FS-One Videos make me like G3 all the more!

[opjose]

I had a mild interest in FSone when I read about the fluid dynamics. I perused the videos that they made available of their final product.

Indeed the modeling of the plane physics in FSOne looks better than AFDP (but not necessarily on par with G3).

Ironically AFDP touts it's plane physics as the most accurate, yeah right...

Anyway, the Panos look nice in FSone, only due to the choice of images used, but the 3D fields leave me cold.

Ugh, they are a joke.

G3's 3D fields, look sooo nice by comparison... and IMHO 3D fields are where it's at.

G3 has no competition yet.... but bring on G4...

[r1derbike]

The panos do look very nice. Yeah, other sims 3D offerings just don't cut it. I have always liked to fly jets on-the-deck in chase view. Reminds me of the 142nd terrain-hugging through the mountains with A-10s and other aircraft, south of Fayetteville, AR. It was especially interesting when a military convoy was winding its way toward FAY through the mountains. The convoy was escorted by close-air support. Those guys were nuts.

Charles

[L0stS0ul]

I don't know what happened with G3 but with the last update I can no longer fly at any of the 3D sites. My FPS drops way below acceptable. I get 120-150 fps on the pano's and 15-30 on the 3D sites. I used to get 50-60. Needless to say I only fly on the pano sites now so the 3D is not a big deal to me anymore. I'd rather have the FPS and accurate physics.

My machines specs:

P4 2.4 ghz
1 gig of the fastest rambus memory
7200 rpm hard drive
Radeon 9800 128 meg PRO

Not a top of the line machine anymore (was a few years back) but I can still play most games well. Only since the last update has it been this way. Kinda irked me too cause I liked flying at the real flight ranch.

More for me I think is the fact that they are focusing a lot more on the Parkflier world. That's what is important to me. That and the fact that they don't make editing planes a chore that requires a PHD.

[opjose]

Have you tried turning off the particle effects, and seeing how this affects your FPS?

Re: PHD

AFDP has a "simple" plane editing scheme, which tends to make all the planes unrealistic and hard to fix. FSOne may be doing the same.

I'll take G3's editor any day.

[L0stS0ul]

I've tried turning stuff down until it's really just rediculous that I had to do that to get decent FPS. I mean heck I can even play BattleField 2 at decent quality settings and that's 100x better than these graphics. I don't know what in the last update caused the issues but I'll just fly at the pano fields from now on. Not worth the FPS drop and the loss of quality.

Until I see the scaler I won't jump to that judgement. They have some amazing people working on their team.

If I had my way I'd want to see G3 make some "guesses" at settings for you. Right now it's just way to hard.

[opjose]

I think that it's not so much that it's hard, but rather that all of the parameters are not fully documented.

I had to exagerate each one and test the results, to understand what they all did... a rather tedious proceedure.

G3 does make a lot of "guesses" for you when you import a new model.

It also affects the flight characterisitics based upon shape, etc. so it is helping out to a good degree.

[ilovemetro]

fs ones flight physics look really great, now i want it really bad

i dont see whats so bad about the fields theyre pretty decent

[opjose]

The 3D fields are AWFUL!

Take a look at the video of the plane flying over the fields.

The 3D objects are very basic. They make AFDP's 3D fields look good in contrast, and in turn those are very bad.

Trees are "billboard" images pasted on a 2D object which always faces you.

(G3 does use this technique for people, which IMHO could disappear as well... but thankfully it does not use it for trees and other objects like FSOne does.)

The sky and ALL backgrounds are nothing but static images.

In G3 the sky and clouds move and are modelled in 3D.

In G3 the winds affect the speed of the particles, windsocks, anemometers and other objects.

The physics in FSOne looks better than AFDP, but from what I'm seeing (thus far) it may not match G3. e.g. things like inertia, etc don't seem to be accurate.. check "the wall" video.

[ilovemetro]

alright i will but from the video fs one looks like it flys alot more like a real plane, rfg3 just seems to make everything to easy

[opjose]

Easy?

How so?

( At RCUniverse the opposite complaint appears... "It's harder than the real thing.." )


I had no problem making the "Reno Racer" perform EXACTLY like my PTS.

There is no discernable difference between the software and the performance of the real plane. It lands with exactly the same difficulty and tendancies as my plane.


I've been able to do this with many other planes as well.

Having the actual plane permits me to fine tune G3's physics to be spot on. This helps a lot...


However it does a fantastic job if you merely "dial in" the correct parameters.

Every read the mini "review" of the G3 Jart (posted here) on Jartworld.com?

"it's so accurate it's scary!".

I entered the numbers for the Jart to do this.

Like you, I thought that this plane was "too easy" or maneouverable, etc.

Nemo and I were going back and forth because we both believed that the perfomance of the Jart was "unrealistic"...

That is, until I saw the actual videos of the real thing. It turned out to be right on the money. Yet I had never flown one before.


You can't do this with other sims!


I've modeled all of my planes thus far with incredible accuracy, due to the fine grained control available in the physics editor. This is one of G3's strongest points, in spite of complaints that it is complex. So what if it is?

It is that complexity that makes it work so well. Each parameter is modifiyable.

Not so in any other sim.


(A lot of people are taking the planes and doing things to them to make them unrealistic, this is not G3's fault.)



FSOne (at least thus far in the videos) has some very visible defects in the physics modeling that violate real world attributes and capabilities.

AFDP and Reflex do not give you fine grain control over the models. As a result a lot of the AFDP models are a joke and cannot be fixed.

G3 does give you fine grained control.

In G3 most things which detract from the realism can be fixed...

G3 needs some improvements in ground handling, but the flight physics are the best out (currently).

I'd love to see AFDP's ground/pavement tendancies added to G3, along with the bendable nature of components under impact. It looks cool and impresses the viewer.


A lot of people forget that G3 models the entire virtual world.

E.G. The wind speed affects the different cloud layers, particle effects, landings, windsocks, anemometers, the orientation of the model (it will weathervane on the ground!), etc. VERY NICE.

AFDP, tries to do a little of this, but limits what it models to a very small area, and doesn't deal with second order effects.

FSone seems not to do much. (did I mention static skies, 3D objects & trees, etc.?)

Reflex doesn't bother at all.


Doing all of this is computationally expensive, and the reason why G3 has high end requirements.

But as Moore's law goes, in a year or two, G3's hardware requirments will be relatively "low end".... and everyone will be complaining about G4's still heavier load.

I hope the KE staff never "wimps out", and continues to push the curve.

[L0stS0ul]

Originally Posted by opjose

Easy?
I've modeled all of my planes thus far with incredible accuracy, due to the fine grained control available in the physics editor. This is one of G3's strongest points, in spite of complaints that it is complex. So what if it is?

I can tell you why. Because it is so complex a normal flier has absolutly no chance of recreating their plane. They end up having to come here and beg for someone to create a plane and then they are told how easy it is to do with about 2 pages of information on what they need to tweek here and there. To a casual flier they just have no idea.

Let's face it. The vast majority of people flying on the sim are probabaly beginners that bought it to help them learn how to fly. In that respect G3 fails miserably because they will never be able to get a plane to fly like the one they bought since very few beginner planes are actually modeled in the sim.

[opjose]

I disagree completely.

Planes like the Nexstar are already in the sim, etc.


You can let a beginner start of with a wildly inaccurate aircraft and learn little that will actually help them fly their own plane, as with the other sims.

Or you can provide the fine grained control and tweakability so that people ARE able to model their craft.

But do you really believe that a beginner has ANY chance of accurately modeling flight characterisitcs?

They barely understand it as is. Giving them sliders is almost laughable.

The sims that do not permit the fine grained controll, end up making far too many erroneous choices making the sim very unrealistic.

No, those "slider" controls in FSOne are going to do very little to create accurate craft. If anything they will do the opposite.


Accuracy HAS a price when it comes to modeling.

G3 has it right.

[ilovemetro]

when i fly on g3 its almost like the planes are set up too perfect lol

making me look like a better pilot.


besides why does it matter that much when its really just to help you get used to the stick movements, rudder input... ie... g3 is probably the closest to realisitic but i like the way fs one looks, not that im going to invest into it

[L0stS0ul]

Where just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Until KnifeEdge makes it easier to modify the parameters of the planes it's impossible for a beginner. You may be able to but joe shmoe that just bought a parkzone cub is outta luck completely.

Just because you can tweek every single flight parameter does not make it the best. It's all about usability and it's NOT usable.

[r1derbike]

I have to agree, op. There are plenty of easy planes to fly. Even the "sport" planes are easy to fly, albeit a bit faster than trainers' slow flight.

I'm not one to create planes. I don't have the skills with modeling to do that. The limit of my skills are editing existing planes to suit my flying style, and G3 excels there. In maybe an hour of tweaking flight controls, CG and power, a plane flys to suit me.

That's all I will achieve with 3D modeling. It is far too complex for my limited skill to create an airplane and bring its physics to the table with no problems. I have a new found appreciation for those with 3D creative modeling skills. I'm glad G3 let import/export utilities into the fray so we could enjoy the benefit of others' hard work. I'm sold!

I have tried AFPD, Reflex, and G3. Hours, and hours of flying them all. G3 is in my shack, not the rest.

I used to gripe about how hard G3 was to fly when it was introduced (especially 3D maneuvers). Jim put it best when he suggested that a sim should challenge a flyer, to make him a better pilot. He was absolutely on the money. With recent updates, G3 is much easier to fly right out of the box. New flyers will appreciate this.

G3 has something for everyone, from beginners to skilled graphics artists. One just has to look a bit to find his own niche with it.

I practice with the earlier release (the one before .430) to hone my skills. Those who think now the planes are now too easy to fly, should just try that iteration. It was changed because too many were griping about how difficult it was to fly. One thing I have noticed is KE is responding to its customer base...rather quickly!
You can't please everbody all the time, so you have to please as many at one time as you can. They have done an admirable job at that.

Charles