Hi,
It's all about the value you receive for your money, and with the ones I've bought/used, there's a lot to be desired!
I know when G2 first came out I couldn't believe how poorly the models were rendered. I was used to MSFS models, and they were freeware and light years ahead of what RF was offering. Crude shapes, no see through canopies, poor flight models; everyone knows the problems. When I tried to modify the files, in MSFS you can get into the .air files and tweak the performance, I was told by RF that the program was "locked down" to prevent piracy! I was just amazed that RF cost over 5X what FS costs and has LESS features.
The standard response is that the market for MSFS is much bigger than the RC market. All I can say is bull, the size of the market doesn't excuse poor or sloppy programing. We all know the problems with G3 and I thought that AFPD would be a better, unfortunately not so. I was with my grandsons this weekend practicing take offs and landings with the PT-40. When I dialed in some wind, that's when the fun began! I set the wind to 7 m/s, which, using my fudge factor of 2.3, comes out to about 15 mph. I set the wind at 45 degrees off the runway and the sim could not simulate this scenario! The models just weathercock into the wind, you couldn't do a x-wind take off! When landing, the nosegear would touch down and the plane would pivot right back into the wind! I went back to G2 and at least that simulated the conditions somewhat. There's no excuse why a simulator can't handle x-wind conditions, it's something you encounter at the field on a regular basis. And for this it costs $169! For that kind of money I expect to simulate conditions in the real world! It seems that the emphasis is on 3d stuff at the expense of basic flying in all the sims, although I have very limited experience with Reflex. Maybe newbies don't buy sims to learn to fly and most are sold for 3D. Don't know.
BRG,
Jon