Realflight 6 Physics

The goal of a sim is to prevent crashes. You'd get further wishing for accurate flight physics.
 
mulicheng said:
Yes, yes of course, I'm just saying it'd be kind of cool to see what might actually happen in a crash.
Click to expand...

While at first blush, this sort of enhancement is all for the better, it is exactly what ends up creating unmaintainable bloatware. It would be one thing if knife edge resources were unlimited. But they are not. Better to concentrate on the things that are more central to what they are trying to do. Elaborate, working instrument panel gauges would be another example. Yeah it would be cool. But it isn't central to the core of what makes this an RC simulator.
 
"Elaborate, working instrument panel gauges would be another example"

No, you are wrong. Who makes you the deciderer? Just because you want to use the sim in a particular manner does not make it so for others. If a cockpit view is offered, then the instruments should work. The title of the software is "Real Flight" not Real RC Flight. The program is evolving and it can be more than one thing. I don't use the combat portions, but I don't mind them being there. Open your mind to possibilities.
 
You want working gauges? Use the right sim. Should RealFlight include UFOs, too? Where in the title does it say it's restricted to non-alien aircraft? How about our avian friends? They should be included in the sim, too. :rolleyes: It's an RC flight sim. You don't even have to read past the outside of the box it came in to find that out.
 
Don't interrupt me when I am in the middle of a huge rant with facts or some such nonsensical liberal postulates.

What is bloatware to you, MIGHT be a feature to me. I say, let KE sort out the feature requests. They will anyway. If all you had to do was select from a list of instruments and provide a location in the plane, it might be a doable feature.

Don't be a don't be, do be a do be!
 
Last edited:
Simulating a "real" crash in RF

"screen" is only 2D. You might try wearing some 3D glasses if you want the real effect. Don't know, I've never tried it, though that's the whole purpose of the sim, too learn to avoid a crash. :D...... :eek: ....:confused:....:mad:
 
abaser said:
Am I missing something here?:p
Click to expand...

:D

As for 12oclockhigh and his, "Who makes you the deciderer?"

As for being the decider, nope, I'm clearly not that. However, I would be qualified to do so. I make my living doing software development, group management, and systems engineering, and have over 30 years of professional experience. Without going into details, when you fly full scale, you are impacted by systems I helped develop.

If they were getting my professional advice (as opposed to a web posting), they would be paying good money to get it.

I have seen the impact of losing focus on software development efforts, and how that impacts projects down the road. This is far from just an academic thing in my professional world.

I will grant that I don't know their existing code base, and so to that extent, I don't know directly how hard or easy it would be to add any particular feature, or how hard it would be to maintain that feature in the future.

But they absolutely need to gauge the cost of adding any new feature with the benefit in terms of increased sales. Cost includes such obvious things as paying the programmer's salary and less obvious things like performance issues and what that does in terms of the number of people who can successfully run it and the impact of that on future sales.

If a working instrument panel was developed, they could go one of two ways. They could have a generic panel or they could have fully configurable panels. A generic panel is probably doable, might have acceptable performance, but would probably impact sales only minimally. A fully configurable control panel would be much more effort, and would have large ongoing costs (developing a new panel for each aircraft, etc). And at the end of the day, it would probably still impact sales only minimally. It would still fall way short of the full scale simulators with working navigation equipment, etc.

At any rate, my point, whether you agree about instrument panels or better crashes is that as a company making commercial software, you need to consider the cost vs the benefit. And there is a very real cost to trying to do too much.
 
I own a software business and produce engineering software used in multiple languages around the world. I have been in business for 15 years with about 10 before that working for others.

I am a GA pilot.

There...
 
Last edited:
I used to like you guys until you stated your credentials. Based on past experience, now I have to wonder what you really know!!! :D
 
12oclockhigh said:
I own a software business and produce engineering software used in multiple languages around the world. I have been in business for 15 years with about 10 before that working for others.

I am a GA pilot.

There...
Click to expand...

So you should be well aware of the point I am trying to make. The road to ruin is trying to implement every feature ever requested by your user base. You have to decide on your focus, and then weed them out accordingly.
 
jeffpn said:
I used to like you guys until you stated your credentials. Based on past experience, now I have to wonder what you really know!!! :D
Click to expand...

When it comes to modeling aircraft in RF6, in my case, not enough.

And I'm sure 12oclockHigh and I would have a fine time shooting a round of pool together with you, as long as you didn't expect me to be very competitive.

Even a former President of the United States got along great with an intern, despite the very impressive resume. Ok, maybe that wasn't the best analogy. :p
 
Last edited:
I'm talking to 12oclock on the phone right now. He knows I'm just razzing. I hope you do too. And yes, I'd love to shoot a round of pool with you. I think we'd be evenly matched!
 
jeffpn said:
I'm talking to 12oclock on the phone right now. He knows I'm just razzing. I hope you do too. And yes, I'd love to shoot a round of pool with you. I think we'd be evenly matched!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw the smiley face. And hopefully, none of us take ourselves too seriously here. ;)

And 12oclockHigh is certainly entitled to his opinion. And he gets my admiration for his successfully running his company these many years. That isn't an easy thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top