Go Back   Knife Edge > RealFlight - Discontinued Products > RealFlight 7
Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use. | Technical Support is available from Great Planes Software Support.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-20-2013, 12:07 AM
3-DMan's Avatar
3-DMan 3-DMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 220
Back to talking about RF

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
__________________
Aviation is life.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-20-2013, 02:06 AM
jbourke's Avatar
jbourke jbourke is offline
Knife Edge Software Owner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corvallis, OR, USA
Posts: 712
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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-20-2013, 03:02 AM
ragface ragface is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hunington Beach, ca
Posts: 14
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?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-20-2013, 07:23 AM
12oclockhigh 12oclockhigh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,960
The guy that posted directly above your post is the top guy at Knife Edge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragface View Post
Does RF ever read this stuff? Can they help me/us understand what we would be paying for?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-20-2013, 10:13 AM
Kris...'s Avatar
Kris... Kris... is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Little old England
Posts: 139
So in a nut shell RF7 has no noticeably improvements on plane physics
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-20-2013, 10:46 AM
Maj. Numbskully's Avatar
Maj. Numbskully Maj. Numbskully is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Gatesville Texas
Posts: 7,653
Then I'll take that as :
No..... the prop wash issue has not been addressed
__________________
Photography MegaryT [[;]
(aka Maj. Numbskully)
https://plus.google.com/collection/IPvFbB
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-21-2013, 02:54 PM
jasond jasond is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 58
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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-21-2013, 03:31 PM
Ryan Douglas's Avatar
Ryan Douglas Ryan Douglas is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 2,771
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-08-2019, 04:27 AM
PHA PHA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 3
Unhappy 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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-08-2019, 04:36 AM
PHA PHA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 3
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-08-2019, 12:29 PM
doug schluter's Avatar
doug schluter doug schluter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,197
Send a message via AIM to doug schluter
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
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Helical wash rotation factor.jpg (89.6 KB, 7 views)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-08-2019, 07:36 PM
Flapper Flapper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 176
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-08-2019, 08:00 PM
technoid's Avatar
technoid technoid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flapper View Post
AND...don't compare apples and oranges!
RF planes are based on MODELS, not full sized aircraft.
Exactly.. RC models aren't full sized Aircraft. I fly models not the real thing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:31 AM.