 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / December 2005Real Flight G3
Okay, so I bought the new Real Flight. The G3 version. What a mistake. Real Flight version 1 was their best effort. How many years ago was it when they introduced that version? It was easy to get the helis going in 3D mode. The models flew reasonably well, considering that it is a simulation. Changing various models was fun and easy. You could actually learn something about trimming using the simulator and its features. G2 wasn't better. It was different. Now the helis are a pain to set up for someone that is not a heli person and just wants to screw around. Lost my heli ability, but modifying the airplanes was a bit easier. The physics were not any better than version 1, just different. G3 is the worst yet. The physics suck. If any of my models flew the way these simualtions fly, I would have trashed them. Yeah, there's lots of computer crap for the geeks in the crowd, but the purpose is to simulate flying models as close to the real world as possible. No bullseye. In fact, they didn't even hit the target. Why change something if it isn't for the better? It makes no sense to me. On top of the bad physics and higher video requirements (for what?), the labels on my add-ons fell off except for two of them. I have three CD's that I paid for that are not usable because of no serial numbers. Serial numbers on add-ons? This paranoia has gone too far. I won't be back, Real Flight. This tears it. Ed Cregger Wow, sorry that you're having such an experience Ed. I bought G3 a couple of months ago with the first two Add-On volumes and I've been really happy with it. I'm a video game nut, and my PC can dish out all of the graphic rendering that G3 asks for and then some. I've been quite happy with it. I thought the physics and flight models were pretty good for the planes I've actually flown at the field. G3 doesn't model slow flight particularly well, I'm glad it's so much easier to fly ovals at half throttle with a Nexstar or PT40 in real life than it is on the sim. Overall though, I've found it to be a useful tool. One of my friends who is a flight instructor at one of our clubs came over and tried out some of the helicopters a couple of weeks ago. He has G2 and an older PC at home, and he thought the G3 helicopters moved faster and handled more realistically. Overall he seemed impressed with G3's feel, but my extra processing power might have simply removed some of the sluggishness that his computer adds to the experience. Another buddy from the local flying club came over to check out some of the planes I'd recommended he look at from The World Models. We fired up the G3 after he did some browser shopping and played around with some of the competitive features like pylon racing and spot landing. I hooked up my 4YF to the Interlink USB controller and we played in 2-player split screen mode for a while, too. We had a ball. It sucks you can't use 3 of your Add-On volumes. I'd hope that Great Planes' tech support folks might be able to issue you new cd keys if you were to send them your original discs as proof of ownership. They're pretty good about helping with most everything else, it might be worth the phone call. I'm running G3 on an Athlon 64 3000+ CPU with 1Gb (512Mb x 2) Dual Channel DDR PC3200 RAM and a Radeon X800XL 256Mb PCI Express video card. It runs quite smoothly most of the time at 1600 x 1200 resolution, but even on my machine G3 will stutter a bit during a crash. Your frustration with G3 might be more of an indication that you need to upgrade your PC rather than a direct indication that Real Flight is getting worse instead of better. You've already spent a couple of hundred bucks on the flight sim. If you think you might benefit from upgrading your computer, I'd be happy to recommend some top bang-for-the-buck components that might put the snap back into your simulated snap rolls. > Okay, so I bought the new Real Flight. The G3 version. What a mistake. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ed Cregger > Wow, sorry that you're having such an experience Ed. I bought G3 a couple > of months ago with the first two Add-On volumes and I've been really happy [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > recommend some top bang-for-the-buck components that might put the snap > back into your simulated snap rolls. ------------- I'm running an AMD 64 3200+ with 1 gb of RAM, a Radeon 9600 video card and a 160 gb hard drive. Once you get within several feet of the ground, when passing through the center of the virtual world (where you stand) the model dives into the ground for no reason. Real models do not do this. When I pull back the throttle on most models, the model then climbs severely, as though it had too much positive incidence and too much engine downthrust. Stock models, built according to the instructions, do not do this at all. The program decides you have crashed before you contact a solid object. Not so in real life. The models do not bleed off airspeed in a realistic manner and shoot far past where they would land in real life. The shadow of the model, which were very useful in past iterations of this program, are nearly useless now in helping you decide where the model is in relation to the ground. These things did not happen in past editions. Why now? This is just a few of the things that I have found disappointing. I could go on, but why bother? Ed Cregger Your computer system should run G3 plenty smoothly. You should be able to enjoy the eye candy without any kind of performance hit. I'd agree that the collision detection system is less than perfect. Your comment about planes not bleeding off speed in a realistic manner also rings true to me. I didn't own G2, so I can't really say whether G3 is a step backward from G2. I can tell you I've flown Aerofly Professional Deluxe, and after trying it out I was glad I had purchased G3. APD looks nicer and flies worse than G3 does. Still, you ought to get Great Planes to help you use your own CDs that you've bought and payed for previously. Copy protection should never get in the way of a product owner's ability to use the software. >> Wow, sorry that you're having such an experience Ed. I bought G3 a >> couple of months ago with the first two Add-On volumes and I've been [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Ed Cregger Ed, Sorry the see that you are having troubles. I'd had very good luck with my G3 on my P4 with a GeForce4 Ti 4200. You can use the S/N from your G1 disk set for the add-on S/N's. Good Luck > Ed, Sorry the see that you are having troubles. I'd had very good luck > with my G3 on my P4 with a GeForce4 Ti 4200. You can use the S/N from > your G1 disk set for the add-on S/N's. > > Good Luck Thanks for the tip. I hate to do this. I mean, well, you'll know what I mean. PCPhil was right. I am having a video problem with my computer. Now to find a suitable replacement video card that does not cost an arm and a leg, but which is adequate for flying model sims. It has to be compatible with the VIA chipset this pig is running. I still do not like the way they changed engine selection and model set up, but I have to be fair to Real Flight and apologize until I install another video card. Then, if it still does the same obnoxious things, like having the model fly to pieces before it hits anything, heh-heh (spoken as Louie LaPalma)....<G> Ed Cregger One of the great defenders of G3, please explain to me what, "current mass of self" and "current mass of children" means. I did a sloppy landing and hit the tail square on the ground with the nose high. The vertical stabilizer popped off. Say what? Does anyone think that a new video card will cure these problems? <G> Tower, WTF were you thinking when you approved carrying this POS? Please offer me a refund. I dare you. Ed Cregger > Tower, WTF were you thinking when you approved carrying this POS? > > Please offer me a refund. I dare you. C'mon Ed... it's the holidays! Mellow out and smile a little! ;-) Good flying, desmobob >> Tower, WTF were you thinking when you approved carrying this POS? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Good flying, > desmobob I'll be okay as soon as the holidays are over, Bob. <G> Ed Cregger Ed, I think that's probably just the way they programmed collisions. It is possible that if your frame rate is too slow, you're hitting harder than you think and the screen hasn't shown it. A video card to truly keep up with G3 maxed out is pricey, 200+ I'd really try to find some local flyers with the other two sims to try before I'd go that route. It might be that you'll only end up hating it, but looking good while doing so.... PCPhill Collision detection is iffier on the photo real landscapes than the true 3D landscapes, but the true 3D demands more of your video card. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Cregger" <edcregger@yahu.com (replace the u with oo)> Newsgroups: rec.models.rc.air Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Real Flight G3 > One of the great defenders of G3, please explain to me what, "current mass > of self" and "current mass of children" means. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ed Cregger > Ed, I think that's probably just the way they programmed collisions. It > is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 3D > landscapes, but the true 3D demands more of your video card. Thanks, Phil. I'm going to hold off on doing anything, video card wise. I'm entering a period of my life (old age) where my old paradigm of reason and logic appears to be fading into the past. Things like G3 do not make sense to me. I don't understand why someone having G2 as a successful product, not that it is perfect, would come out with something like G3 and then tout it as though it was improved. To my line of reasoning, it is an abomination. Nothing has been "improved" except things that do not count toward making it a better simulator. It is as though the original idea of offering a simulator for flight training has turned into eye candy for morons. Is that the future? Are we seeing the dumbing down in action? Is this what the progeny of the drug generation deem entertainment? Sorry for being so "negative". But I didn't start this - Real Flight did and Tower took my money, knowing full well what they were selling. Or did they? This is my last post about G3, or any other Real Flight product. Ed Cregger >> Ed, I think that's probably just the way they programmed collisions. It >> is [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Sorry for being so "negative". But I didn't start this - Real Flight did and > Tower took my money, knowing full well what they were selling. Or did they? Indeed. The problemn is, in a world populated by fools with (borpowed) money, total crap with chrome and tailfins sells better than reliable workhorses. > This is my last post about G3, or any other Real Flight product. > > Ed Cregger > Indeed. The problemn is, in a world populated by fools with (borpowed) > money, DAMN that borpowed money!  SignatureSt. John When the government bureau's remedies don't match your problem, you modify the problem, not the remedy. > PCPhil was right. I am having a video >problem with my computer. Then, later: > Sorry for being so "negative". But I didn't >start this - Real Flight did > and Tower took my money, knowing full well >what they were selling. Or did > they? Ed, don't you think it is likely that neither Real Flight nor Tower were aware that you were having a video problem? Steve Kaluf, in his review of G3 on Tower's web site, wrote about his PC and said: "The machine had 512 MB of RAM shared with the video card. I was thrilled that a machine without a high end video card or dedicated video RAM was able to run such a graphics-intensive simulator! I had been prepared to have to buy a high end card to add to this machine, but it wasn't necessary." Tom B >> PCPhil was right. I am having a video >problem with my computer. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Tom B I was mellowing a bit, after seeing my neighbor's lovely daughter. She always improves my mood. Then I ran across the parent/children thing... If you have a terrible tooth ache one day and while driving to the dentist your car malfunctions, forcing you to cancel the dental appointment and call a tow truck instead... My video problem has nothing to do with the remainder of the faults of G3. The video problem is not the basis for most of my complaints. It's only $200. I've sh.t canned that much money before without batting an eye. This certainly isn't worth the time that I have devoted to it. Ed Cregger Ed wrote: > My video problem has nothing to do with the remainder of the faults of G3. > The video problem is not the basis for most of my complaints. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ed Cregger Ed, Suggestion: get onto the website of the manufacturer of your video card and download its latest drivers. Your statement that the video card is not the basis for most of your complaints may not be really logical; IF you are having video problems (as you yourself has said) then you should resolve them before you criticize G3. Such problems could certainly affect the operation of G3. Tom B > Ed wrote: >> My video problem has nothing to do with the remainder of the faults of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Tom B No, you missed my point. My description must be lacking, though that would not be surprising. There are enough issues with G3, issues that are not video related, that even if my computer/video system was absolutely perfect, the other issues would make it a poor simulator. I hope that was clear enough. However, how could one plan on selling a lot of G3 copies that require the latest and greatest computers on which to run, knowing full well that the majority of R/C folks are not equipped with the latest and greatest in computers? That position alone makes me wonder where their heads are at. G1 ran well on my AMD 333 MHz equipped computer some years ago. The flight model, though not perfect, was good enough for providing useful training for newbie pilots, or pilots that wanted to upgrade their skills by trying new maneuvers that they were afraid to try on their real model. G1 fulfilled its function for me. The 3D heli sims were good and usable by someone like me, mostly an airplane enthusiast. G2, ran fine on my 1.5 GHz CPU equipped computer. Unfortunately, the presets for helis were a little hard to figure out for someone like me, who likes to fool around with helis, but doesn't really want to get into the nuts and bolts of programming the radio for 3D heli. G3 is sluggish on my AMD 64 3200+ equipped computer. The presets for helis is better than G2, but there are many other issues that bother me. I venture to say that the vast majority of R/C folks that would like to fly on a simulator do not have a 2 GHz or higher speed processor equipped computer. Much less a $200 video card. What was Real Flight thinking? If you want to sell the maximum number of units, you design your ware to be used on what the majority of your potential customers own. Not what some kid with free reign of Mom and Dad's credit card will buy for gaming. Of course, this is part of the old paradigm thinking that I mentioned a while back. You know, where you have to make a profit in order to stay in business? I update my drivers weekly. I have a membership with www.drivershq.com and a couple of others. I also go to the factory sites for my components to see if the above folks have missed something. Instead of designing software for the very best computers available and then having to spend endless hours answering emails and phone calls asking why their program doesn't run on someone's two year old computer, wouldn't it have been smarter to target the type of computers that the target consumer would likely be using? Most folks that I know who would be prospective customers for such a program do not perform their own maintenance on their computers. They take them to a shop and have those folks work on them. They don't replace video cards or add RAM as time goes on. When the computer is three or four years old, they buy a new one with what they hope will be all of the latest and greatest components that are available for "normal" computer usage. Making programs that only work on a computer geek's computer limits the satisfied number of G3 users dramatically. This is America and one has the right to fail in business, just as they have the right to succeed. Someone else will come along, realize the niche that is begging to be filled and will be picked up by Tower Hobbies (assuming they survive the ownership transfer that just occurred). Real Flight will then become history, as so many other model gear manufacturers have done in the past. I wish them (RF) luck, but they really are going to have to give up their computer priesthood status, remove their magic cloaks/pointy hats and begin addressing the fact that they must sell many, many units in order to make Tower Hobbies some money. When the word gets out that Real Flight caters only to other computer geeks, the normal R/C folks will cease buying their products. And this truly is my last response on this subject. Ed Cregger It will definitely run on a lesser machine with the eye candy turned off. I think the main problem is that the only real improvement to G3 seems to be the eye candy. As Ed said, the physics don't seem to be any better, some critics have said they've gotten worse. I've spent some time with the demo version today, and I'm now convinced I didn't make a mistake when I choose a different sim. PCPhill >> PCPhil was right. I am having a video >problem with my computer. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Tom B | Things like G3 do not make sense to me. I don't understand why someone | having G2 as a successful product, not that it is perfect, would come out | with something like G3 and then tout it as though it was improved. The graphics are much improved (G2's graphics sucked compared to other games even when it first came out.) There's a few new features -- if I recall correctly, we now have better thermals, slope soaring, more dramatic collisions, etc. (Personally, I refuse to buy G3. I already paid $280 for G2, I'm not paying another $200 just for fancier graphics, and their $25 upgrade rebate was an insult.) Like any other business, Knife Edge is in the business of making money. Everything else is secondary. If they can do this by releasing a buggy product before it's ready and people will still buy it, well, then they're still making money. Perhaps even more money than if they'd finished the product and shipped it. Unfortunate, but reality. G2's graphics were very dated, and things like XTR and Aerofly were taking more and more of their business (with much improved graphics over G2) so Knife Edge had to put out something if they wanted to keep selling stuff. Personally, I've found that if you compare G2 and G3 to games that came out at the same time, they've been quite lacking. It's quite obvious that they're no where near as polished as other, more mainstream games -- even the low budget flight simulator games (like Jetfighter X: Jason vs. Freddy or whatever) probably sell far more copies than G2 or G3. In any event, Real Flight now has some serious competition, and it'll probably either improve greatly or die out. It's easy to do little when that's all you have to do, but they'll have to do much better if they want to remain the 800 pound gorilla. | To my line of reasoning, it is an abomination. Nothing has been | "improved" except things that do not count toward making it a better | simulator. It is as though the original idea of offering a simulator | for flight training has turned into eye candy for morons. Is that | the future? Future? This is the present! Games are coming out with much fancier graphics but with relatively little effort put into things like gameplay and such. | Are we seeing the dumbing down in action? Is this what the progeny | of the drug generation deem entertainment? drug generation? I'm not sure who you're trying to insult here. In any event, games of all sorts have been doing this -- as computers and graphics improve, more programming effort is put into flashy graphics and effects and less into improving gameplay and stories and such. And people eat it up. | Sorry for being so "negative". But I didn't start this - Real Flight | did and Tower took my money, knowing full well what they were | selling. Or did they? Most people seem reasonably happy with G3, it sould seem. Tower might very well give you your money back if you complain loudly enough. I've never found their customer service to be anything less than excellent, and while it's generally rare that places will accept returns on software, Tower might just do it. Though I wouldn't complain _too_ much about how your vertical stabilizer broke off. They're probably just making the simulation more accurate by simulating a poor glue joint like you occasionally find in ARFs :) | This is my last post about G3, or any other Real Flight product. Uh-huh. :) SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com A woman is like a beer. They look good, they smell good and you'd step over your own mother just to get one. --Homer Simpson >> Ed, Sorry the see that you are having troubles. I'd had very good luck >> with my G3 on my P4 with a GeForce4 Ti 4200. You can use the S/N from [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Ed Cregger When I got G2 I went to my PC builder shop and tried one video after another till I got one that worked..condition of purchase was that it would run G2.. Fog doesn't work well, but who cares. I normally fly with out 3D background as well. Speeds it up. I have heard nothing but good things about..this program the only bad(bad?) thing that i have heard that that it's a pretty hungry program, meaning that it needs a fast machine,good amout of ram and a kick a.s video card... other than that thats it... Gig >Okay, so I bought the new Real Flight. The G3 version. What a mistake. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Ed Cregger > I have heard nothing but good things about..this program the only > bad(bad?) thing that i have heard that that it's a pretty hungry [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> >>Ed Cregger Gone is the easy interface used to alter models. I've changed the engine to a four-stroke, but I still have the two-stroke sound. The stock models control surface defections are set in unrealistically. A newbie buying this simulator to learn how to fly the Nextar would have no idea as to what the problem is or how to cure it. The Nextar does not have enough elevator excursion to be flown safely, much less train a new pilot. With time and some help from our newsgroup friends, I can probably get it to a usable state. My pet peeve in life is if something is working well, do not change it for the sake of change. At this level of my experience with G3, it appears that that is exactly what has been done - to the detriment of the program. I do not have a bone to pick with Real Flight. I have enjoyed using the previous versions of Real Flight. I am just a little puzzled as to why it was changed away from a modeler's perspective and moved toward a gamer's perspective. How many gamers fly R/C? How many that fly R/C are computer nerds? I'll bet not many. If anything, the program should have been made more accomodating to non computer types, focused more on R/C and designed for the typical computer owned by most R/C enthusiasts. This would not be the latest and greatest gaming machine, but instead would be a machine running a P4 at around 2 GHz with an average video card. Am I going to be able to get the four-stroke sound that I want from the Nextar or PT-40 Trainer? Can I adjust the power of the engine as I could in G2? All of this remains to be seen, but it doesn't look good from my perspective. Ed Cregger Does your pussy hurt? You must be a real dweeb not to be able to make this piece o' cake work. Suggest you call a 12-year-old girl to help you. I haven't done a lot of customization with planes yet, Ed, but I do know you can change the sound. It's odd that the engine sound isn't tied to the engine selected, but I guess the Real Flight folks wanted to give you more options. Go to edit aircraft under the aircraft menu. Select airframe then fuselage then engine. You change engines by highlighting the "torque generator" and opening the submenu. You change engine sound by highlighting "sound profile" and opening the submenu. Once you edit any aspect of a "stock" airplane, you have to save it as a custom airplane and fly that custom airplane setting to use the changes. Hope this helps. >> I have heard nothing but good things about..this program the only >> bad(bad?) thing that i have heard that that it's a pretty hungry [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Ed Cregger >I haven't done a lot of customization with planes yet, Ed, but I do know >you can change the sound. It's odd that the engine sound isn't tied to the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hope this helps. I did all of that, Ed. I changed it to 4C and the damned thing makes a couple of notes of the 4C and then reverts back to the 2C sound. Maybe I have a bad install. A torque generator, huh? Sounds like they have moved from glow model orientation to electric model orientation. I guess I know where their heads are at. I will say that the helis fly better than I expected and some of those are set up pretty good for a non heli person such as myself that doesn't want to waste days programming a software radio. Ed Cregger Hi Ed, I'm one to say I told you so (I really am ;-)) But way back when you asked about the G3 and I explained in detail that you should stick with G2. . I had two early versions of RF + G2, G3, Aerofly Pro and MRC Reflex. G3 was such a poor sim that I returned it after a few months of total frustration. Sure you a\can tune all the models so they fly properly but only after a huge time expenditure. I told .............Arghh - I just can't do it <VBG>. I hope you can return it - Good luck. SignatureTallyHo! Ed > Okay, so I bought the new Real Flight. The G3 version. What a mistake. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ed Cregger > Hi Ed, > I'm one to say I told you so (I really am ;-)) But way back when you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > only after a huge time expenditure. I told .............Arghh - I just > can't do it <VBG>. I hope you can return it - Good luck. Yep, you did, Ed. I forgot. I don't know if Tower would take it back or not. I would gladly return it. Now that I've got you online, which one turned out to be best of the ones you tried? Ed Cregger You didn't ask me, but I'll put in my 2cents anyway. I like AFPD best. The physics feel right to me. The downside is the included planes are mostly European, whereas G3 planes tend to be common in the US(The fact that they're distributed by Great Planes/Tower surely couldn't have anything to do with this). On the other hand there are tons of downloadable planes available for AFP/AFPD. It does take a fair amount of firepower, but not too unreasonable. Did you mention what your video card is? PCPhill One of the computer nerds who does fly RC, and frequently crashes both ;) >> Hi Ed, >> I'm one to say I told you so (I really am ;-)) But way back when you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ed Cregger He has a Radeon 9600, an Athlon 64 3200+, and 1Gb of RAM. He should be able to run any sim on the market quite easily at 1024 x 768 or 1280 x 1024. > You didn't ask me, but I'll put in my 2cents anyway. I like AFPD best. > The physics feel right to me. The downside is the included planes are [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >> Ed Cregger The video card won't allow the graphics to be cranked all the way up, but with the settings on G3 taken off max quality that should be fine... I haven't played with G3 much (don't own it), but in any of the sims cutting the smoke and/or exhaust off will greatly improve framerate. The particle generation can really eat up CPU/GPU time. PCPhill > He has a Radeon 9600, an Athlon 64 3200+, and 1Gb of RAM. He should be > able to run any sim on the market quite easily at 1024 x 768 or 1280 x > 1024. > The video card won't allow the graphics to be cranked all the way up, but > with the settings on G3 taken off max quality that should be fine... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> able to run any sim on the market quite easily at 1024 x 768 or 1280 x >> 1024. My computer is not having a video problem, Phil. It is having other problems which point to either a programmer that doesn't fly writing the code, or to just flat out making bad decisions - foregoing realism for flashy, purty-purty graphics that do not add up to a hill of beans when trying to extract maximum flying experience from said product. They have lost sight of their mission and why folks buy simulators in the first place. I'll give G3 the benefit of the doubt and I'll do a fresh install again. But many of the things that I find objectionable will remain, I'm sure. The program has been "dumbed down", to borrow an expression. It cheers me up to praise people when they do a good job. It makes me feel down to have to warn others of a less than stellar effort on a producer's product. Ed Cregger Got it Ed. I agree withyou which is why I don't own G3. In it's favor, it is easier to change certain things, like motors. In AFPD, which I own you can't just specify the motor. You have to input the specifications instead. As I understand it, this is because of copyright restrictions which G3 avoids by being under the Great Planes umbrella. I really REALLY wish the big three sim developers would publish demo versions. They are too expensive to risk a mistake buying them. Hope you can work out a return and try the other two. Good Luck, PCPhill > My computer is not having a video problem, Phil. It is having other > problems which point to either a programmer that doesn't fly writing the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ed Cregger Hi Ed, I spend about 97% of my sim time on Aerofly Pro Deluxe. G2/USB is OK but I prefer AFPD. The photo-realistic fields are great and there are many free birds online. I haven't spent enough time on Reflex for a proper eval because it won't work with my JR Quattro and I refuse to use my JR 9303 on a sim - runs down batteries and excessive wear. I can send my Quattro in for a "fix" but I've procrastinated for months. I downloaded a video of Chip Hyde flying his Ultimate on the AFPD and you can hear him remarking that it actually flies like the Ultimate. IMHO, that's a pretty good endorsement. BTW, AFPD works with my G2 USB controller. That's another plus. I bought G3 as soon as it became available and there were tons of bugs. I kept it for about two months and my LHS was good enough to take it back along with dozens of other returns from dissatisfied users. It got so bad that the LHS returned his stock and refused to order any more. The LHS had a similar problem with the MRC Reflex because it required too much computer to run properly. So many returns that they refused to order one for me. I had to go online. A good friend of mine who turned into a decent 3D pilot said that AFPD was far a much better 3D sim than G2/USB or G3. Another friend (chopper pilot) prefers AFPD to G3. I guess it's all subjective but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it ;-) SignatureTallyHo! Ed > >> Hi Ed, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ed Cregger > Hi Ed, > I spend about 97% of my sim time on Aerofly Pro Deluxe. G2/USB is OK but [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Another friend (chopper pilot) prefers AFPD to G3. I guess it's all > subjective but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it ;-) ----------------- Thanks for the synopsis and update, Ed. I tried to buy AFPD a while back, but was led around in circles by the website and never was able to purchase online. That has been a while now. The site looks different now, so I'll try again. I don't like using one of my real transmitters for simulations for the reasons you named previously. So, being able to use the G2 Tx will work out fine. Anyone want to swap something for a barely used copy of G3? You'll have to work out how to get it activated - IF you can get it activated. I'm through with it. Ed Cregger >I don't like using one of my real transmitters for simulations for the >reasons you named previously. So, being able to use the G2 Tx will work out >fine. Keep us posted on how the G2 works with AFPD. I may follow you down that road. I have G2 and have been happy enough with it, but I don't hear anything about G3 that makes me want to get into it. AFPD sounds like a better route. >Anyone want to swap something for a barely used copy of G3? You'll have to >work out how to get it activated - IF you can get it activated. I'm through >with it. $40? I wouldn't want to spend more than that on the off-chance I can get it to work. :o( Marty Ed, I bought AFPD from Ohio Model planes @ $181.90 incl S/H. Now it's $179.95 + $4.95 S/H Check them out here http://www.aeroflypro.com/ Be advised that It works with the *G2 USB Interlink* controller I'm not sure about plain ol' G2. Check out the bottom of the link page and you will see the Chip Hyde video and many others. If you have any questions give me a shout. Good luck - SignatureTallyHo! Ed > >> Hi Ed, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Ed Cregger FYI, there is now a demo version of RealFlight G3 available for downloa at the realflight.com website. Ji -- jbourk Thanks Jim, That's new since last time I visited. PCPhill > FYI, there is now a demo version of RealFlight G3 available for download > at the realflight.com website. > > Jim I know you said you're done with this topic Ed, but I found out something kind of weird. I got the Nexstar edition of G2 with my plane last year. It's been a while since I've played with it, but I never uninstalled it even though I bought G3. When I fly my Nexstar at myself on my G2 sim, it dives after passing through me just like the planes dip in G3. I would be surprised to learn that your version of G2 doesn't do this, even though it's one of the annoyances that you've mentioned with G3. > Okay, so I bought the new Real Flight. The G3 version. What a mistake. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ed Cregger >I know you said you're done with this topic Ed, but I found out something >kind of weird. I got the Nexstar edition of G2 with my plane last year. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that your version of G2 doesn't do this, even though it's one of the > annoyances that you've mentioned with G3. I haven't used G2 for a year or two, so the memory isn't great. But, I do seem to recall that what you are saying is true. Ed Cregger G2+ all the add-ons doesn't have a NexStar but I have tried to duplicate the situation Ed P. described with no success. SignatureTallyHo! Ed > >>I know you said you're done with this topic Ed, but I found out something [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ed Cregger What is it about this hobby that attracts so many guys named, "Ed?" Anyway, Ed Cregger originally described this phenomenon in his first post on this thread. If you fly a plane directly at you in level flight, it will dip immediately after passing through where you are "standing" inside the simulator. He thought it was a fault with the G3 flight physics in particular. Since I have both G3 and the Nexstar G2 Special Edition, I tested it and both versions do it. It's not particular to the Nexstar, but trainers seem to be the easiest planes to fly level through the center of the simulator. I tested it with the PT40 and the Twinstar on G3 as well as the Nexstar. > G2+ all the add-ons doesn't have a NexStar but I have tried to duplicate > the situation Ed P. described with no success. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> Ed Cregger Hi Ed P. ;) I understand Ed. I was trying to explain that it does not occur in my G2 USB Interlink. It seems that it may occur only in the NexStar version - or am I missing something? (Quite possible ;-)). SignatureTallyHo! Ed > What is it about this hobby that attracts so many guys named, "Ed?" > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>> >>> Ed Cregger > Hi Ed P. ;) > I understand Ed. I was trying to explain that it does not occur in my G2 > USB Interlink. It seems that it may occur only in the NexStar version - or > am I missing something? (Quite possible ;-)). Being an ex pattern flier, albeit of modest skills, I am extremely aware of when a model deviates from its anticipated flight path. No, this does not make me an expert. However, G1, G2 and G3 models do dive toward the ground on most (maybe all) model renditions after they pass nearby or through the pilot's position. The effect is most noticable in the pilot's position, but diminishes steadily as the model's distance increases from the center of the viritual sphere universe. If you look directly overhead, you can see the opposite side of the "sphere" that I'm referring to. I'm not knocking the sphere paradigm at all. It may be the only way to make such a virtual environment that is practical to implement with the computers we have and their capabilities. There are quite a few good features about the Real Flight programs. I'm probably just a cantankerous old fart that is resistant to change. Shoulda kept my mouth shut and not bothered anyone with it. Ed Cregger |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.