I'd love to see someone do a piro flip with a plane

Lol -might as well get a Heli? Reverse thrust flying or 4D, whatever you want to call it is not like flying a Heli at all IMO. It is in fact alot of fun -it really puts a whole new twist on 3D flying. Its like having a set of powerful brakes on your plane! I have all 3 sims (sold Reflex already) and have been trying to decide which one to keep and its been really tough deciding. I finally decided to keep G3 because I can do awesome re-paints of the existing planes, I can fly online with others, I can do reverse thrust3D (and soon so can everyone else!) and from what I have been reading from Jim Bourke it looks like they will be realeasing a G3 export plugin filter for GMAX (did I mention that I model things in 3DS Max for a living). GMAX kicks Metasuckio S/P? in the butt BTW, is in english and of course its free so we will soon be making whatever we want to fly in G3 sooon[>:]

Bottom line is this, if you got a fast gaming rig and an internet connection you will get more bang for your buck w/G3! 8 guys flying together, chatting and helping eachother out is way better than flying solo. Photorealism is cool no doubt -but all your doing is moving an object around in space with a pretty photo behind it -no wonder AFPD runs at over 500fps on my PC, the plane is the only object being rendered!

I took a Panoramic background out of Reflex and mapped it on to a sphere in 3dsmax and within minutes had one of my planes flying around so good I could win the VTOC!

Yeah that's great and all about all the fluff G3 has to offer, but what about the physics. When they improve that over all the eye candy they have to offer, give me a shout. Until then AFPD SMOKES G3 for flight. Seems like you keep missing to point out the most important piece in "flight simulation". G3 seems more like a "tree blowing simulator" or "windsock simulator".

People need to learn how to fly first, worry about addons and useless crap like flying online 2nd.

That's why I like AFP's only motto "Physics First", because they don't hype anything. They back it up too.

I agree that flight simulators are to teach a new pilot skills and keep veteran fliers in top form.
However, I've found that the debate rages on concerning the "graphics". Yes, eye candy does make the scene "lifelike" but at the expense of the PC and components. That is, I would like to see a good scene and true aircraft physics.
I downloaded, installed Relex and impressed by the scenes and planes, etc. I just ordered AFPD (not yet received) and expect the scenes to be as "eye candy" as Reflex. The AFPD demo reel does look *good* but not like having the program in front of you playing (even as a demo).

Any thoughts out there about *your* impressions graphically as well and aircraft flying characteristics, etc.
Thanks and will wait for feedback.

Ok IMHO AFPD & Reflex kick G3's butt in the "eye candy" dept -but thats where it ends. I think the 3D planes in G3 fly way more realistically than AFPD (stock vs stock) the AFPD Extra and Giles are filled w/freakin helium and are totally un-realistic IMO. You must admit they are floaty like crazy? Have either of you tried G3 on a fast PC w/latest updates? Have you flown online with a greoup of 7-8 flywers?? G3 online is not crap, anytime I use G3 I always hook up online and connect w/others in a few seconds. Yesterday I hosted a room and had like 3-4 guys flying with me in less than a minute! I have AFPD installed on my PC right now -but it gets boring real fast playing w/yourself. Evertime I pull off a nice move theirs nobody their to see it. I sometimes fire up G3 and just sit on the sidelines and watch (and learn) from others, sometimes really awesome pilots come in and put on shows in G3 that are truly spectacular. I had a guy show up and just do amazing thing w/his Raptor for about 45minutes while everybody else just watched! What about limbo contests, landing contests, freestyle events and last but not least Pylon racing all onine!

How is that "useles crap???"

*edit: this post was intended for aviti

Its obvious that you either ...
A) Have not tried G3 to any extent
B) Are not an experienced enough pilot to judge the realism of a simulator.


The physics in AFP is good, but not that great, and is certainly not the best. AFP is a great sim, but so many people over here on RCU seem to think AFP is as real as it gets. But, thats not the case. I have ALL three major sims and I'd say XTR has the best physics followed closely by G3, then AFP(D) trailing pretty far behind. It seems their slogan of "Physics First" has won many people over hook, line, and sinker. The airplanes in AFP aren't all that bad, but they all fly as if they have the wing loading of a butterfly. The helis in AFP are really far off though....

The helis...
[ul][*] Are too responsive to cyclic inputs (big complaint)[*] Have unlimited power that never fully boggs the engine (the rpm fluctuates, but it never drops far)[*] Helis don't auto accurately[*] Low headspeed seems to have a very small effect on cyclic response (gigantic complaint)[*] Stationary rolls/flips are too axial with little need to compensate with collective[*] Changing parameters within realistic ranges can have wildy unrealistic results (engine power for example)
[/ul]

For example, I can change the engine power to bring the head speed to around 1200rpm and I can still 3D the heli 5ft off the deck. If the heli is at full power and only pumping out 1200rpm I should barely be able to do a roll (even up high) without crashing.

AFP was better than G2, but G3 is better than AFP(D) in simulating both helis and airplanes. And, if you factor in the better graphics, multiplayer, and MUCH better aircraft parameter editing, G3 runs away with the medal by a long shot.

Now, these sims seem to play a leapfrog game, so it will be interesting when AFP comes out with a truly innovative sequal (the Deluxe isn't worth the price of admission for upgraders, IMO), it might rock my socks off

I'm standing behind G3 on this one for these resons:

AFP-too floaty

AFP-personally (IMHO) i think the planes look a little out of shape, but it could just be me

Reflex-Nothing bad to say about reflex except the rudder isnt simulated well, rudder isnt enough for 3D but plenty for level flight

Reflex-aircraft editing SUCKS!!!

G3-the only thing i do not like is...well...I love it!!!!!

ptarp - I was stating my opinion of AFP vs G3. My opinion is based on this...I have owned G2, AFP, AFPD and I have tried Reflex and G3 for several hours each. My experience is 23 years of flying starting at age 12. My current flying interest is 3D and I learned a large part of that on AFP/AFPD.

So please feel free to have your opinion but don't make assumptions questioning mine. I find it particularly offensive that you suggest that I don't know what I am talking about because I am an inexperienced pilot. I may not be Chip Hyde but I wouldn't be embarassed to have you come on down to St Louis and watch me fly. I credit much of my 3D skill to simulators, particularly AFP. Its almost riddiculous how realistic the 3D planes are on that sim. You may say they are floaty, but I have learned maneuvers on AFP and then actually found them easier at the flying field the first time I tried them.

Your "several hours" of experience with G3 may be based on a system that was not stout enough to run it at its best.
G3 demands a lot of hardware (too much?). The way things fly on a sub-par system with G3 is MUCH different than the experience on a powerful system.

Many people who stuck with G3 have found that in the long run, with enough hardware behind it, the latest updates, and a little tweaking - it is quite realistic. Not PERFECT, but none of the sims are perfect. Even if you were on a strong enough system, you probably did not have enough time to get everything set for best experience - including any aircraft adjustments.

You could spend an hour just pouring through the G3 manual looking at all the configuration, aircraft, and environment settings. The amount of things that can be adjusted to your liking in G3 is nothing short of staggering. Just the Wind, Weather, Turbulence, Thermal settings alone are interesting to delve into.

While ptarp may have made his point in a potentially insulting way, I would say that his option "A)" may have some validity behind it. Those of us with dozens of hours with G3 have learned that G3 can be quite accurate, and that first impressions of G3 are almost always bad - but also almost always wrong.

G3 is not for everyone. You certainly have to be willing to put some powerful ($) hardware behind it. However, once you do, and you invest a little time in getting it set up right (and throw in a couple of peefs and others fantastic paint schemes and some of the killer aircraft performance edits), G3 is extremely realistic. To say otherwise -MAY- mean that ptarps options A or B are true - most likely A more often than B.

Jim H.

jhimmel - Good points and by explaining it that way, I can accept your response as constructive and agree that I have not sat down and tried to tweak G3. I still like AFPD because I turn it on and go. I'm not into playing with the settings much and it does not matter to me how many features try to increase the realism. Heck, G4 may have a fan that blows your hair as you increase the wind speed on the sim....just joking but my point is that I only view the sim as a practice tool for learning 3D flight and out of the box, AFP does it best in my experience.

That was the point of my first post and still this one. I (along with many others who say the same thing) consider the flight physics most important and I like AFPD the best. Others may get the results they like on G3 by customizing it and more power to them....competition is what pushes designers to make better products.

Aviti - that's fair enough, and I have NO PROBLEM with people having a preference of one sim over another based on their own personal criteria. I think the problem was with your seemingly overly harsh comment that "G3 seems more like a tree blowing simulator or windsock simulator". Those of us that have spent many many hours with G3 (on systems that are powerful enough to run it well) have found that G3 is actually quite a good rc FLIGHT simulator - even if it was not quite to your liking.

I'm glad that AFPD, XTR, and G3 are all here to put some serious pressure on each other. I just hate to see things deteriorate into a "yours sucks, mine is great" kind of thing. It almost always results in people giving their preference more credit than it deserves and cutting the other sim more than it deserves. I think they are all useful for their intended purpose (which is RC flight simulation, not windsock simulation), and all have their limitations.

One last thing - don't sell Multiplay short as a gimmick. I have found it to be quite useful as a tool. It's great to watch all the pilots that are far better than I to see how they pull off all kinds of moves and to give me all kinds of ideas and things to work on. It also makes learning and practicing more fun. I have little doubt that if AFPD had multiplay, those supporters would not be putting it down as "fluff". It just goes along with that "Yours sucks, mine is great" mentality I was referring to.

Jim H.

I love G3!!!!!!!!!!

The extra special (profile funfly) flies sooooooo much like my funflies! Hopefully soon G3 will have a photorealistic scenery option!

aviti:
I said you EITHER havn't tried G3 enough OR are not capable of judging sims. I stand by this statement because I think G3 is better than AFP (much better for helis). Now, it is probably the case that you simply havn't tried G3 enough. I'm not saying that you would like G3, just that you'll stop talking about how bad G3's physics are.

How about this, instead of talking about how bad each others sims are, lets talk about how great our own sims are!

I'll tell you this -
Those people who gave up on G3 before having a chance to try some of Scotts edited/tweaked Ultimate, Yak, and Cap aircraft really missed out on just how good G3 can be. The "snappiness" that people complain about is all but non-existent on these edits - they are almost too fun to fly. Put some pretty paints on them from peef and hit the Multiplays and I don't see how things could possibly be better.

Jim H.

Snappiness? Thats why i think its so real, please, no one (mainly scott) take offense to this but I find scotts ultimate floaty, like AFPD. And unrealistic. It seems like we are trying to make G3 fly more like delux. What makes G3 so snappy for people is probably the fact that there is no expo in any of the planes. I add expo to all of the planes that I fly.

RCpimpin ---- I know somebodys 35% Edge that is pretty " Floaty" .

lol, only bc you helped build it!!!!

But if they are complaining about it, then they would like these edits. If they consider AFPD more "realistic" then they will consider these edits quite realistic. I agree, they are "floaty", but fun to fly. I personally like the variety. I enjoy switching between the tougher flyers, and to make me feel better, a nice "floaty" edit.

To each his own.

Jim H.

I see, thanks for making that clear to me!

Now that I think about it, the only thing G3 dont have is the photorealistic scenery. But one of the best parts about G3 is the 3D scenery, I spend a lot of my time hovering in and out of trees and hovering through the "forest" with the camera following it!

Helped build it, heck I built it all but the wings and we built them twice.

LOL, now it isnt my fault you had to build them twice!!!