RF enthusiasts one and all! Does anyone know of formal or informal efforts to validate RealFlight's physics engine against real-world aircraft?
I know there are at least dozens of testimonials from pilots singing RF's praises as a bulletproof simulator, and I want to be clear that I'm not doubting anything in the least.
Has Hobbico or Knife Edge done any formal real-world builds and shown that flight time on the same battery hits home? A lot of the feedback pilots will give are rather subjective and rely on one's "feel" of how realistic it is. Has anyone done a comparison and shown that the numbers add up too?a
I guess I'm most interested in quadcopters of a certain weight/batt/prop/motor combo validated against a real-life version of the same setup. I'm currently working on a 550 quad, using eCalc, RF8 and a MATLAB/Simulink model created by Drexel University to predict the quad's behavior/flight time/PID tuning etc.
If this kind of comparison has never been done for RF, and I'm the first one, I'll let you guys know how the numbers stack up!
Thanks in advance!
I know there are at least dozens of testimonials from pilots singing RF's praises as a bulletproof simulator, and I want to be clear that I'm not doubting anything in the least.
Has Hobbico or Knife Edge done any formal real-world builds and shown that flight time on the same battery hits home? A lot of the feedback pilots will give are rather subjective and rely on one's "feel" of how realistic it is. Has anyone done a comparison and shown that the numbers add up too?a
I guess I'm most interested in quadcopters of a certain weight/batt/prop/motor combo validated against a real-life version of the same setup. I'm currently working on a 550 quad, using eCalc, RF8 and a MATLAB/Simulink model created by Drexel University to predict the quad's behavior/flight time/PID tuning etc.
If this kind of comparison has never been done for RF, and I'm the first one, I'll let you guys know how the numbers stack up!
Thanks in advance!