RC Flight Simulator Comparison Chart

[mlesnews]

While a tad outdated, I stumbled across an interesting comparison of rc flight simulators. I'm quite pleased with G5 in my hanger. I did a forum search and didn't find anything with a similar topic. I realize that we're all slightly biased as this is a RF forum but I'm curious if anyone has flown other sims and how they stack up with G5.

RC Flight Simulator Comparison Chart (http://www.emptynestgames.com/rc_sim_chart.html) which compares: RealFlight G4, Aerofly Pro Deluxe, Reflex XTR, Phoenix Flight Sim, FS One, ClearView and FMS.

- - -
Original post from http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28865

[jeffpn]

Not long ago, somebody else here had the same question. I actually found and posted the same chart for the link you posted. You're right, it is a bit dated.

[jeffpn]

Here's that thread: http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24328

[mlesnews]

Here's that thread: http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24328

Ha! I remember reading that thread now that you dug it up. I actually did several forum searches that didn't pan out.

[js3862]

Is this even a thread we would be allowed to add to? I can tell you about a three of the other sims on there but I doubt KE wants me advertising for them.

[mlesnews]

Is this even a thread we would be allowed to add to? I can tell you about a three of the other sims on there but I doubt KE wants me advertising for them.

Well unless it's outright product bashing of RF or blatant advertising of other simulators , I would think that KE would welcome any constructive criticism. Saying one product is "the best" or another "sucks", without any supporting facts really isn't beneficial to anyone.

Forums are moderated for a reason, Admin will let you know if a thread is unacceptable and although surprisingly there isn't a sticked Forum Rules thread, should be trusted warn, lock/delete posts, ban accounts where appropriate. Kinda nice to be treated like well minded and mature individuals isn't it? Until proven otherwise, of course. :p

[opjose]

Well unless it's outright product bashing of RF or blatant advertising of other simulators , I would think that KE would welcome any constructive criticism. Saying one product is "the best" or another "sucks", without any supporting facts really isn't beneficial to anyone.



Here are a few of the "supporting FACTS" that I posted previously.

I own pretty much every sim as I'm a sucker for them....

In the original thread Puzom, was trying to discount all of these features in a fairly illogical manner. He seemed to have a purposeful ax to grind, trying to rationalize the validity of that out of date review.

---- SNIP ----

Well the list is HUGE relative to others:

But here is a few salient points:

- Physics editor ( NONE of the others have WORKABLE physics editors ).
- Realistic Physics ( AFDP does a good job, but not as good as G4.x+ )
FSOne sucks the big one ( except for the Alpha ), Reflex, ( OK on helis, planes horrible ), etc., etc.
- Second and third order physics effects modeling
This is not even present on some sims. e.g. airfoil overspeed, realistic stall curves, etc. etc.
- Internet Multiplayer - Not present on others
- Direct colorscheme importing
- 3D Photofields ( no other sim does this except for billboard type rendering as in AFDP, Phoenix and FSOne ).
- 3D Terrain
- 3D buildings, objects with independant weights and characteristics.
- Collison detection that WORKS ( Try crashing two airplanes together on other sims )
- Parts that fall off or break off
- Realistic ground surface TYPES, e.g. asphalt, sand, etc. affecting the plane's ground handling
- Realistic ground texturing user assignable
- 3D objects in 2D photofields
- GRASS! ( no other sim has blades of grass that the propeller will chew up! )
- Prop Stall
- Prop Freewheeling
- Collision meshes
- Parts meshes
- Huge Library of planes ( AFDP has a number, but has few planes WE actually see here ).
- Large library of commercial add-on planes and fields.
- User editable Bump Mapping
- Used editable Specular mapping

I could go on for days coming up with things... as the differences relative to other sims is that extensive!

[jbourke]

Here is a comparison between a 2010 Ferrari F430 and a 1974 Chevy Nova:

Number of wheels:
2010 Ferrari F430: 4
1974 Chevy Nova: 4

Gas mileage:
2010 Ferrari F430: 11 mpg
1974 Chevy Nova: 18 mpg

Price:
2010 Ferrari F430: $200,000
1974 Chevy Nova: $5,000

Jim

[js3862]

Here is a comparison between a 2010 Ferrari F430 and a 1974 Chevy Nova:

Number of wheels:
2010 Ferrari F430: 4
1974 Chevy Nova: 4

Gas mileage:
2010 Ferrari F430: 11 mpg
1974 Chevy Nova: 18 mpg

Price:
2010 Ferrari F430: $200,000
1974 Chevy Nova: $5,000

Jim

So I guess a relevant question in comparing these two products is whether you want to go to the store at 40 or 180 miles per hour!

[js3862]

... Kinda nice to be treated like well minded and mature individuals isn't it? Until proven otherwise, of course. :p

Yeah, I prefer that right up until the whole warn, lock/delete posts, ban accounts comes into play.

[jeffpn]

So I guess a relevant question in comparing these two products is whether you want to go to the store at 40 or 180 miles per hour!
And how many chicks you want with you. Oh wait the Ferarri only has one extra seat! ;)

[js3862]

And how many chicks you want with you. Oh wait the Ferarri only has one extra seat! ;)

I think you can fit about 16 in a crate, that should fit in the front seat with you just fine. ;)

Mr. Helpful

[mlesnews]

I think you can fit about 16 in a crate, that should fit in the front seat with you just fine. ;)
Mr. Helpful

You could possibly fit more if you ask the right questions, like, "Will it blend?" and is the crate leakproof?

[mlesnews]

oh hai... my thread is derailed, oh noes. :eek:

[jeffpn]

The funny part is, who took us off the rails in the Ferarri!

[mlesnews]

The funny part is, who took us off the rails in the Ferarri!

You're going to need to explain that for us FNG's, unless its an inside joke. lol.

[jeffpn]

Jim is the head honcho at KE.

[mlesnews]

That is pretty funny. :eek: ;)

[jbourke]

My point had nothing to do with Ferraris. It's a point about comparisons.

RealFlight is much stronger than rival products for a whole bunch of reasons. Some of those reasons are hard to quantify, even though they are dominant factors to a consumer.

Jim

[jeffpn]

I knew what you meant, Jim. I've made car analogies here myself. ;) I just want to know why you carry poultry in your Ferarri!?!

[opjose]

straw man fallacy

What is?

The Poultry?

[opjose]

Yes, but it was rather funny though.

---

This however is valid:

"RealFlight is much stronger than rival products for a whole bunch of reasons. Some of those reasons are hard to quantify, even though they are dominant factors to a consumer."

Though I don't think it is that hard to quantify.

All you have to do is list those things which other sims lack for comparison.

[jeffpn]

He runs KE. What did you expect him to say? Of course he's proud of his product! And a good businessman would not disparage the competition, IMHO.

[js3862]

Well, to be one of the first on topic posters to the thread, I have recently purchased Phoenix Sim and find that I like it. It's not as mature of a product as is RF but there is constant improvement being done on the product and the planes and helis feel pretty real, at least of the limited models I have real world experience with.

Similar to RF basic it doesn't have 3D fields but, you get online play, voice chat, breakable parts, collision detection, customizable controls, 3D object in 2D, and etc.. and the price has been improved as well since the chart that was posted was created. I purchased mine from Heliguy.com and it was shipped from the UK with a free Futaba adapter for ~$120.00. You have to use your own controller but I was able to use the old transmitter from my RTF PZ T-28 (after pulling the crystal) and it works great. There aren't any blades of grass flying around but, since I tend to not fly that low it doesn't impact me much. If I'm that low I'm either taking off, landing or well no longer flying. :D One of things I like about it, that I'm sure others probably would hate, is that all I have to do is carry the cable with me and whatever controller I want to use and there is no registration process. You install the software, plug in the cable and fly. The last thing I'll mention is that they are seemingly manufacturer neutral in their aircraft. There seems to be a good selection of planes and helis from different manufacturers designed by the designers at Phoenix. Also, updates are "free for life" via their auto-update tool.

That said, you do have the ability to edit your vehicles but from what I have seen the editor is nowhere near the editor in RF. For me, since I don't do a huge amount of mod'ing this isn't a big factor. As mentioned earlier you don't get 3D fields, I was a bit disappointed with this but, on the flip side of this unless your spending a few hundred dollars on video equipment your never going to have a cockpit view at the flying field anyway. The documentation isn't the greatest for sure either in that they use an html based document that isn't exactly chock full of details. It gives you the basics but you're still hunting around for answers. On the documentation issue, I have to say that if I ask questions of their e-mail tech support I generally get an answer within a couple of hours, many times less than an hour. And lastly, models, currently the only models for Phoenix are developed by Phoenix. They do periodically release new models and you can get them through an auto-update tool but they have not released an api spec for model development or made available facilities to import your own models. Altough, you do have the ability to contribute your own photofield airports.


Ok, it wasn't super technical but that's what I have seen of Phoenix in the last couple of weeks and there's my contribution. Hope the guys at KE don't mind the post.


Mr. Helpful

[r1derbike]

Flown them all. A lot. A whole lot.

RF is the goto sim, period. Absolutely no comparison.

Could ramble on about how this is better in type A sim, that is better in type B sim, but it would only be rambling.

At the end of the day, only one thing matters; the total package.

Something for everyone; beginner to hardcore physics gurus, and everything in between.

Started with G3, upgraded through G5, and always felt I got much more than my money's worth.

To repeat above; comparison to other sims? Absolutely no comparison.

Charles

[mlesnews]

Well as I said in my opening post, I'm pleased with RF as my r/c simulator and obviously allot of folks have been customers for years, which is saying allot. Perspective is a funny thing, but in the end the opinion that matters most is your own and comparisons fall by the wayside. If you like it, don't like it, the opinion of others matters little. So what's the point? Perception.

Perception drives reality. I'm a Star Wars fan but even the most die hard fans agree that Jar Jar Binks must die. I like Star Trek too. I could list dozens of things that I like and dislike about both. Does that mean I'm being hypocritical?

So based on perception of others I may choose to formulate my own prespective, or not. I want to maximize my fun with my hard earned dollars, not squander them. I guess I found myself wondering if other r/c simulators were as good as RF or had features folks liked. Perhaps I just wanted to share the link and let folks draw there own conclusions. At the very least its made for some interesting conversation. If this thread rubbed people the wrong way, I apologize. Thanks KE for a fine product, its allot of fun. Thanks to those who replied on topic and chose not to let it ruffle their feathers.

[r1derbike]

What has served me well for years, is not to base anything on the perception or ramblings of others.

My mother always said I marched to the tune of a different drummer, and it was this unwillingness to take anything anyone said as gospel, that rubbed people the wrong way.

Comparison charts don't mean anything to me; having product in my paws and personally using and comparing side-by-side, means everything.

Long ago I realized that making purchases based on anything but careful research and hands-on assessment, made a very ignorant, uninformed shopper out of me.

Discussion is great, no doubt about it.

No offense taken here!

Charles

[phrank]

Ultimately some folks should buy the software that simulates what they fly in real life.

This person's perception:
Started with Planks..
* Why did I start with FMS?
It was FREE, I didn't know what I was doing, one of the guys at the field said he started with it.
* Why did I then pony up for the Clearview Licence?
Another guy said you could make your own models with it, plus it had the aircraft I was flying at the time.
Then I got into Helis. :rolleyes:
* LHS recommended Realflight, large selection of aircraft, but it did not have the Heli I was flying at the time.
* Why did I buy FS***?
Blade CP was a major reason, I was spending way too much money on broken parts. But there was just something wrong about it, I had gotten very confortable with Realflight.
Came back to Realflight, learned how to make my own models. Problem solved, right? :p
*Why did I buy Phoenix?
They had Water, RF did not. Suckered back into a competitor sim. One problem though, you could not create custom aircraft. I wasn't exactly thrilled about using my own TX everytime I flew. Sure, you get free aircraft, but done their way.
* Back to Realflight, they meet all my current expectations. I am still creating the custom content that I want, I can customize it the way I want. I am in a happy place.

Never tried Reflex or Aerofly, but then again they offer nothing at this time to make me hand over my $$.

My 2 cents.

Frank...

[opjose]

Perception drives reality. I'm a Star Wars fan but even the most die hard fans agree that Jar Jar Binks must die. I like Star Trek too. I could list dozens of things that I like and dislike about both. Does that mean I'm being hypocritical?



No, given your "Jar Jar Binks must die" comment, you are a realist!

:D :eek: :D

[r1derbike]

Who is Jar Jar Binks? All I remember is Woodstock...the first one. Sky King. Westerns. Black and White TV. Last, but not least RealFlight. :D

Charles

[M.Huffman]

Who is Jar Jar Binks?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2708/4132348195_21744ce05e_o.jpg

[mlesnews]

I'm regretting even bringing it (JJB)...

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/8/16/633545257951222903-regretsthosewerethedroidsyouwerelookingfordemotiva tor.jpg

[r1derbike]

Har! Jar Jar. Looks like my ex mother-in-law! :D

Charles

[intro]

I fly RF. If it's about flying only one, I'd say it's the "can't go wrong" option.
AND a truly great product in almost every way.
But I'm still buying Phoenix. It's got all the heli's I fly right out of the box.

I also LIKE the idea of using my field TX in a sim. Anything else is NEVER gonna truly replicate your interaction with your aircraft.

Granted you can "piggyback" your TX to RF. But I think it's kinda dirty.IMHO.

What's wrong with wanting more?

[jeffpn]

I also LIKE the idea of using my field TX in a sim. Anything else is NEVER gonna truly replicate your interaction with your aircraft.
I've never understood this logic. The Interlink is designed to look and feel like it's a real transmitter. When you play Grand Theft Auto, do you have to use the steering wheel from your real car "to truly replicate your interaction with the vehicles?" And which car's steering wheel would you use? Your theory also suggests that one would feel less comfortable driving with the non-preferred steering wheel of another vehicle. Bottom line is, you CAN use your own Tx if you prefer. You must plug it into your Interlink. Whether you feel it's "dirty" or not, that's not going to change.

[12oclockhigh]

I wanted to first complement you on the comparison... you see that I have picked out one sentence below.... to me that is the most important part of the sim, the essence if you will... I have not created a 3D model... I have played with the design tools... not enough time. There are so many existing models to choose from.. and I will try making a color scheme first.

Importantly and very quickly, I can change an aircraft's flight physics characteristics to match my own. The other day was a huge boring discussion about heli head speed... knowing the physical characteristics of my model, I can input the data into the sim and I am soon flying "my model"... I am not as big about exact color scheme as I am about flying "right"... anyone can edit flight characteristics... and relatively easy too! Not a single model here that I have not tinkered with the physics... sometimes a disaster, sometimes good, always interesting.


That said, you do have the ability to edit your vehicles but from what I have seen the editor is nowhere near the editor in RF. For me, since I don't do a huge amount of mod'ing this isn't a big factor.

Ok, it wasn't super technical but that's what I have seen of Phoenix in the last couple of weeks and there's my contribution. Hope the guys at KE don't mind the post. Mr. Helpful

[opjose]

But I'm still buying Phoenix. It's got all the heli's I fly right out of the box.


Nothing wrong with having more than one... AF5 and Phoenix are on my "buy" list too.

Though so far no other sim has knocked Realflight from my "top spot".



I also LIKE the idea of using my field TX in a sim.

Anything else is NEVER gonna truly replicate your interaction with your aircraft.


Nor is hooking your TX to the sim.

Of course you are putting more wear and tear into your TX, your running the battery packs down, you have to adjust the sim and planes, etc. etc. etc.

We tend to quickly find that it's simply not worth the hassle, and having the Interlink available offers a simpler solution that works MUCH better than your own TX.

My Interlink tends to stay plugged into my PC so I can always jump into Realflight whenever I want.


Granted you can "piggyback" your TX to RF.
But I think it's kinda dirty.


Dirty? How so.

The majority of us use the Interlink, to avoid the hassles of utilizing our real world TX's.

What we get is very "clean", just the device plugged into the PC.... no intervening boxes, adaptors, etc. as with other sims.