RealFlight 7 - Which Version?
 

Hi,

I'm new to this, and I see RF7 offers a couple different versions; what's the difference between these versions?

Great Planes RealFlight 7 w/InterLink Elite Mode 1
Great Planes RealFlight 7 w/InterLink Elite Mode 2
Great Planes RealFlight 7 Tactic TTX600 Radio Ed Mode 2

Which version should I purchase?

Thank you!

The Interlink Elite models include a controller that can only be used for the simulator program. The TTX600 package includes a 6 channel transmitter that can be used with the simulator, and with any R/C aircraft that has an SLT receiver.

Here is an explanation of mode 1 vs. mode 2. Most American pilots use Mode 2.

Forgo both the TTX600 and the interface only version, get the Interlink Elite version instead.

A lot of people MISTAKENLY think that they MUST have their own transmitter hooked to a sim for best "feel" or use.

You quickly run into the limitations this produces.

- With the Interlink Elite you get more functions and buttons on the USB transmitter, which the sim will recognize, than you will with either of the other two options.

- The Interlink Elite is powered via USB, so you can merely plug it in and fly the sim. You do not have to plug in a charged transmitter.

- There is NO wear and tear on your own transmitter as a result.

- You do not have to user your TX batteries for the sim.

- The variants, helis and planes available for the sim all utilize the Interlink Elite setup.

- You can move the Interlink Elite to another computer and use the sim there without changing anything in the sim.

- There is less latency with the Interlink Elite, versus any other Transmitter hookup (on any sim) as there is less hardware "in the way".

- The RED Reset and menu buttons on the Interlink Elite don't exist on your transmitter nor on the TTX600

- The TTX600 provided with the sim does not have "training mode" ( wireless training hookups ) available, because that was sacrificed to permit it to work with the simulator...

- WIth the Interlink Elite you CAN hook up your own transmitter if you choose, but you'll quickly find that using the Interlink alone is the best choice.


etc, etc. etc.

There is a thread on the Realflight forum where people who have purchased both the TTX600 and the Interface version have come to realize all of this.

The two other options are not bad, but the Interlink Elite offers the best way of doing things.

IMO, Interlink is worth the $$
 

Agree with opjose - you can save a few bucks by using your own transmitter, or get the TTX600 in the deal, but in addition to controlling eight "model" channels, the Interlink was set up as a controller for the RF software, and includes handy control buttons that you can use to manage most of the simulation from the Interlink controller.

Recall that Murphy's Law still applies to RC flying... With the Interlink, you'll never make an early morning trip to the flying field and discover that you left your transmitter sitting on the desk, connected to your PC after a late night practice session :o...

If you hook up RF with a transmitter, in addition to using Tx batteries*, in order to change airplanes, airfields or display features you must use either a keyboard or mouse. With the Interlink, you can kick back in your chair and fly, crash, rewind/reset, change airplanes and control many RF features from the Interlink control panel...

* requiring either frequent replacement, or buying and managing separate sets for flying and RF.

I thought the idea of using your transmitter was to be able to familiarize yourself with the features of that transmitter and help fine tune the controls. For example the controls and switches on the interlink do not compare to most transmitters except the where the gimbals are concerned. Are not all of the curves and programming features of the transmitter available when used instead of the interlink? I have not had a Realflight package but my old Aerofly with the transmitter adaptor allowed me all the program features of my old Prism 7X something the supplied controller could not duplicate.

The reason I am asking is I have been considering upgrading to new software and I am split between the Realflight and Aerofly. I am not a heli flyer predominantly a scale aero and glider pilot.

I am still trying to make up my mind.

Dennis

I think getting the "feel" for your own transmitter is an advantage of using the interlink edition. There are clear advantages to getting the Interlink Elite edition, but I personally like using my Futaba 6EX with the simulator, since the dual rate switch, and a couple of other switches, are not in the same place on the Interlink Elite controller.

If you use your own controller, it helps a great deal to use one that can handle multiple planes, and to assign on model memory slot to the simulator. Otherwise, you may have to change some settings when you go between the simulator and the real airplanes. The software can handle servo reversing, so these settings do not have to be changed on the transmitter. Others settings may need to be saved.

The real value of using your Tx is that you can learn how to take advantage of all those fancy mixes, set points, and exponentials. You can really learn how to get the most out of that computer radio, plus some great practice flying. I have updated my Tx batteries to LI-FE, so they serve me well at the field as well as at home on the sim without being a charging nightmare.

Propworn:

The simulator does allow you to use your TX's mixing, etc... but the problem with that is EACH AND EVERY PLANE must be re-adjusted and edited to permit you to do so.

One of the advantages of Realflight is that mixing can be done on a per plane/heli basis. When the aircraft physics is created the designer sets up things like expo, mixing, rates, travels and even switch assignments in the PLANE or HELI.

That means the designer can create an aggressive 3D plane, and yet when you load up a warbird, throwing the Interlink into high rates does NOT produce 3D deflections on the warbird.... etc...

This is referred to as "software mixing" in the sim.

If you then try to use mixing, set points, exponential with software mixing turned on, you end up with unflyable aircraft.

So most people wanting to use their TX's features need to turn software mixing off.

Once you do, you have to explicitly edit each and every plane or heli to suit your radio.

This is great for an advanced flyer who knows how to handle the built-in editor and the programming in their radio fairly well..

However that is well beyond the beginning or even intermediate flyer. Using your own TX does no favors for the novice, nor someone trying to learn how to use the mixes on their transmitter.


Realflight also cannot ( currently ) handle HELI mixes ( e.g. CCPM, 140 degree, 120 degree, etc. ) that are handled by your radio.... so you end up using software mixing anyway.

That means you let the simulator, not your radio handle all of this. You gain nothing by trying to use your own radio.

The Interlink also has other buttons which your transmitter does not have nor can emulate. These buttons allow you to invoke the menu, change planes, rewind your flight, etc. etc...

So contrary to the above posts, there is no real advantage nor benefit to using your own transmitter, while there are very marked benefits to using the Interlink Elite.

As I previously mentioned there is a thread over on the Knifeedge forums where people who purchased the Interface/Transmitter version have discovered this to be true after the fact, and now wish they had purchased the Interlink version instead.

I just don't want to pick up and fly I have done that with my previous sim. I got extremely bored with it quickly. I purchased the interface for my older radio and was able to mix and match as desired. I found that it really made a difference for what I wanted to do. I have been trying to find out a little about realflight but it sounds like I might be better off sticking with Aerofly which allows plenty of editing. I just thought with the purchase of a new radio system it might be worthwhile to investigate the two most popular sims. I don’t fly helis so cyclic mixing really is not a factor. It sounds like Realflight is lacking in the use your own transmitter department so I will have to take another look at what Aerofly has to offer.
Thanks
Dennis

Making such edits puts you beyond the scope of the beginner and even intermediate user. You may therefore prefer the interface version. For most the Interlink still remains the best option.... and with that you DO have the ability to connect your own radio if you choose, so you get the best of both worlds.

I like Aerofly 7 a lot ( superb and beautiful but very very few, 3D airfields! ), but the editor is one area where it is greatly lacking. You can not do simple things like differential mixing in Aerofly.

Channel assignments in a model are "hard wired" so to speak and most of the models only accept input from one channel for BOTH ailerons.... etc.

The just released version of Phoenix 5 greatly improves that sim's editor. It is getting to be more like Realflight's editor but it is not quite there yet.

Phoenix is lacking in the 3D airfields department. Their "infinity scope" doesn't cut it IMHO...

However if you want to use your own mixes particularly with helis, Phoenix does a GREAT job.

I've been able to take my real Trex-600's CCPM setup and use it with the same heli in Phoenix. After a few minor adjustments to the sim's model I had the same response in the sim as with my heli. I then used this to set up a bunch of new "modes" on my JR 11X radio and experiment with different head speeds, pitch angles, etc.

When satisfied I flew my real heli with the same setup with identical results... that was pretty neat. The one model memory in the TX worked for both the modified sim T-REX and my real one.

Realflight lets you do the same for planes and sailplanes, but it does not handle the CCPM inputs and multiple swash input modeling for helis yet. It treats all helis as 90 degree standard swashes vis-à-vis swash channel inputs from your TX, no matter the heli.

As I said helis host no interest from me you do keep going back to them when I have no interest. I know your trying to address everyone but my wants are quite specific. Most real airfields are chosen for the lack of obstructions so all the airfields with real planes, barns and buildings are unrealistic for my purposes as are mountains and scenery. The hobby shop has both available for demo purposes I guess the only way is to sit and work with both then make a decision. I was hoping to avoid the couple of hours it will take to make up my mind but I see no one posting the info that I need. I thought I was pretty specific the information I was seeking was not that of beginner or video game. I have use of a type of simulator for calculation of movement and stress as well as drag, LD etc but it does not allow for flight via a transmitter. The inputs are via parameters speed, glide slope, angle of attack etc via keyboard then it simulates the flight envelope. Very useful but its still not flying by transmitter.

Thanks
Dennis

Dennis

The title of this thread is "Realflight 7 which version?" not "Guess my specific interests...".

I bring up Helis because that says something about how each sim handles transmitter inputs, which you are keen on yet goes to the intent of this thread.


3D airfields offer a far more realistic environment, than does a static backdrop.

Airplanes can fly through trees after a collision, the sun can change angles, clouds can move in, etc.

Most importantly, you can fly the plane using a chase view in a 3D airfield which helps you establish if say, the plane is flying with adverse yaw, or a slight side slip that needs correction.

For your purposes ( Scale ) this is a very good thing.

Don't dismiss it so quickly.


You only posted " I am not a heli flyer predominantly a scale aero and glider pilot."

That was not a "pretty specific" set of requirements, just a statement of what you do, not what you were seeking.

As such the ability to edit aircraft to conform to their observed behavior is key particularly for scale aircraft.

Aerofly does a great job with gliders, but the editor is sorely lacking. Just try setting up separate channels for each aileron, or a four servo setup on it.... you can not.

That said Aerofly 7.0 does give you the ability to use your own TX, if you provide your own computer interface that must appear to be a Windows recognized gaming device. You can not assign multiple/servo channels for control surfaces... e.g. tailerons, flaperons, etc.

If you fly scale aircraft Realflight offers the biggest repository of available scale craft.

Phoenix 5 offers a good improvement and the editor is much better than in version 4, but it is not quite up to the fine tuning capabilities of Realflight 7.

It is pretty cool that Phoenix 5 now includes a separate plane creation tool.

Phoenix does a great job at accepting second party transmitter inputs and again it beats Realflight in handling heli swash mixing. That says something about utilizing your own radio for certain purposes.

Restrict things to planes & gliders only, then Realflight excels in this department, being able to handle more than 8 channel inputs, that become important for things like extra switches and features... but then as I said, you will have to edit the planes for your specific configuration.


If you have specific questions please post them.

Typing this from work please excuse the format in between jobs so its quick and dirty.
The last version of Aerofly I had ordered with the adaptor cord for the radio I intended to use. I did not have to supply a gaming interface. I programed the radio with no problem including flaperon commands. Regardless your opinion is the only one it’s not something I am willing to base a decision on. The things you seem to find important in a sim mean less to me like I said thanks for the input I will just spend the time to see which one has the features that might compliment what I am using at present. As far as my needs I don’t know how else to explain it to you but I will try. I can change all the parameters of the airframe including, airfoil, power, weight, CofG, center of pressure etc and the resulting model will fly with keyboard commands in the pitch, roll and yaw moments as well as power on/off and appears very accurate. What it does not do is allow control via a remote or transmitter. If I cannot duplicate what I already have then there is no point in purchasing any of them. The unrealistic moves you perform with the helis and 3D aircraft are nothing but video game like compared to what I want. I don't know how else to put it. I got the same sort of response from each of the manufacturers, canned answers, each one claiming advantages over the competition none of which addressed the real world physics I was looking for. For instance on the sim I use changing the airfoil results in very different stall characteristics, as does the wing plan. Weight and CofG as well as center of pressure affect stability. Before you say it’s beyond the capabilities of the sum understand the center of pressure is decided by the airfoil shape and wing plan form. The weight and CofG of the airframe is variable so if known from the sim I am using and transferable to any of these flight sims and if the flight engine is accurate as they claim the results should be comparable even duplicated with minor trim.

You didn't say what software you are using, where you can not achieve TX input.

It sounds like you are trying to use the sims for "predictive modeling".

Most are indeed accurate enough to give you a VERY good analog of their real world counterpart.

But as with ANY simulation, you need to tweak the sim & model by first documenting the real world aircraft, then adjusting the simulated version to do EXACTLY the same thing within the constraints of the simulation.

That gives you a starting point for making changes, and seeing how those changes may affect the real world aircraft.

While this gives you a chicken and egg problem, this is how most expansive simulations operate...

e.g. for satellite orbit predictions you need an accurate model of the gravitational geode, to get that you send up a satellite and observe the perturbations in it's orbit...

You need one to get the other...

All except one sim is table driven, only FS-One purports to utilize fluid dynamics in the simulation, yet the end result is one of the LEAST realistic analogs to how the real aircraft fly.

Case in point, I have a Funtana 90 that exhibits a second order quirk. As it lands it tends to bloom up a bit just before stall.

I can't quite duplicate this in Phoenix though I can get a bit of this behavior to appear by adjusting certain parameters of the model well outside the specs of my real plane.

In Realflight I get partial representation of this behavior ( but no ground effect ) when the numbers are close spec, but I still have to adjust the model somewhat out of spec.

I couldn't get this behavior at all in Aerofly 5.7 and certainly not in FS-One.


With NO sim are you going to be able to plug in numbers and get exactly the response you expect without extensive fine tuning.

---



BTW: Aerofly 7.0 does NOT include an interface. You must supply your own or you can purchase one separately from them.

This is one of it's salient features, it is NOT tied to a dongle or copy protection device any more.

I have not tried the 5.7 interface with 7.0. It may work.

I just got RF 7 Interlink Elite. What I DO NOT like is the stick tension is not adjustable. The sticks are pretty loose and cross coupling is almost impossible to avoid. Plus mine came with the smooth ratchet on the throttle. They include a ratcheting spring with the kit but you have to open the transmitter case and change it out.

A lot of people have adjusted the springs and changed the ratchet w/o problems.

Hobbico does not void the warranty when this is done and are excellent are replacing/repairing problematic Interlink.

The Knifeedge forums have many people who attest to that.

You do still have the option of hooking your own TX up via the Interlink too.

I knew the interface cable was available did not know it was not a dongle/copy protection device.

The software I am using is not a sim but design/analytical software and is not designed to interact with anything other keyboard or mouse. Its older but had a large data base in fluid dynamics including flight. They refer to it as aeromodleing but my understanding is in relation to full size. Newer versions no longer have this portion of the data base. The owner is no longer using this version so I am playing around to see is it’s of any value for our purposes.

What we have noticed so far is the model aircraft values inserted in the program coincide with those we observed with the actual model. We were worried about scaling down but it seems the airfoils we use in models as long as the information is correct result in near true predictions. The software engine is slow and single purpose. For instance you can change the variables of weight, angle of attack, speed etc even in a constantly banked turn and observe the generation of the expected airflow and separation of same prior to stall. In one instance the software predicted a continuous right wing panel stall each and every time in a straight ahead stall. This the model did with a repeatability that was uncanny. You cannot fly this software, each set of parameters are run by the software allowing you to only alter the variables during the execution.


If one could get an idea how a certain airframe might react it would certainly reduce the test phase. However it will not give an indication of the reaction of the same airframes while under RC control. So if the sim using the transmitter runs close to the actual model being flown by the same transmitter. Then if the data from the design can be put into the flight sim this might be a usable tool.

We have the info from several real world tests and would like to see it the information can be transposed to the sim then compare how the edited model fly’s in relation to the real one. It may not work or offer any data of value but if by chance it does it offers interesting possibilities.

Dennis

I still think one of the best feature a SIM has is to learn a radio. Sure you can use the mixes in the program. but you can save setups with your model memories and unplug the radio and go fly with those same settings you have been working on. I use multiple radio brands and use Aerofly, Phoenix and Real flight. While I'm sure using the SIMs built in mixes work well for some, they don't accomplish what I am looking for specifically. I guess that's another benefit, you can tailor it for your own wants/ needs. It sounds like it fits those for you, and I know it does for myself as well. Just wanted to note that the SIM is a tool for us to sharpen our skillset with, and it certainly does not have to be the same for everybody. Sharing those ideas could help someone get more out of the program. Have fun!

Yup, that is indeed nice, but remember that this is WELL beyond the scope of most Novices and Intermediate flyers who are the usual RC simulator buyers.

That gives them far too much to contend with. The forums are repleat with people who can't figure out how to set up their TX's to work with sims, even though this is a trivial task for those that know a bit about programming their radios.

As such the Interlink gives you the best of BOTH worlds, you can use EITHER your own transmitter or the Interlink itself, making it a better choice.

Very nice! Sounds interesting.

Sadly I don't think you are going to be able to accomplish what you want with an RC sim. In effect you want to be able to dial in the same parameters you use for your existing software and see how the plane flies to the same high degree of fidelity, matching your software.

To get that you would need the same computational engine in the RC sim.

Simulators are great for RC flight, but they don't even begin to deal with second nor third order effects.

e.g. no RC sim deals with Reynolds numbers, etc.let alone fluid dynamics with the degree of accuracy you are already getting.

Even X-plane ( which btw you CAN use as an RC sim, have you had a look? ) may not give you a match though your results may be better there.

One of us looked at X-plane in the beginning but the physics are not right for a model and it was felt that it would be going backward. I’m the pilot the other two are the computer nerds it’s a pretty interesting team I understand the basics of what is wanted and as long as they keep it simple its not to hard to fly the data. They seem to think they can make it work. The idea is if the software can actually predict the flight envelope of a model. They feel they might be able to get the sim to do the same. Then if the sim and the model flew alike in real time with a real transmitter then there would be some very real potential there. The idea of course is to design a model, fly it out on the sim and correct any bad habits then build a prototype. As long as they want me as the pilot I’m in its interesting as hell all this flying around at the point of stall and not that high either they want to see the models reactions. Thanks for the input time to clean up the shop.

Dennis

I think that you want to use a consumer "toy" software package as a professional design suite. While I have great respect for Real Flight/Phoenix "Toy" simulators etc... they are not serious attempts at providing flight result data for professional use. They might get you into the ball park and section, but never the right row and certainly not the right seat. There is just no instrumentation information available.

Personally, I think that the physics is better in X-Plane... but it is an opinion and that is what it is worth.

You are both right and wrong Six. We have the professional design software but we cannot get it to work with a transmitter interface that would replicate the flight of a model or the input of a model flyer. Again we are not after full size physics. Model pilots yank and bank their models all over the sky and while the software predicts and displays many of the physical flight characteristics it does it only in full size time this does not scale down. No full size aircraft flits about the sky like many RC pilots put their models through. The flight sim can keep up. Sure its toy software but it does this very well. At present your right let’s call them what they are, video games, but you must agree most of the hard work is done. They are constantly improving the correlation between the real world and the physics of the game. Yes we are looking for something a little different than the entertainment development that is in use now. Consider what the sim would be like if one could design an airframe from scratch and not have to alter one that was preloaded in the data bank. Then fly it on the sim with at least a reasonable accurate facsimile of what the flight envelope would be. We are going to look again at X-plane and we now have on loan Realflight and Aerofly apparently there is a new Aerofly in the near future so again thanks to all for your input.

Dennis

I wound up upgrading from my Futaba 6ex to a Futaba 7c. Unfortunately, the 7c would not work with Realflight (incompatibility is a know issue with the 7c.) I contacted GP, and they offered to trade out my interface device for the Interlink Elite controller for $40 (to difference in price between the "Interface" and the "Interlink Elite" versions.) I was not initially aware that you can use your own controller with the Interlink Elite controller, simply by connecting your transmitter to the Interlink Elite device, though the trainer jack. As a previous poster said, you get "the best of both worlds." Furthermore, it's apparently possible for two people to fly two planes simultaneously on one computer if a transmitter is connected to the Interlink Elite device. Lastly, the Interlink Elite controller has 8 "channels," more than most of the transmitters on the market.

I sent my transmitter interface device a check to Hobby Services about a week ago, and got a new Interlink Elite controller today. As always, the service and turnaround time was excellent.

All said and done, (an in hindsight, in my case), the Interlink Elite version is probably worth the extra $40.

I intended starting a new thread for this topic, but couldn't find a prompt to do so, so here goes.

I've just bought a Real Flight 7 simulator Mode 2 and am in the process of converting it to Mode 1. I've followed the instructions here (opposite, because that is Mode 1 to Mode 2) http://www.gpsoftware.com/kb/q02-1016.htm but can't find the Controller Calibrations in the Options Menu mentioned in step 7, below.

7. Simply enter the RealFlight program and check the configuration of the software to operate in the Mode 2 setting. This is found in the Controller Calibration dialog in the Options menu. No change to the Stick Mapping should be necessary to Mode 2.

I've selected Mode 1 under Radio Mode (gadget only) under the Gadgets tab, but I'm in a hybrid of Mode 1 and Mode 2.

Is anybody able to assist, and any assistance will be greatly appreciated.