Aerofly Latest versus Realflight 6.5..??

For those of you "Simmers'" out there that own both of these, what are your honest opinions in comparing these two products?


Both have their positives and negitaves... RealFlight you have a lot more user control on customizing power set ups, size, flight characteristics custom models and schemes, etc. Aerofly 5.7 I feel that the glider physics are quite a bit more realistic especially with slope gliding as well as wind and lift physics. RealFlight has LOTS of planes to choose from (mainly all the custom models on the swap pages) where Aerofly lacks a little bit of, custom made planes exist for Aerofly, but not nearly as much as RF. Aerofly can work on both Windows and Mac OS natively.

If you are looking for lots of High Def Photofields Aerofly mostly consists of some really impressive Photofields, RealFlight does have really nice Photofields but it's more of a mix between the 3D and Photofields. Which I personally fly in Photofields more often than 3D fields, so if that's important to you you might like Aerofly. Overall 3D physics of both Aerofly and RealFlight I have to say if you are directly comparing AF 5.7 to RF 6 or 6.5. Aerofly wins hands down. For some reason the new airplane physics that were introduced in 6 and 6.5 made the 3D airplanes fly really weird and is not really fixable through the airplane edit. RealFlight 5.5 was really good for the 3D planes and you could accurately modify the physics of the airplanes to get them to 3D pretty well and in that case RF 5.5 would win over AF 5.7 for 3D physics.

Helicopters... Haven't really messed around with the helis too much in Aerofly to give a comparison.


Turbine jets feel a lot better in AF

That is pretty much what I have experienced between both sims,

Hope that this helps,

Matt
 
I cannot agree with the above.

I've unearthed quite a few unrealistic "quirks" with Aerofly's physics even on the latest version. You don't have to get very deep into plane editing to see this.

Under certain conditions planes will act if they've hit a virtual brick wall of sorts, which changes their flight behaviour for a second or two.

Of course good luck in actually making planes behave like their real world counterparts in AF. Many things are incorrectly calculated.

The editor options are severely limited... just try to do snap flap mixes for instance...

Aerofly's 2D airfields are superficially good looking but degenerate quickly as you zoom in the view... IMHO 3D airfields is where it's at! You can't get a virtual plane to fly through a tree branch in 2D and view the effect on the tree.

However Aerofly's 3D airfields ARE VERY impressive, the problem is that there really are only three 3D terrain areas available. ( gotta love the 3D tunnel through the mountain that you CAN fly a plane through ).

The only 3D airfields are those provided with the sim, and the end users have no way of generating 3D airfields of any sort.

Heli's physics is greatly lacking in AF. Just ask any heli pilot.

Planes do not exhibit the second and third order effects you see in real life.


Jets are not better in AF, but the recorded SOUNDS are.

It is amazing how much this little thing affects the perception that the jet planes seem to be more realistic as a result.

I'd like to see Realflight improve audio effects and jet sounds likewise.

---

Even with the things that could stand imrpovement, Realflight wins hands down if only because of its "tunability" and extensibility coupled with superior flight physics.

The flight modeling is consistent in Realflight, you will not suddenly get a plane doing something uncharacteristic in the middle of a flight...

If something doesn't fly right, you CAN fix it in Realflight. ( though there is still the thrust lever moment issue around the center of pressure, when thrust is provided via a POD... but most people will never encounter it. )

2D airfields are soooo passe. 3D is where is at... which is why everyone wants better and better 3D rendering. Developer bowling anyone?



In order of flight physics accuracy

Realflight
Aeroflight
Phoenix

In order of 3D airport object "looks". (not terrain maps)

Aerofly
Realflight
.
.
Phoenix

In order of "tunability"

Realflight
Phoenix
Aerofly
 
Real Flight is my absolute favorite when it comes to extreme 3D flying with planes (meanwhile I sold Aerofly for that reason).
The Real Flight editor is in contrast to Aerofly superb.
The RF controller has way better quality than the AF controller.
 
Buy RealFlight
Some of us know what product loyalty is.:rolleyes:
Go to the Aerofly forum. Most members there will suggest aerofly. :rolleyes:
I have both and I far prefer RF even though I'v lost all faith in KE as a company.:(
 
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I'm getting ready to buy a sim to brush up old skills before taking our new X12 multi rotor heavy lifter out. I'm on a mac mini but am willing to run bootcamp or VM. What is going to give best most realistic behavior? IE accurate ring vortex behavior etc? graphics etc are less important than accurate physics to me...

Thank you!
 
Neither AF nor Phoenix model Vortex ring.

There is no translational lift modeling in AF and Phoenix.

Realflight models translational lift, but this has been reduced in versions greater than 5.x.
 
You will not even find the aircraft you are talking about modeled in any program. That is really an odd ball for the moment. RF7 models x6 configuration fairly well. I have an x6 multi-rotor. I also have an X8 multi-rotor configured in the twin up/down motors which does not fly like anything like the x8 on the sim. Your controller is really where the handling comes from.

I don't really see any other choice, but to fly your multi to get the feel. I would start out without payloads. If you are thinking you might have control issues, you should start with something much smaller and less expensive.

At the moment, I think RF has the lead in simulating multi-rotors.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top