What do you think of G3.5?
- Thread starter Joe Teibel
- Start date
- Status
Jollyroger
New member
Yikes!!!! By reading all they posts, I have decided NOT to update to 3.5! Who cares about reactive objects or night flying. If it isn't reallistic, Idon't want to. I am not paying $200 for a lousy GAME! I bought G3 as a SIMULATOR not a game. What good is spending lots of hours practiceing and lots of money for the sim if it isn't reallistic. I can just see it, I spend hours on G3.5 perfecting a manuver, crashing hundreds of times, then get it right, get good at it and go do it for real. Only to find out that it wont work for real and now i have just crashed my VERY EXPENSIVE plane or heli.
What would happen if that happened to some of these SUE CRAZY people. Knife Edge might get sued for false advertisment or some crap like that. Then what would happen?Unless this is changed, forget me Updating, or even getting more add-ons. What is the point? $200 for a game.
Your crazy! I'll go learn the hard way!I have to chime in here and agree with opjose, dharris998 and JimDrew. If Knife Edge wants to market their product only to "Pro Pilots" then fine, let all of the Pro Pilots it hires beta test their product ... If that's your customer base and that's who you're trying to please you're doing the right thing ... and you might as well pull the product from sale to the general public!!
How DARE YOU release a beta version to the general public and then when you don't get a positive feedback slap us in the face and claim that the only opinions that matter are those from people who make money from your corporation!!
Like I eluded to in another thread, if you want an honest opinion the last people you ask are those who are, or will, or may have a potential to, benefit financially from your corporation ... which is exactly what Knife Edge did! They pulled one of the ten dumb stunts taught in most business school that you never do. Actually with Jim Bourke's post they pulled two of the dumb stunts ... publicly insulting their customer base.
Now as for the rest of us, who don't seem to matter, who do I talk to about a refund for this obviously defective product?
How DARE YOU release a beta version to the general public and then when you don't get a positive feedback slap us in the face and claim that the only opinions that matter are those from people who make money from your corporation!!
Like I eluded to in another thread, if you want an honest opinion the last people you ask are those who are, or will, or may have a potential to, benefit financially from your corporation ... which is exactly what Knife Edge did! They pulled one of the ten dumb stunts taught in most business school that you never do. Actually with Jim Bourke's post they pulled two of the dumb stunts ... publicly insulting their customer base.
Now as for the rest of us, who don't seem to matter, who do I talk to about a refund for this obviously defective product?
pplace
Well-known member
I have to agree with about 90% of the above posts. G3 flight physics were great and I was 100% happy with it. And after hearing some of the early comments on G3.5 problems/physics I was going to wait to download it.....wishing/expecting them to say they were going to fix the problems and release a better/fixed version. But me being the impatient guy I am....and not being able to join in on some multi play sessions (because I didn't have 3.5 yet) I went ahead and updated anyways. Now I wish I wouldn't have....the planes fly nothing like real life. I've tried to tweak some of the custom planes...with not much luck. So now I'm stuck... I want to remove 3.5 so I reverted back to my old version but it left things messed up and now that isn't the same either?!?! Not too happy about this whole situation. Now instead of spending my time getting better at flying...I have to spend my time fixing all the problems with the sim.
It's funny that the Devs don't seem to respect the customers feedback in these forums yet the same customer feedback is what I pay attention to most when buying a product.
IF I READ THESE RECENT COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE NEW PHYSICS CHANGES IN BETA 3.5 I WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED THE PRODUCT. PERIOD.
Now that I've said that I'm glad I haven't updated and am not going to recommed RFS to my two neighbors who were looking to get it (one of whom is an experienced Glow pilot and wants to train 3d).
THE NEWEST RC FLIGHT SIM FSONE IS LOOKING BETTER AND BETTER!!!
IF I READ THESE RECENT COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE NEW PHYSICS CHANGES IN BETA 3.5 I WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED THE PRODUCT. PERIOD.
Now that I've said that I'm glad I haven't updated and am not going to recommed RFS to my two neighbors who were looking to get it (one of whom is an experienced Glow pilot and wants to train 3d).
THE NEWEST RC FLIGHT SIM FSONE IS LOOKING BETTER AND BETTER!!!
L0stS0ul
New member
lillelj
New member
jbourke said:
Well ill be damned.
jbourke, everyone has been pretty 'nice' in their feedback of the update (mostly).But after a comment like that im not so sure they should be.
G3.5 as a RC 'sim' is absolute rubbish, and Gimmicky (streamers etc). Anyone looking to buy it to improve their flying (especially 3D) should definately look elsewhere, as others have said (non pros, whos feedback really means nothing as it has no impact on the outcome of the product it seems
) the physics should come first. I really have no idea how these pros managed not to see the serious flaws in the flight characteristics, which were obvious to most after spending some time on it. Everyones telling you its no good why dont KE listen.I feel for anyone who parts with the huge amount of money for it. I can only imagine the outrage of most if ke had decided to 'sell' 3.5 to us all like the add-ons, luckily that didnt happen.Im not offended by a remark like that, just dissapointed in how this was all handled. the physics are crap and i think even fms would rival G3.5.for now, stick to AFPD and Reflex if you can. you may not get neon ferris wheels and streamers but its way more realistic.
NOT the way you should handle customers in my opinion, but then again what do i know hey, im just a customer
Knifeedge....
Please recheck your math on the Snap Roll Boost Factor and Stall Severity.
I set them to ZERO and the snaps seem to be better to me on a Yak as compared to setting them to the MAX value of 200.
Hunch is you have the POLARITY of the factor added to you equation incorrect.
Will other try this to see if you get similar results?
Will to more testing on Sat. on other aircraft.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well just spent another hour testing the physics & math and would love to see the equations used in this version compared to the last.
For one thing I increased the Engine back torque factor to the max and the stock YAK engine torque to the max 400% increase and increased the weight by 24 # (lbs) and see almost NO torque effect on take of or sudden acceleration from a near stalled condition. In a real aircraft this would have produced a MAJOR torque effect problem. I am not talking about Hoover Torque Rolls just simple torque effects on a heavily loaded wing with a high torque engine.
As example an Agriculture Stearman with full load of chemicals will SNAP like a mother if you jam the throttle on take off fully loaded. I could not come close to producing those results in G3.5 Sim. In the case of a High Torque Stearman loaded to the max the snap roll is a result of the high wing loading and the high back torque produced by sudden application of power in a takeoff attitude. This does not require CONTROL Surface forces to snap the aircraft just enough pitch to produce positive wing lift and the application of full power.
I tried other situations that would test the underlying math that modeled the physics and found other results that look like problems to me also.
Some results that indicate that there is SOME back torque being produced by the equations was tested by decreasing the wing length on the Ultimate Bi-Plane to 14 inches and increasing the engine torque to the max of 400% with a 5 blade prop and you will then get some back torque roll when you jam full power. It seems to me that scaling factors used in the equations that effect back torque are wrong.
I am not talking about how the aircraft performs maneuvers or how close your opinion is to G3’s simulation of the REAL RC models you fly, but just how they perform test designed to test what I remember from fluids and aerodynamics that is underlying the Knifeedge G3.5 simulation software. I am retired now but I have been an Electronics Engineer, Programmer, RC & Real Aircraft Pilot.
I am sure the math is now wrong either in the equations or the value of the factors which are constantans that were used.
Please recheck your math on the Snap Roll Boost Factor and Stall Severity.
I set them to ZERO and the snaps seem to be better to me on a Yak as compared to setting them to the MAX value of 200.
Hunch is you have the POLARITY of the factor added to you equation incorrect.
Will other try this to see if you get similar results?
Will to more testing on Sat. on other aircraft.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well just spent another hour testing the physics & math and would love to see the equations used in this version compared to the last.
For one thing I increased the Engine back torque factor to the max and the stock YAK engine torque to the max 400% increase and increased the weight by 24 # (lbs) and see almost NO torque effect on take of or sudden acceleration from a near stalled condition. In a real aircraft this would have produced a MAJOR torque effect problem. I am not talking about Hoover Torque Rolls just simple torque effects on a heavily loaded wing with a high torque engine.
As example an Agriculture Stearman with full load of chemicals will SNAP like a mother if you jam the throttle on take off fully loaded. I could not come close to producing those results in G3.5 Sim. In the case of a High Torque Stearman loaded to the max the snap roll is a result of the high wing loading and the high back torque produced by sudden application of power in a takeoff attitude. This does not require CONTROL Surface forces to snap the aircraft just enough pitch to produce positive wing lift and the application of full power.
I tried other situations that would test the underlying math that modeled the physics and found other results that look like problems to me also.
Some results that indicate that there is SOME back torque being produced by the equations was tested by decreasing the wing length on the Ultimate Bi-Plane to 14 inches and increasing the engine torque to the max of 400% with a 5 blade prop and you will then get some back torque roll when you jam full power. It seems to me that scaling factors used in the equations that effect back torque are wrong.
I am not talking about how the aircraft performs maneuvers or how close your opinion is to G3’s simulation of the REAL RC models you fly, but just how they perform test designed to test what I remember from fluids and aerodynamics that is underlying the Knifeedge G3.5 simulation software. I am retired now but I have been an Electronics Engineer, Programmer, RC & Real Aircraft Pilot.
I am sure the math is now wrong either in the equations or the value of the factors which are constantans that were used.
Last edited:
This whole thing was quite entertaining. If I agreed, I would be laughing. Since I don't.. i felt more like this
"I think the flight model..." - this is an opinion, and everyone has one.
"The opinions here don't weight as heavily.." - Well, this is true I'm sure, but WOW, that is just a slap back at everyone that is complaining. I felt personally insulted, and I hadn't even posted yet". Just didn't need to be said, true or not.
"We use the public..." - Well, I feel used.
"... to identify showstoppers, which WE define as" - this is a direct slap at Opjose by quoting his 'showstopper' remarks. Since I agree with Opjose's remarks about the snap roll physics and other lift related problems, I felt slapped.
"Thank you for your feedback" - This sounded to me like "We are not paying much attention to your feedback, so have a nice day, don't let the door hit you."
The omissions may make the quotes 'out-of context', and maybe it was a misinterpretation, but that is how it read to me, and my girlfriend for what that's worth.
As a side note, it may pacify the situation to have one of the appointed contest pilots post on here about how real they think the snap roll and 3d physics are, and why they think so.
"I think the flight model..." - this is an opinion, and everyone has one.
"The opinions here don't weight as heavily.."
- Well, this is true I'm sure, but WOW, that is just a slap back at everyone that is complaining. I felt personally insulted, and I hadn't even posted yet". Just didn't need to be said, true or not."We use the public..." - Well, I feel used.
"... to identify showstoppers, which WE define as" - this is a direct slap at Opjose by quoting his 'showstopper' remarks. Since I agree with Opjose's remarks about the snap roll physics and other lift related problems, I felt slapped.
"Thank you for your feedback" - This sounded to me like "We are not paying much attention to your feedback, so have a nice day, don't let the door hit you."
The omissions may make the quotes 'out-of context', and maybe it was a misinterpretation, but that is how it read to me, and my girlfriend for what that's worth.
As a side note, it may pacify the situation to have one of the appointed contest pilots post on here about how real they think the snap roll and 3d physics are, and why they think so.
r1derbike
New member
Just to set the record straight, there were 3 separate versions of G3.5 beta sent to beta testers.
Most of my comments/pictures were drawn from the first iteration, in my opinion, the best version of the three for flight physics.
The issues brought-up in this thread right now were long ago compiled and sent to both KE and GP marketing.
If people are blaming the beta testers for a flawed, apparently final public beta build, they should be looking under a different rock.
Charles
Most of my comments/pictures were drawn from the first iteration, in my opinion, the best version of the three for flight physics.
The issues brought-up in this thread right now were long ago compiled and sent to both KE and GP marketing.
If people are blaming the beta testers for a flawed, apparently final public beta build, they should be looking under a different rock.
Charles
Last edited:
I guess the whole thing on the purpose of this public beta is really a misunderstanding and a communication gap. Asking "what do you think of G3.5?" led many to think subjective feedback could lead to changes, but it was really out of curiosity, and only bugs causing crashes, features not working, or hardware/software incompatibilities would be fixed.
So I think the beta was over with the private beta, and i would consider this one more of an "RC" (release candidate), as in this definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_version
But, I do hope all subjective feedback is considered for the next update.
Steven
So I think the beta was over with the private beta, and i would consider this one more of an "RC" (release candidate), as in this definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_version
But, I do hope all subjective feedback is considered for the next update.
Steven
Tjetfire94
New member
Ya,
Also the events that I try, they are wierd. I dont see any pylons, limbo equipment, etc.
I cant see any event objects anywhere. Its just way hard to do events that i wanted to try.
Also the events that I try, they are wierd. I dont see any pylons, limbo equipment, etc.
I cant see any event objects anywhere. Its just way hard to do events that i wanted to try.
Jim,
This comment seems to imply that this will be released "as-is" (at least as it relates to flight physics), and that the work being done "to address the issues" (again, I'm referring to flight physics issues) is for the -next- release. Am I correct?
I just would like to be clear on the true state of the current situation because written words are so often misinterpreted. (as we have so vividly seen already)
Jim H.
P.S. - I would like to add that I very much appreciate the effort that went into this update. I see no reason why you would intentionally put thousands of hours into a FREE update just to mess up the physics and make users unhappy. You were not obligated in the least to offer a free 3.5, and I take it as a great "good will" gesture, especially after all the flack that you guys took for the previous upgrade pricing structure, and the fact that competitors had a wealth of free planes available. It seems to me that you guys were making an honest attempt to address those two major complaints (with the importer first, and now this free -major- update). It must be disheartening to do all that and then face this resulting firestorm here.
Now, I hope you don't mind me offering you some unsolicited advice. I DO hope that you take the comments here VERY seriously. With all due respect to your professionals, there are a lot of very talented and knowledgeable people offering you valuable feedback right here. You should make good use of it, even if their approach seems harsh to you.
Jim H.
This comment seems to imply that this will be released "as-is" (at least as it relates to flight physics), and that the work being done "to address the issues" (again, I'm referring to flight physics issues) is for the -next- release. Am I correct?
I just would like to be clear on the true state of the current situation because written words are so often misinterpreted. (as we have so vividly seen already)
Jim H.
P.S. - I would like to add that I very much appreciate the effort that went into this update. I see no reason why you would intentionally put thousands of hours into a FREE update just to mess up the physics and make users unhappy. You were not obligated in the least to offer a free 3.5, and I take it as a great "good will" gesture, especially after all the flack that you guys took for the previous upgrade pricing structure, and the fact that competitors had a wealth of free planes available. It seems to me that you guys were making an honest attempt to address those two major complaints (with the importer first, and now this free -major- update). It must be disheartening to do all that and then face this resulting firestorm here.
Now, I hope you don't mind me offering you some unsolicited advice. I DO hope that you take the comments here VERY seriously. With all due respect to your professionals, there are a lot of very talented and knowledgeable people offering you valuable feedback right here. You should make good use of it, even if their approach seems harsh to you.
Jim H.
lillelj
New member
A good response jhimmel.
You guys must have spent a massive amount of time putting 3.5 together, and all that work for a FREE update for existing customers. I, and im sure everyone else do really appreciate your efforts immensley. Unfortunately there was just something about the comments by kE that annoyed me and others so that is partly the reason this thread has got so many negative and aggressive comments. it still doesnt change the fact that G3.5 has now become a weaker flight sim training tool than the competition.Pity, and i look forward to the next update which i hope will have the issues ironed out.
Keep doing what you're doing KE, free updates can only be a good thing in the long run for customers.
Apologies KE team.
You guys must have spent a massive amount of time putting 3.5 together, and all that work for a FREE update for existing customers. I, and im sure everyone else do really appreciate your efforts immensley. Unfortunately there was just something about the comments by kE that annoyed me and others so that is partly the reason this thread has got so many negative and aggressive comments. it still doesnt change the fact that G3.5 has now become a weaker flight sim training tool than the competition.Pity, and i look forward to the next update which i hope will have the issues ironed out.
Keep doing what you're doing KE, free updates can only be a good thing in the long run for customers.
Apologies KE team.
- Status