops, rolling circles, and more, with a simulator? It's worked for me.
You can't perfect them until you get to the field, but you CAN become
proficient enough to pull them off successfully. I've been at this
for four years, I've rehearsed almost everything in the sim before
attempting it at the field, and I see the simulator as an extremely
valuable tool. I wouldn't be half the flyer I am today if I didn't
have the sim to practice with.
On top of all that, it rains a lot here in the Northwest, and the sim
helps me stay sharp during the off season. I started the last two
summers with the same goal: get my real-world flying up to the same
level as my simulator practice was when ski season ended. This gives
me something to shoot for, and by this point, doing the new stuff has
more to do with confidence than ability.
> But like I said, there are people who can list a dozen problems or
> more with each on the market.
CSM v8.3 isn't perfect either, but the shortcomings it does have are
MUCH easier to ignore than the shortcomings of RFD. If RFD's flight
model was identical to CSM's, I'd be a happy camper. Considering all
the claims they made about being the best ever, I figured it was safe
to assume that it would be at least on par with four-year-old
technology. I was very disappointed.
> Why did you not simply demand a refund since you think it sucks so
bad?
This was my first thought. However, when called Great Planes they told
me that a new version was in the works. So I'm waiting. I *do* like
the graphics, and if/when they fix the flight model I'll be happy to
have RFD to practice with.
> As a veteran salesman, I am sure you know that the customers final
> choice in where they spend their money is the ultimate form of
customer
> feedback...
Yes and no. Deterring new customers by publicly exposing bogus claims
counts for something too. Publicizing the shortcomings as agressively
as the publicize the (alleged) strengths of the product also helps
compel them to fix the damn thing. If I get my refund, they lose one
sale. If I share my experiences in public (here), they lose many
sales. How's that for feedback?
And better still, I'll know when it's time to stop complaining and
start applauding. Ultimately, you see, I'm bitching for selfish
reasons. I could just get my money back, put it all behind me, and let
them mislead a never-ending line of gullible new customers into giving
up $200+ for an inferior product... I already have a sim with a
realistic flight model... But then I would have to wait even longer
before I got a simulator with a realistic flight model AND modern
graphics. I that this here is the fastest way for me (and all of us)
to get the product I (we) want.
> Like you said, I plan on selling mine as soon as I have mastered that
> stick orientation problem and stop thinking of planes in a
> panic...(really close now on nose in).......
In a perverse way, I'm almost happy to hear that - the fewer people
competing with me, the more prizes I'm likely to accumulate. :-) But
seriously though, I hope you realize what a great resource a good sim
can be before you throw away a good one. And I hope RFD gets a good
flight model by the time you're ready to work on aerobatics.
> The voice of experience is still the most valuable asset that costs us
> nothing...... When there are those who are willing to share....
That's odd. I was starting to get the impression that you'd rather
those of us who didn't like RFD just get our money back, try to forget
it ever happened...
Well, um, you're welcome, I guess. :-)
rc...@my-deja.com
Gary Quiring <gqui...@netlabs.net> wrote:
> How can you say it does not handle like a helicopter? That's not a
> fair statement. I started flying R/C heli's in 1976. (DU-BRO Tristar
> was my first). So I have experience flying GMP, Schluter, X-Cell,
> Heim, Shuttle, Concept's and Raptor's.
How many of those helis would nose down and roll left in FFF after
being trimmed out in a hover?
> I agree that some of the physics are not great, but the sim is far
> more usefull than your making it out to be.
It's a good tool for learning to hover. Mediocre for learning FFF, and
simply frustrating for learning any more advanced aerobatics that
involve forward speed. The cyclic response just gets too strange.
> As for CSM - DOS based, crude graphics - dated software. Where are
> they going to be when Microsoft drops DOS compatability in future
> versions of Windows?
Does it matter? Works great today. Worst case, they can license a
cheap DOS clone from a third party. More likely, they'll release a
Win32/DirectX version. If they can pull that off before RFD gets
fixed, I might put my RFD on eBay. But the bottom line is that today's
CSM works great and today's RFD doesn't.
> Real Flight does the job for beginners or experienced flyers looking
> to learn something new without busting their heli.
Beginners yes. Experienced flyers looking to do new stuff other than
just hovering in new orientations, not particularly. I know too many
other experienced flyers who sold their copies. And from personal
experience, I find it too awkward to bother with.
The sluggish yaw accelleration - even after maxing out the yaw
acceleration parameter and turning down the yaw inertia - makes RFD all
but a waste of time for learning pirouetting tumbles. I actually set
my progress back a couple weeks because for a while there I was
determined to find a way to make RFD work. When I realized my piro
flips were getting out of shape because my timing was off, I bagged RFD
for a while and re-learned them with CSM. They got better at the field
too. (Yes, the next step is to rely more on my eyes and less on my
timing, but you gotta start somewhere.)
That, and the way the elevator response gets magnified as airspeed goes
up makes practicing more advanced maneuvers with RFD as much of a
liability as an asset.
Stephen Emert
> > nothing...... When there are those who are willing to share....
>
> That's odd. I was starting to get the impression that you'd rather
> those of us who didn't like RFD just get our money back, try to forget
> it ever happened...
>
> Well, um, you're welcome, I guess. :-)
Like I said before,
I was just expressing my dislike of Beav's stereotyping a large group of
people...
Next time Ill just tell him to "Kiss my arse", right Beav..
I do agree that it is important to inform everyone of this software's
shortcomings, but doing it by blasting some guy who was answering another
persons question is a little annoying to me.
I think that a more effective method would be to set-up a web site where you
guys who are experienced with heli's, could post their un-biased views of
each sim. Being sure to list their shortcomings. That way, anytime a newbie
came into the news group and asked an opinion, we could just give them the
web address ant let the see the plain truth from a varied field of
experienced people....
That would avoid mud slinging and wasted bandwidth and unintended
stereotyping.....
As for the use of a sim,
Perhaps I will see your point if I get to try one of the other systems after
I am successful in forward flight.
L8R
Stephen E.
<rc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8mdmp9$472$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Beavis
morris.org.us> writes
>
>"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8XkSgaAo...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
>> A note (or something) from GP to their customers TELLING them a re-write
>> is underway would be good though, instead of all this "be patient" and
>> "Wait for a press announcement" garbage. Even a "Get stuffed, we screwed
>> you" would stop us wondering :-)
>>
>
>I have an email from Scott Kemp telling me that they are now working on it,
>but they do seem reluctant to post this officially on any public forum.
This wouldn't be because they've been "working on it now" for that long
and nothing's appeared, that any more hype would be met with derision?
No, how could I even THINK of something like that! :-)))
> I
>was told to expect to see a beta version "in about a month" (godwilling),
>about a month ago. Unfortunatley I mis-read the email whe it arrived, and
>only discovered this last night. Beta testers though, are not allowed to
>discuss beta software, so I won't be allowed to post here when I see it :(
Now that I can understand. If a product is being developed and tested,
the testers should be the ones to determine the level of realism, and
discussing it in open forum "isn't cricket" but this DOES mean that the
testers are fully aware of how a real model would/does react at all
corners of the flight envelope.
>
>> Absolutely. New product release MEANS "New product" and no-one gets
>> those for free, even if the original 200 quid package is flawed.
>>
>
>I have it on very good authority that it will be a downloadable patch.
That'll be good. I hope the patch is too!
Beavis
<sem...@USIT.NET> writes
>> > The voice of experience is still the most valuable asset that costs us
>> > nothing...... When there are those who are willing to share....
>>
>> That's odd. I was starting to get the impression that you'd rather
>> those of us who didn't like RFD just get our money back, try to forget
>> it ever happened...
>>
>> Well, um, you're welcome, I guess. :-)
>
>
>Like I said before,
>I was just expressing my dislike of Beav's stereotyping a large group of
>people...
>
>Next time Ill just tell him to "Kiss my arse", right Beav..
Well that's what I'd do if I felt insulted, so you wouldn't piss me off,
but it WOULD get your message across :-)
>
>
>I do agree that it is important to inform everyone of this software's
>shortcomings, but doing it by blasting some guy who was answering another
>persons question is a little annoying to me.
I don't think anyone's been "blasted" in this thread. Things have been
pretty tame actually, when you consider the amount of money folk have
spent on what some of us consider to be a flawed product. Had it been a
FAULTY product, it would've been possible to return it for a refund, but
it's not faulty (in that it works) and over here, getting a refund for
something just because it doesn't live up to it's manufacturers hype, is
a non starter.
>
>I think that a more effective method would be to set-up a web site where you
>guys who are experienced with heli's, could post their un-biased views of
>each sim.
We're doing that here, although some will say our opinions AREN'T un-
biased simply because we've pointed out problems.
> Being sure to list their shortcomings. That way, anytime a newbie
>came into the news group and asked an opinion, we could just give them the
>web address ant let the see the plain truth from a varied field of
>experienced people....
But who's going to host the site? A site foe the discussion of RFD
should be set up by Knife-Edge or Great Planes, but I seriously doubt
they'd actually WANT one.
>
>That would avoid mud slinging and wasted bandwidth and unintended
>stereotyping.....
What bandwidth has been wasted? The total amount for this thread
couldn't amount to much more than a few K, and if the NG can't cope with
that, we're all lost anyway.
>
>
>As for the use of a sim,
>Perhaps I will see your point if I get to try one of the other systems after
>I am successful in forward flight.
If you can fly happily in fast forward, and try ANY of the other sims
out there, you'll see what we're on about. They all simulate fast
forward flight better than RFD for some reason, even the first heli sims
to ever hit the market. (Dave Brown and Ambrosia's Aerochopper)
Steve Simpson
> advanced fliers who simply want to have fun and learn all the 3D shit,
> it's not up to the job.
>
Just out of curiosity, Beav, did you ever try Aerofly as I mentioned to you
long ago?
When RFD came out, I tried out a friend's copy. I was planning on buying it
based on the advertising claims, but it took me less than an hour to
determine that is was not useful for learning advanced aerobatics. I have
posted this opinion here several times. And, I might add, long before you
purchased your copy.
So let me take this opportunity to deliver your well deserved. . . . .'TOLD
YOU SO!"
I find it amusing that you and I started out with a huge shit storm over the
merits of the CSM simulator . . . . and now you've written a veritable
NOVEL about the shortcomings of RFD . . . . too funny!
Maybe there's room on my 'Most Indignant' trophy to scratch on an additional
name . . . . would you prefer just 'Beav' or the more formal 'Beavis' . . .
.:-)
Actually, I would be enjoying your every whine if not for the fact that I
completely agree with your disdain at having spent over 200 quids or bucks
or whatevers on a product that doesn't perform as advertised.
RFD graphics are only good on the models themselves (i.e. they are flashy
and sell product). The environment that you fly in is a well know (and
sophomoric) 'trick'. And as has been adequately discussed, the flight
dynamics are far off target.
AeroFly has proper 3D graphics with a spherical sky and collision detection.
The models are not as detailed as RFD, but are certainly adequate for their
purpose.
It takes some tweaking to get the flight model right, but with a bit of
patience I have been able to create a model that closely mimics my gasser.
And as a bonus, the models can be 'painted' to match your real heli . . . .
. very helpful in practicing 're-connecting' to your heli's orientation
after a botched maneuver.
Stephen Emert
> should be set up by Knife-Edge or Great Planes, but I seriously doubt
> they'd actually WANT one.
There are many, many free hosting sites.
I have a free hosted site that allows up to 10 MB of page data at:
I might even be willing to get the code and the site going if everyone
promises to pitch in on the reviews...... and everyone is patient about how
slow I am at getting web pages up and going.... 8)
"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MKjOXDA1...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
> In article <V4Ai5.10090$mt6.8...@nntp3.onemain.com>, Stephen Emert
> <sem...@USIT.NET> writes
> >> > The voice of experience is still the most valuable asset that costs
us
> >> > nothing...... When there are those who are willing to share....
> >>
> >> That's odd. I was starting to get the impression that you'd rather
> >> those of us who didn't like RFD just get our money back, try to forget
> >> it ever happened...
> >>
> >> Well, um, you're welcome, I guess. :-)
> >
> >
> >Like I said before,
> >I was just expressing my dislike of Beav's stereotyping a large group of
> >people...
> >
> >Next time Ill just tell him to "Kiss my arse", right Beav..
>
> Well that's what I'd do if I felt insulted, so you wouldn't piss me off,
> but it WOULD get your message across :-)
> >
> >
> >I do agree that it is important to inform everyone of this software's
> >shortcomings, but doing it by blasting some guy who was answering another
> >persons question is a little annoying to me.
>
> I don't think anyone's been "blasted" in this thread. Things have been
> pretty tame actually, when you consider the amount of money folk have
> spent on what some of us consider to be a flawed product. Had it been a
> FAULTY product, it would've been possible to return it for a refund, but
> it's not faulty (in that it works) and over here, getting a refund for
> something just because it doesn't live up to it's manufacturers hype, is
> a non starter.
> >
> >I think that a more effective method would be to set-up a web site where
you
> >guys who are experienced with heli's, could post their un-biased views of
> >each sim.
>
> We're doing that here, although some will say our opinions AREN'T un-
> biased simply because we've pointed out problems.
>
> > Being sure to list their shortcomings. That way, anytime a newbie
> >came into the news group and asked an opinion, we could just give them
the
> >web address ant let the see the plain truth from a varied field of
> >experienced people....
>
> But who's going to host the site? A site foe the discussion of RFD
> should be set up by Knife-Edge or Great Planes, but I seriously doubt
> they'd actually WANT one.
> >
> >That would avoid mud slinging and wasted bandwidth and unintended
> >stereotyping.....
>
> What bandwidth has been wasted? The total amount for this thread
> couldn't amount to much more than a few K, and if the NG can't cope with
> that, we're all lost anyway.
> >
> >
> >As for the use of a sim,
> >Perhaps I will see your point if I get to try one of the other systems
after
> >I am successful in forward flight.
>
Reyes Canales
> btw, I was talking to Colin Mill some time ago and he's working on a 3D
> version of his sim. I won't even bother LOOKING at it when it hit's the
> market, I'll just buy it sight unseen. I have a "little" more faith in
> him than I do in GP.
I'm glad to hear that we might get a 3D version of CSM.
I bought V10 as soon as I could get a copy. I'll do the
same with the next version. I think my first version of CSM was 7.X.
I gladly bought the V10 sim since Colin Mill let us download newer
version.
Reyes
rc...@my-deja.com
"Stephen Emert" <sem...@USIT.NET> wrote:
> > But who's going to host the site? A site foe the discussion of RFD
> > should be set up by Knife-Edge or Great Planes, but I seriously
> > doubt they'd actually WANT one.
Knife Edge has (or had) a mailing list. It's been silent for quite a
while. Or maybe I got unsubscribed when my server went down, but it's
been a very low-traffice list for the entire time I've been on it.
If you wanna take part, go to www.knifeedge.com, click on "mailing
list," and sign up.
Plus this topic comes up periodically on the message boards at
www.rconline.com. There's a moderator there who claims to be a pretty
good flier, and actually likes RFD. I'm puzzled, but everyone's got a
right to an opinion. :-)
Beavis
Steve Simpson <simp...@mediaone.net> writes
>> hover and fly SLOW manoeuvres, it's probably the best there is, but for
>> advanced fliers who simply want to have fun and learn all the 3D shit,
>> it's not up to the job.
>>
>
>Just out of curiosity, Beav, did you ever try Aerofly as I mentioned to you
>long ago?
I would've if I'd seen one to try Steve, but I haven't seen one.
>
>When RFD came out, I tried out a friend's copy. I was planning on buying it
>based on the advertising claims, but it took me less than an hour to
>determine that is was not useful for learning advanced aerobatics. I have
>posted this opinion here several times. And, I might add, long before you
>purchased your copy.
Ah well, when it comes to purchasing my copy, I actually didn't.
Obviously I own a copy and it's registered in my name, but it was a
present.
>
>So let me take this opportunity to deliver your well deserved. . . . .'TOLD
>YOU SO!"
>
>I find it amusing that you and I started out with a huge shit storm over the
>merits of the CSM simulator . . . . and now you've written a veritable
>NOVEL about the shortcomings of RFD . . . . too funny!
Things move on Stevie, and I've only re-written a few times the first
things I said about it. I have to agree though, it is piss funny. I'm
only glad I didn't pay a fortune for it.
>
>Maybe there's room on my 'Most Indignant' trophy to scratch on an additional
>name . . . . would you prefer just 'Beav' or the more formal 'Beavis' . . .
>.:-)
Totally informal me, you ought to know that :-)
>
>Actually, I would be enjoying your every whine if not for the fact that I
>completely agree with your disdain at having spent over 200 quids or bucks
>or whatevers on a product that doesn't perform as advertised.
My every whine?? I'm not "whining". I'm merely stating the obvious. I
actually LIKE the sim, but I'm not in LOVE with it which I wanted to be.
Given the excellence of it's ability to simulate hovering and slow
manoeuvres, it's a real pity they fucked up the "flying" part so badly.
>
>RFD graphics are only good on the models themselves (i.e. they are flashy
>and sell product). The environment that you fly in is a well know (and
>sophomoric) 'trick'.
100% in agreement. It's not a particularly brilliant way to model a
field (circular skies are quite uncommon in this part of the world:-)
but the models themselves DO look good.
>And as has been adequately discussed, the flight
>dynamics are far off target.
Off the range! :-)
>
>AeroFly has proper 3D graphics with a spherical sky and collision detection.
>The models are not as detailed as RFD, but are certainly adequate for their
>purpose.
I've seen pics of Aerofly in the mags, but I also listened to Nick when
he reviewed it on here. He wasn't impressed at all and that was good
enough for me not to consider it, but maybe some more work has been done
on it since Nick had his review copy.
>
>It takes some tweaking to get the flight model right, but with a bit of
>patience I have been able to create a model that closely mimics my gasser.
>And as a bonus, the models can be 'painted' to match your real heli . . . .
>. very helpful in practicing 're-connecting' to your heli's orientation
>after a botched maneuver.
I was a little surprised that there's no model editing facility within
RFD, but I've not even discovered a way to edit a model to simulate an
anti-clock main rotor, so it's not come as a BIG surprise. I wonder why
Knife-edge didn't/doesn't allow for editing or building a model?
Beavis
>> But who's going to host the site? A site foe the discussion of RFD
>> should be set up by Knife-Edge or Great Planes, but I seriously doubt
>> they'd actually WANT one.
>
>
>I have a free hosted site that allows up to 10 MB of page data at:
>
>http://rdfnstuff.webjump.com
>
>I might even be willing to get the code and the site going if everyone
>promises to pitch in on the reviews...... and everyone is patient about how
>slow I am at getting web pages up and going.... 8)
Well I'm up for it.
MArmitstead
>
> > hover and fly SLOW manoeuvres, it's probably the best there is, but for
> > advanced fliers who simply want to have fun and learn all the 3D shit,
> > it's not up to the job.
> >
>
> Just out of curiosity, Beav, did you ever try Aerofly as I mentioned to you
> long ago?
>
> based on the advertising claims, but it took me less than an hour to
> determine that is was not useful for learning advanced aerobatics. I have
> posted this opinion here several times. And, I might add, long before you
> purchased your copy.
>
> YOU SO!"
>
Steve,
Aerofly's flight model is much worse than either RFD or CSM's in
my opinion.If i was given one for nothing i wouldn't use it now (i'm not
exaggerating ).My main gripes with it at the time was the awful front
end for the radio calibration,all that crap to get throt hold to work
independantly of pitch,lack of meaningful parameters to get the heli
anywhere near being ok cyclicly and collectively,but the main thing was
that the heli scrubs off speed and lift too easily whenever large or
medium amounts of cyclic were used.It was difficult with Aerofly to fly
any sort of extended vertical climbs (for stall turns etc)no matter how
smooth you made the entry radius or how fast you flew the entry.The
graphics (mainly the surroundings) are better than them all,but that's
as far as it went for me.
If you call pirouetting flips and loops advanced aerobatics,you're going
to have a hard time practising or learning them with Aerofly,the
parasitic drag (or whatever) values for combined cyclic and collective
inputs are too high.
in the past i've owned CSM V9,V10,Aerochopper,Aerofly,Truflight 3D and
RFD
The only ones i've kept are RFD and CSMV10 plus a V9 i bought off Nick
for a slower Laptop.
With Guillaume's re worked parameter set, RFD is not that bad to use
now,for what i want to use it for anyway.
It may not be just right yet but it's not as annoying to use as it was.
Martin
Beavis
>In article <xEGi5.9024$1V.8...@nntp1.onemain.com>,
> "Stephen Emert" <sem...@USIT.NET> wrote:
>
>> > But who's going to host the site? A site foe the discussion of RFD
>> > should be set up by Knife-Edge or Great Planes, but I seriously
>> > doubt they'd actually WANT one.
>
>while. Or maybe I got unsubscribed when my server went down, but it's
>been a very low-traffice list for the entire time I've been on it.
>
>If you wanna take part, go to www.knifeedge.com, click on "mailing
>list," and sign up.
I'll take a look rc.
>
>Plus this topic comes up periodically on the message boards at
>www.rconline.com. There's a moderator there who claims to be a pretty
>good flier, and actually likes RFD. I'm puzzled, but everyone's got a
>right to an opinion. :-)
Moderators and me?? I wonder how long I'd last on a moderated list :-)
Beavis
<no...@nowwhere.com> writes
>
>"Beavis" <Bea...@nachos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4HnTUeAl...@nachos.demon.co.uk...
>> btw, I was talking to Colin Mill some time ago and he's working on a 3D
>> version of his sim. I won't even bother LOOKING at it when it hit's the
>> market, I'll just buy it sight unseen. I have a "little" more faith in
>> him than I do in GP.
>
>I'm glad to hear that we might get a 3D version of CSM.
I don't know how long it'll be Reyes, but I'm willing to wait.
>
>I bought V10 as soon as I could get a copy. I'll do the
>same with the next version. I think my first version of CSM was 7.X.
>I gladly bought the V10 sim since Colin Mill let us download newer
>version.
As well as being a bloody good programmer, he's a thoroughly nice bloke
too and that counts for a lot.
Beavis
<M.Armi...@btinternet.com> writes
Glad I didn't get to see one before I got RFD now Mart.
>
>If you call pirouetting flips and loops advanced aerobatics,you're going
>to have a hard time practising or learning them with Aerofly,the
>parasitic drag (or whatever) values for combined cyclic and collective
>inputs are too high.
>
>
> in the past i've owned CSM V9,V10,Aerochopper,Aerofly,Truflight 3D and
>RFD
>
>The only ones i've kept are RFD and CSMV10 plus a V9 i bought off Nick
>for a slower Laptop.
I had Aerochopper for a time about 9 years ago, but I got rid of it
after a while. I've had a play with a few of the others since, but it's
only when I got RFD that I realized how far sims HAVEN'T come!
>
>With Guillaume's re worked parameter set, RFD is not that bad to use
>now,for what i want to use it for anyway.
>It may not be just right yet but it's not as annoying to use as it was.
I'm willing to wait a bit for Knife-edge to do something, but I wonder
how long that "bit" will need to be?
MArmitstead
> I had Aerochopper for a time about 9 years ago, but I got rid of it
> after a while. I've had a play with a few of the others since, but it's
> only when I got RFD that I realized how far sims HAVEN'T come!
> >
I heard that you used to sell Aerochopper sims back then.
> I'm willing to wait a bit for Knife-edge to do something, but I wonder
> how long that "bit" will need to be?
>
So am i,i was thinking of selling it but i get the feeling i might
regret that later on.
Are they definately going to address this pitching the nose down and
rolling left anomily then with the next sweat patch update?
From what i've read here recently they seem more interested in getting a
Windows2000 version ready.
Martin
Beavis
<M.Armi...@btinternet.com> writes
>Beavis wrote:
>
>> I had Aerochopper for a time about 9 years ago, but I got rid of it
>> after a while. I've had a play with a few of the others since, but it's
>> only when I got RFD that I realized how far sims HAVEN'T come!
>> >
>
>I heard that you used to sell Aerochopper sims back then.
I did Mart. I moved a LOT too, but I don't know if many of the buyers
are still flying. One or two still, are and they both still use
Aerochopper too, having had it updated to cope with the faster PC's.
Apparently it now "includes" the HH function (but you could always
simulate that anyway.. No "Yaw Relative Wind" if memory serves)
>
>
>
>> I'm willing to wait a bit for Knife-edge to do something, but I wonder
>> how long that "bit" will need to be?
>>
>
>
>So am i,i was thinking of selling it but i get the feeling i might
>regret that later on.
Yeah, I think hanging on to it is still the best bet. They can't IGNORE
all the comments they've had (unless they're completely mad) so
something good should appear "one day" :-)
>
>Are they definately going to address this pitching the nose down and
>rolling left anomily then with the next sweat patch update?
It's to be hoped so.
>
>From what i've read here recently they seem more interested in getting a
>Windows2000 version ready.
Well that's what we've been told by Ryan Slack (in a roundabout way).
They also appear to be more inclined to sell add-ons and spin-off
programs (RealRace) than they are to fix what they've already written.
Steve Simpson
> my opinion.
I'd agree with this statement as the sims come 'out of the box'. As I've
said, AeroFly is not going to satisfy anyone who hasn't a lot of patience to
wade through the cryptic parameters in order to get the interface and the
flight models working correctly.
I've had the Aerofly model flying pretty well and made a small change only
to have the whole thing go haywire and have to start over with the stock
model again. Frustrating . . . . but once you get it set up properly, it
works very well (in my opinion), but I would not (and have not) suggested
that a novice purchase the AeroFly sim for the exact reasons you have sited.
> It may not be just right yet but it's not as annoying to use as it was.
>
I don't think any of the current crop of sims is near excellence at this
point. And while I couldn't resist poking some fun at the Beav on this
particular topic, I'd have to agree that there is little excuse for the
shabby state of affairs that we must put up with in these hobby simulators
since all of the required technology already exists in common computer
games.
However, reality comes to us in the form of an extremely high price for
mediocre products due simply to the minute size of the market. Were the
market a half million copies, there would be justification to attract top
talent to the projects. But that just is not the case.
Notwithstanding all of the 'whining' (including my own) about the
shortcomings of the hobby sims, I'm quite pleased to have them. My crashes
run about $400 US each, so any help I get from a simulator is more than
welcome . . . . even imperfect help.
Steve Simpson
> version of his sim.
The CSM sim already is 3D (the hard part), he just needs to bring the
graphics up to date.
I've been in the computer animation field for quite a few years now and you
might be surprised to find that although RFD seems miles ahead of CSM in
graphics, they are not . . . . at least in terms of a complete useful visual
experience.
Believe me, making a pretty heli model is no great accomplishment. Creating
a realistic environment in which to fly it is quite another story . . CSM
and RFD are essentially at the same place in this regard . . . . ground
zero.
I've often wondered why a sim with good physics (CSM) and a sim with good
graphics (AeroFly) don't get together and produce an excellent product. Or
why CSM doesn't hire/contract to convert their graphics to the DirectX
standard.
Somewhere in this thread it was stated that RFD is not motivated greatly by
the heli crowd due to the small number of copies purchased for heli use. I
would tend to agree with that sentiment. It would seem to me that they are
more interested in appeasing the curiosity of their plank customers that
creating a truly useful tool for heli pilots.
Naturally, that is pure speculation, but sticking in a new 'toy' for the
plank crowd seems like a good way to sell lots of upgrades to them (and
maybe even draw in some actual heli freaks too).
MArmitstead
>
>
>
> I'd agree with this statement as the sims come 'out of the box'. As I've
> said, AeroFly is not going to satisfy anyone who hasn't a lot of patience to
> wade through the cryptic parameters in order to get the interface and the
> flight models working correctly.
You make it sound like a sim for the discerning modeller,so it's a
tweakers sim rather than an ARTF one:-)
i thought there wasn't enough parameters to wade through,it was a bit
like Truflight in that respect.
> I've had the Aerofly model flying pretty well and made a small change only
> to have the whole thing go haywire and have to start over with the stock
> model again. Frustrating . . . . but once you get it set up properly, it
> works very well (in my opinion), but I would not (and have not) suggested
> that a novice purchase the AeroFly sim for the exact reasons you have sited.
I think you've probably got a lot more patience in general than i
have,also part of what spoiled it for me was having used a few other
sims beforehand.I did think the real enviroment graphics and fog were
cool at first but the front end adjustment methods with all those
coloured CofG symbols started to get on my nerves after a while.Having
to setup and save a radio calibration for every model was a
ballache,there were other issues too.
> Notwithstanding all of the 'whining' (including my own) about the
> shortcomings of the hobby sims, I'm quite pleased to have them. My crashes
> run about $400 US each, so any help I get from a simulator is more than
> welcome . . . . even imperfect help.
Agreed,we should think ourselves lucky.
Martin
Beavis
Steve Simpson <simp...@mediaone.net> writes
>> btw, I was talking to Colin Mill some time ago and he's working on a 3D
>> version of his sim.
>
>The CSM sim already is 3D (the hard part), he just needs to bring the
>graphics up to date.
Me and my choice of words!! I was speaking "Direct X'ly".
>
>I've been in the computer animation field for quite a few years now and you
>might be surprised to find that although RFD seems miles ahead of CSM in
>graphics, they are not . . . . at least in terms of a complete useful visual
>experience.
>
>Believe me, making a pretty heli model is no great accomplishment. Creating
>a realistic environment in which to fly it is quite another story . . CSM
>and RFD are essentially at the same place in this regard . . . . ground
>zero.
I'm not particularly bothered by the "backdrop" (if that's what you mean
by environment) as I rarely "see" it when I'm simming, but I think the
"Photo" backdrop in RFD is pretty good. Not good enough to make me want
to buy any add-on's, but sufficiently good enough not to turn me off.
>
>I've often wondered why a sim with good physics (CSM) and a sim with good
>graphics (AeroFly) don't get together and produce an excellent product. Or
>why CSM doesn't hire/contract to convert their graphics to the DirectX
>standard.
It's the DX standard that Colin's working on Steve.
>
>Somewhere in this thread it was stated that RFD is not motivated greatly by
>the heli crowd due to the small number of copies purchased for heli use. I
>would tend to agree with that sentiment.
So would I, but I'd temper that agreement with one comment. IF
RealFlight want the heli customers, they should provide a "flyable" heli
from the off. Excuses like "The customer base is too small to spend time
and money on" aren't an option for a program costing what RFD costs.
> It would seem to me that they are
>more interested in appeasing the curiosity of their plank customers that
>creating a truly useful tool for heli pilots.
Absolutely. And now they're going for the jugular. They're after the
buggie/car guys. Piss THEM off and there'll be a bloody riot :-)
>
>Naturally, that is pure speculation, but sticking in a new 'toy' for the
>plank crowd seems like a good way to sell lots of upgrades to them (and
>maybe even draw in some actual heli freaks too).
If nothing else, GP have a working marketing strategy. Working in their
favour every time!