Quite the opposite is true. Go over to Giant Scale.com forums and post your assertion, then prepare to be keel-hauled.

Non subjectively I can for instance reproduce second and third order effects, responses and quirks ( if you've done any simulations modeling/programming you know what this is about ... ) in RF which AFDP cannot begin to produce... AF 5.5 finally starts getting some of this stuff right... but still it's to a lesser degree.


Which YAK? Some model gyros on the control surfaces, so if you've played with them you may find they deviate from your real world experience.

However let's talk about 3D stall behaviour for instance.... in AFDP there is no modeling of the post stall lever moments of individual plane components, nor multiple attitude-lift curves on the same model....

e.g. A thick wing C.G. Neutral 3D profile has a tendancy to balloon up as the airflow separates from the rear of airfoil in high alpha, but the wing still retains a high lift component from the non-delaminar airflow at the front...

Take a thick winged profile in RF, neutralize the C.G. and try a slow approach... you'll see this behaviour.
It will baloon up just before stall.

Try this in AFDP sometime... it just doesn't happen in that sim... the model merely drops no matter how you tweak the plane.

Not "feel" just facts.

There are dozens of things like this that AFDP doesn't do.... even 5.5 doesn't get this right.


"Feel" is subjective... and often clouded by personal attachments to one's own purchase.

I've put each sim through the wringer in trying to get planes in the sim to behave exactly like their real world counterparts, for those I own.

A laptop running both sims out at the field along with the same models in the sims really tells all.... particularly if you apply the FAI "trimming" guides to the planes in the sims and compare that to real life.

Been there, done that. You should try it sometime.

At first you said "I've flown all the sims" instead, interesting.

Ah so if it is more widespread, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that it's more highly regarded. It - MUST - be a conspiracy right?

That must be why RF is used in Training Videos, Magazine instructional articles, RC schools, etc... just a mainstreaming...

Tower sells both too.

That may be how you are percieving it, I go by analytical testing instead.

AF 5.5 finally fixed many of the flight model flaws, but some remain.

That said, it's 3D airfields are wonderful and IMHO better than RF, but there are so few of them provided.

I speak of both.

Absolutely right on. There are some things that a sim just cannot duplicate from the real thing, no matter what Great Planes or Ikarus says. It just ain't possible. Perhaps when we are able to reverse engineer more of the alien astronaut electronics, we may get it closer to reality...

CGr.

I learned on the realflight elite controller by Futaba, yes it cost $199.00 but when i went to the field with a experienced pilot with in two days i did my first solo, and to this day i hav'ent lost a plane and saved thousands of dollars.

[/quote]

I was just over on FG and they don't seem to be as high on RF as you think. In fact the opinions are pretty even. Seems most of the praise for RF isn't how the models fly but instead they prefer the user interface.

And whats with your smartassed reply about owning the sims? I go all the way back to the first DB flight sim. Being that you have only been flying for 6 years that would be well before your time. Do I need to post pictures of them? lol. The fact of the matter is you have your opinion and I have mine. For all I know you are a Knife Edge rep. Regardless, we agree to disagree. Enjoy RF.