 |
 | 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 / January 2009Simulator better than RealFlight G3.5 ???
I have been park-flying RTF's for about a year now and still like to practice (and play) when it gets dark outside. A friend showed me his RealFlight G3.5 simulator and its OK but are there any better? Chuck >I have been park-flying RTF's for about a year now and still like to >practice (and play) when it gets dark outside. A friend showed me his >RealFlight G3.5 simulator and its OK but are there any better? I have RF G4.5. I moved up from G2. I enjoy it. My local hobby shop carries it and I was able to buy it with some gift cards. I have seen other simulators--played with one once out in Toledo. I'm running G4.5 on a Vista x64 system with 6 GB of RAM and ... hang on ... 256 MB video card. The system glitches routinely a moment after takeoff and at the point of crashing. My friend has a similar system with a little less RAM and a bigger, hotter video card. I've got the dual-core CPU set up to ramp up the clock on demand (I don't want it running hot when I'm doing stuff like this). We speculate that it's my slow hard disks, maybe. I have a RAID array set up for mirroring. After the obligatory glitches, all the rest of the flight is smooth until it's time to crash. It's plenty good enough for my purposes for now. Someday I may give some other system a go ... Marty  SignatureBig-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.* See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups. RF G4.5 definitely wants a high end video card or else. I'm running an athlon dual core 3.0ghz with 3 gigs of ram. I Ebay'd a Geforce 8500 GT Nvidia card but got less than great results. Upgraded a bit to an Nvidia Geforce 8600 GT card with worse results. Jerky background, some custom planes wouldn't "animate" even tho they did fly OK, went back to the 8500 card. Just picked up an EVGA E-GeForce 9800GTX card and WOW! I can turn on ALL options and set to highest and it works great. This card is HUGE. PCI Express but double slot and about a foot long. I actually had to modify the removable housing for the SATA drive with a hacksaw to get that sucker to fit in the case but fit it does. That being said, I absolutely love G4.5 and can say without any qualms that it is well worth the money if your puter can run it. Dan >>I have been park-flying RTF's for about a year now and still like to >>practice (and play) when it gets dark outside. A friend showed me his [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Marty > ... Just picked up an EVGA E-GeForce 9800GTX card and WOW! I can turn on ALL >options and set to highest and it works great. ... You have probably put your finger on the weakest link in my system. I've got a ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT with 256 MB of RAM. I'll definitely be on the lookout for an upgrade in a year or two. Not now. I'm trying to be happy with what I've got. It's way good enough for work, and that's what I'm supposed to be using it for. Marty SignatureBig-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.* See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups. |> ... Just picked up an EVGA E-GeForce 9800GTX card and WOW! I can |> turn on ALL options and set to highest and it works great. ... Not surprising. It's very high end. | You have probably put your finger on the weakest link | in my system. | | I've got a ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT with 256 MB of RAM. Actually, that's a pretty decent card. It ought to run RFG4 just fine, with most options turned on. If you want to rank your cards, check here -- http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-cards,1965-6.html | I'll definitely be on the lookout for an upgrade in | a year or two. Not now. I'm trying to be happy | with what I've got. It's way good enough for work, Really, if your work doesn't need 3D graphics, pretty much any video card will work. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Manly's Maxim: Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence. Thanks for mentioning Tom's hardware site, Doug. I had forgotten about this once revered resource. Much appreciated. Ed Cregger ------------- > | On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:14:46 -0800, "fubar1" <fubar1@socal.rr.com> wrote > in <gh9v9k$qke$1@aioe.org>: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Really, if your work doesn't need 3D graphics, pretty much any video > card will work. > I have been park-flying RTF's for about a year now and still like to > practice (and play) when it gets dark outside. A friend showed me his > RealFlight G3.5 simulator and its OK but are there any better? > > Chuck I have heard Aerofly Pro Deluxe is good. I have Realflight G4.5 and like it. No reason to change. I am running an AMD 64 bit processor, 3 gb ram , a GeForce 7600 GS video card that has 256 mb of ram on it, Windows XP installed on one of the slowest SATA hard drives available. I have G4.5 set for full performance and have no problems with glitches. If Realflight would run under wine on Linux, I wouldn't even have Windows of any flavor installed on my system. SignatureTo reply by email: vhoward1122 at gmail dot com Never argue with an idiot, He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience. >> I have been park-flying RTF's for about a year now and still like to >> practice (and play) when it gets dark outside. A friend showed me his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I have heard Aerofly Pro Deluxe is good. I have Aerofly Pro running on a 3Ghz HP Desktop with a 256MG 7600GT card, and it also runs on my Dell laptop that has a 2.4Ghz CPU but does have a "proper" graphics card in it ( 256mb but can't remember the make and model (Nvidia I think)) Desktop has 2GB RAM, Laptop has 1GB ram. Both are using the standard disks that came in them, nothing special, just what was maker supplied. Runs perfectly fine (over 30FPS, usually around 60 to 100fps) on both. The key isn't the CPU it;s the graphics card. >I have Realflight G4.5 and like it. No reason to change. I am running an AMD 64 bit processor, 3 gb ram , a >GeForce 7600 GS video card that has 256 mb of ram on it, Windows XP installed on one of the slowest SATA >hard drives available. I have G4.5 set for full performance and have no problems with glitches. If Realflight would >run under wine on Linux, I wouldn't even have Windows of any flavor installed on my system. I have FS1 too (it was cheap). It's OK, but not the best sim ever, I prefer AFPD. I bought AFPD after Realflight G3 came out, as the G2 to G3 upgrade was a bit pricey for me and at the time the PC I had would have needed upgrades to cope with G3, so I sold it and bought AFPD that would work on my hardware. I've also had Reflex XTR which was fine, but I changed to Aerofly as it had planes in I had (the Hype 3d) modeled by the company rather than a home programmer. I bought FS1 to get used to the Great Planes F22 raptor, but I'm not over impressed by the Sim and so it';s not been used much. >> I have been park-flying RTF's for about a year now and still like to >> practice (and play) when it gets dark outside. A friend showed me his [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > hard drives available. I have G4.5 set for full performance and have no problems with glitches. If Realflight would > run under wine on Linux, I wouldn't even have Windows of any flavor installed on my system. Yeah. I second that. i have a PC and ALL it runs is model stuff. Realflight, Motocalc and Corel Draw for plans. > I have been park-flying RTF's for about a year now and still like to > practice (and play) when it gets dark outside. A friend showed me his > RealFlight G3.5 simulator and its OK but are there any better? > > Chuck Ohave G2, If you turned off nost of the 3D and objects, and costruncted a simple field, it only needed an upgrade that cost as much as the sim to run it..mostly new video card ;-) It is one of the best frankly. Taught me not to crash. Too much time spent on gadgets tho, not enough on core aerodynaimcs. It proved to be not very good when i set up my own planes on it. |> I have been park-flying RTF's for about a year now and still like to |> practice (and play) when it gets dark outside. A friend showed me his |> RealFlight G3.5 simulator and its OK but are there any better? ... | Ohave G2, If you turned off nost of the 3D and objects, and costruncted | a simple field, it only needed an upgrade that cost as much as the sim | to run it..mostly new video card ;-) | It is one of the best frankly. At the time, RFG2 *was* the very best available. For several years. And it was priced accordingly. Then Reflex XTR (I think that's the one) came out and blew RFG2 out of the water -- KnifeEdge had been caught napping. So they got back to work and eventually put out RFG3, which was a big improvement. Renewed competition was a good thing. Now, all the modern simulators are pretty good, and it's hard to pick one that's `the best'. Some are better at one thing, and others are better at this other thing, and so which simulator is `the best' will depend on what you're after. And yes, having the appropriate hardware is important. It doesn't affect the flight model much, but if you want the graphics to look good you've got to have the hardware to support it -- otherwise you'll have to turn the graphics options way down just to be able to use it. | It proved to be not very good when i set up my own planes on it. RFG3 is much better. (RFG3 was a huge improvement over RFG2, but RFG4 is a small improvement over RFG3.) SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Lisa: "Only one person in a million would find that funny!" Prof. Frink: "Yes, we call that the Dennis Miller Ratio." > |> I have been park-flying RTF's for about a year now and still like to > |> practice (and play) when it gets dark outside. A friend showed me his [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > RFG3 is much better. (RFG3 was a huge improvement over RFG2, but RFG4 > is a small improvement over RFG3.) --------- I liked the way that RF G2 handled helicopters about the best of all of the sims I've used to date. I have G2, but lost the product key (damned paper sticker), so I can't run it any longer. I'd love to resurrect it. It made heli flying lots of fun. The later versions of Real Flight suck because of the non intuitive model set up terminology. WTF is children of this or that? Ed Cregger Hi Chuck, I have three sims. Real Flight G2, Reflex XTR, and Aerofly Pro Deluxe. I *never* use RFG2. IMHO, it's the most unrealistic and bug laden. Reflex is my favorite for all out training because you may set the start position of the aircraft. Great for shooting landings without having to fly the pattern each time. It's the absolute best for chopper and torque roll training because you can set the controls you want to use and let the sim do the rest. I spend most of my sim time on AFPD only because I can use my RFG2 controller. When I want to use Reflex I must hook up my JR XF631 xmtr and the battery is usually dead :-(. If I had a separate controller for the Reflex XTR I would undoubtedly spend 98% + of my sim time on it. In a nutshell Reflex XTR = #1, Aeroflly Pro Deluxe = a close #2, and Real Flight G2 completely out of the running. I would happily sell my RFG2 + 6 Add-ons if I could keep the controller. I'd even throw in my old RealFlight controller. (Pre G2). Ed F. >I have been park-flying RTF's for about a year now and still like to >practice (and play) when it gets dark outside. A friend showed me his >RealFlight G3.5 simulator and its OK but are there any better? > > Chuck | In a nutshell Reflex XTR = #1, Aeroflly Pro Deluxe = a close #2, and | Real Flight G2 completely out of the running. To be fair, RFG2 came out in 2000. It's not really fair to compare it to much more modern simulators, especially now that it's two revisions out of date ... But if you want to be complete, let's also compare to the Ripmax simulator, as well as Dave Brown's RCFS. RFG3 is a huge improvement over RFG2. RFG4 is a minor improvement over RFG3. Is RFG4 better than the others? I don't know. It's certainly more `slick' than anything else I've seen ... SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Blessed is the end user who expects nothing, for he/she will not be disappointed. > | In a nutshell Reflex XTR = #1, Aeroflly Pro Deluxe = a close #2, and > | Real Flight G2 completely out of the running. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > over RFG3. Is RFG4 better than the others? I don't know. It's > certainly more `slick' than anything else I've seen ... ---------- I haven't seen a computer sim that is actually accurate in its physics. Fortunately, it isn't necessary that they be accurate in order to have fun or to even learn the basics of flying. The RFG2 sim made flying helis easy. No, not because of the poor physics. It was easy to customize the heli parameters without dealing with the later revision's "mother of children" and crap like that. Why would the Tower conglomerate let something like that be approved for sale? The older versions of Real Flight Gx were far easier to toy with and have fun. I'd like to see G5 go back to permitting us to moving the balance point without referring to the manual to find the proper nomenclature. I've flown the earlier Dave Brown and the FMS sims. They were okay. Far better than nothing, that's for sure. Haven't flown the AeroFly sim yet. Tried to order it two or three times and then gave up. Their website was messed up and wouldn't let me complete the order. Ed Cregger >> | In a nutshell Reflex XTR = #1, Aeroflly Pro Deluxe = a close #2, and >> | Real Flight G2 completely out of the running. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Ed Cregger You guys are awesome. What a great breakdown on the pros and cons. I wasn't even familiar with some of the simulator programs mentioned. Thanks again. I am re-reading and digesting it all. Chuck >> | In a nutshell Reflex XTR = #1, Aeroflly Pro Deluxe = a >> close #2, and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > accurate in order to have fun or to even learn the basics > of flying. How can you tell that it is not acurate in itss physics? I fly the BLT plane of RF4 in the store and was impressed that it flew almost exactly the same as my GWS Slow Stick, Since then I downloaded an actual GWS Slow Stick from knifeedge, and this was even closer. http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/downloads.php Free sim models for RealFlight. > The RFG2 sim made flying helis easy. No, not because of > the poor physics. It was easy to customize the heli [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ed Cregger > How can you tell that it is not acurate in itss physics? > I fly the BLT plane of RF4 in the store and was impressed that it flew [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/downloads.php > Free sim models for RealFlight. ----------- I'm talking about the overall impression that is left upon the participant in terms of input lag, amplitude/duration of inertia related effects, etc. This may be more due to latency of the computer system than a gross error in the software. Ed Cregger >> How can you tell that it is not acurate in itss physics? >> I fly the BLT plane of RF4 in the store and was impressed [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ed Cregger Okay. What system are you running on? I have a Celeron 2.4 with 2.0 GB and an NVIDIA GeForce 6200. I don't think that it uses very much of the RAM, (maybe only 76 MB) and I get a really fast frame rate when I use a photo realistic field, because only the plane must be rendered. From my point of view it seems very accurate. >>> How can you tell that it is not acurate in itss physics? >>> I fly the BLT plane of RF4 in the store and was impressed that it flew [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > realistic field, because only the plane must be rendered. From my point of > view it seems very accurate. ----------- I'm running a Dell Quad Core 2.5 Ghz computer that is less than six months old, or thereabouts. The video card in this computer is minimal. I'm thinking of upgrading, but I'm not interested in spending $200 plus. Maybe $100. Even that would have to be several orders of magnitude better than the onboard video card. I'm running 2 GB of RAM and Win XP SP3. For operating the G4.5 sim, a Dual Core would have been a better machine. Dell doesn't mention that the Quad Core chip utilizes four Intel Pentium 3 processors in their ad material. Had I known that, I would have bought a Dual Core system. Ed Cregger >>>> How can you tell that it is not acurate in itss >>>> physics? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Ed Cregger Yes so since your machine is much more powerful than mine, I would guess that the issue is your card, also since my card was very cheap and works very well a similar card should work at least as well for you. >>>> How can you tell that it is not acurate in itss >>>> physics? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Ed Cregger I tried the free upgrade from 4.0 to 4.5 and the system lagged far too much so I uninstalled the upgrade and re-installed the 4.0. Another thing the Photorealistic fields require much less processing power, you might try switching to these to see if your lag time goes away. I tried downloading from this site (http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=8060 -- I am using G3.5) and got a file directed to RealflightG3/Planes/Custom. This sounds right, however the file type was .g3x. This also sounds right EXCEPT the program did not recognize it! Looking in the RealflightG3 directory suggests two files are used (with file types of .fastkex and .collision) which are stored in the directory Collision/Planes/3dmodels. I also notice that the program stores my model mods in directory ReafflightG3/Planes/Custom (with file type .plng3). Now I am really confused! Anyone know what is going on? Still confused -- but! I managed to download and fly the Swordfish -- but! Underpowered in a big way and can't modify either engine power OR weight. The result is I can ONLY takeoff on a hard surface!! What the heck is this? |
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
|
©2012 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.