Back to talking about RF

3-DMan

3-DMan

New member
Physics: Please pay great attention to feed back on physics from earlier versions of software and respond to it so that the next version will be "improved" so that this sim continues to be above and beyond anything else. I know you (Jim) and Ryan have both stated your reasons for the addition of the mini games and I respect that, but it appears to me that the subject of "improved physics" in RF7 is being side stepped. I want to know if you have addressed any of the physics issues that airplanes had from 6/6.5. Mainly concerning any gyroscopic 3D maneuvers, characteristics of snap rolls (autorotation), there were a few more minor problems too.

All I want is a straight and simple answer if there is a new physics engine or tweaked physics engine for airplanes in RF7.


Matt
 
Thanks for your question. There are lots of bug fixes in RF7 but nothing that should dramatically affect the flight physics.

There are some things we are working on. We know how important it is that we have an accurate simulation.

Jim
 
I'm reading all this stuff on RF7, plus talked to a tech, re something else, but asked about RF7 and just can't figure out why I should pay anything for it. So far to me, just sounds like a version update, like 6 to 6.5. I love Real Flight but darn if I can figure why I should shell out $50 for ???

Does RF ever read this stuff? Can they help me/us understand what we would be paying for?
 
Speaking about Physics does anyone remember realflight 3.5? I thought the Physics for the helicopter simulation was excellent, quite frankly years ahead of the competition at that point. Then it seems they lost it (as far as accuracy) then it seems to have come back in real flight 6.5 as far as I can tell.


My request is to allow for crossfire support. Isn't it as easy to just set a flag or something?

Oh I did pay the $50 upgrade, need to support the developers and all.

Jason
 
If you remember the big deal flexible made about how prop wash is simulated in RealFlight, you may remember that claims he made about how prop wash behaves in real life did not agree with research we had already done on the subject. As I remember it, he said he was going to set up an elaborate experiment to support his claims, and we said we didn't believe he was correct but also that we don't claim what we have is absolutely perfect, and that we'd be interested in seeing his results. That was the last we heard from him on it.

We do not think flexible identified an actual inaccuracy in RealFlight. Consequently, we have not made changes to that code based on his claims.
 
Physics of Aircraft full scale or minor scale

Flew in a tandem seat WWII warbird during 1955 while in the US Navy and oddly enough I also had another friend with a P51 in 1971. Not the fact he had a P51 but that I had a friend.
Jesting aside take off in a US Navy Sky Raider was really exciting as control had to be regained constantly due to the Prop Torque.
My friend with the P 51 used to fly it regularly out of San Jose Ca. Airport.
He told me the taking off was a repetitive process of advancing the throttle and regaining control of the Aircraft.

I fly Kyosho Warbirds with electric motors. They are old but beautiful. I have FW 190, P40 and British Spit. All are 50 size.

One has to crank in right rudder as soon as throttle is above 10% and continue increasing right rudder as the throttle is being opened until the bird is off the ground.

The people at Real Flight are doing themselves a disservice to deny that prop torque is all compensated from the angle of the engine or that is does not exist.
If that is the position being taken then the team responsible should have to go learn how to fly an RC plane and go talk to a few full scale big prop plane drivers.

None of the Warbirds offered on RF7.5 show the slightest suggestion of prop torque on take off. This then leads to having to ignore what the RF Sim drills one on and the real world.

I would think it is time to go back to the keyboard and develop an upgrade to 7.5 and include this very real and very critical characteristic as a optional feature that with a click of a radio dial circle could be applied to the plane being flown on any RF simulator.
 
Hi Ryan

What K.E. has is not absolutely perfect, it does not need to be. But when there is a MAJOR FLIGHT CHARACTERISTIC being ignored by the software builders that could be added, I think it is reasonable to say there is a degree of imperfection in the software when it comes to Prop Torque that should be included in the standard options on the software. NOT to achieve perfection but to cover the basics adequately.
 
i hear you on that and most if not everyone on here tend to take that out of the physics but some of my personal settings i have it more realistic on that note if you go into the editor and engine you can adjust the helical wash factor , crank it up and you will get your adverse left yaw
 

Attachments

  • Helical wash rotation factor.jpg
    Helical wash rotation factor.jpg
    89.6 KB · Views: 7
AND...don't compare apples and oranges!
RF planes are based on MODELS, not full sized aircraft. Those models have almost always been optimized for better or best flight characteristics, which RF then duplicates. The P-51, for example, has a few different kinds of mixing going on in RF. If your Kyosho warbirds need a lot of right rudder on takeoff, then it is time to dig into the Airplane Editor and duplicate all aspects of one of your Kyosho models exactly, not rant about how a differently designed plane behaves. Only THEN can you complain about the fidelity of the physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top