roberth

I am considering buyng Reflex xtr. I have RealFlight G2 now and I really don't see all that much in the upgrade to G3 that's worth $200. What really catches my eye that I've read about Reflex is the ability to create a plane (I'm not into heli's) from a jpeg of your own plane. At least this is what I think I read. What I am wondering is does anyone have any experience in doing this and, if so, what can you tell me about it?

Breakstuff5050

I'm not experienced with it, but i owned xtr for a long time, then i got g3, g3 is waaayyyy better, physics wise at least. But i do have to admit that the graphics are waaaayyyyy better on xtr, but, G3 would still be my choice, because in a few months we will beable to create planes for g3 too, KE is working on that as we speak.

roberth

I'll answer my own question. The program that comes with XTR to define your own plane from pictures of it looks pretty detailed. Too bad I can't read German.

Breakstuff5050

not only that, but you do have to have TIME, and alot of experience, bc im pretty good with computers, i'm good w\ autoCAD and mechanical desktop and i couldnt figure it out. And the planes you can download fly like sh*t, the only time I fly xtr is if i want to fly the foamy, that is the only plane that flies like it should. i hate to say all that but im just giving you my opinions.

roberth

I appreciate what you're saying and the fact that you took the time to reply. Do you have any experience with AeroFly?

Breakstuff5050

I have flown aerofly pro, but not delux, if you are deciding on aerofly pro or reflex, get reflex, but afpD is prolly better then reflex.

Wright Flyer

I've used the RMK program that comes free with XTR and it is VERY good and easy to use and there's a couple of translations of the German documentation that are more than enough to get you going if you search around a bit (mainly at the RCU competitor!).

Before using RMK I had used Metasequoia for making FMS planes quite a lot. At first I thought RMK was more difficult but that's only because it's a completely different way of working. In fact the way you start with a set of 3-view photos of your model and then build the plane "on top" is actually really good and this also means it automatically wraps the textures onto the 3D space model.

Cliff

roberth

Thank you both for your comments. I was able to get ahold of the Reflex people and they did tell me how to get the English translation of the tutorial. I built my plane with RMK over the weekend and it didn't turn out too terribly badly. You do definitely have to be very meticulous, though, when you do it. First you have to have a plane that's very level and plumb and square and perpendicular (I'm a lousy builder so right off the bat I'm in trouble). Then you have to take very good pictures of the planes of the plane (no pun intended) at the exact axes of the CG. Then you have to make a composite of the views in your favorite photo program (I used 1024 X 1024 pixels for the composite....but the individual bmps at 600 pixels on the long side worked ok). Then you have to be very exact when you define you common lines. You need to work slowly with a very large view in the 3D window to make sure all the points you define are the correct ones and that you draw the proper triangles and rectangles for your particular plane surfaces. If I had done all this correctly from the get go, and then been more patient (which I am not and why I am not a very good builder) the plane would have turned out better. But I'm satisfied for a first try.

All this being said, the plane really doesn't have to be perfect, just functionally correct with the movable surfaces and the landing gear so that the plane will translate properly into Reflex XTR. Outside of that, it's the physical parameters that you define from within Reflex that determines the flight characteristics and how true to life your plane flies. The better your work in RMK, the better the plane will look. And the tutorial does give you all the information you need if you take the time to read it carefully. I can't complain too much because I do have my actual plane in the program and I'm actually flying it around.

Regards, and thanks again!

Breakstuff5050

Wow, the instructions must be pretty thorough, glad to hear you're satisfied! I might have to try it sometime!

roberth

Here's the link to the English translation of the tutorial.

http://rcaddict.rchomepage.com/Ken_Myers_RMK/

Breakstuff5050

Thanks for the link! I bookmarked it so i can look at it when I get in the mood. How ya liking XTR? Make sure you have the updates, they give you more planes and a bit better physics, the foamy physics are awesome!

roberth

The more I use it the more comfortable I'm getting with it. I am learning a little more about all the features that it does have. The thing I like the least about any simulator is that you never really know exactly where your plane is in relation to yourself and the runway. When you're at the field, you really don't have this problem. Sims are good, though, in teaching the basic reflexes you need to have without having to think about it. I guess you really don't need to know where the plane is to do that kind of practicing. What I need more practice in, though, and I would assume any beginner does, is getting your plane to the proper location on your final approach to landing. That is 90 percent of the solution to learning how to land...which is the main problem with beginners....getting that plane down in one piece. It's hard to get to the approach position when you don't know how far out you are or what your elevation is. These things are actually easier at the field. I know G3 has a lot of aids to help you in that, but when you actually go to use them, you find that it's almost easier to just go by the seat of your pants. Trying to keep up with those instructors is a real challenge for a beginner.

I am now in the process of learning something about the 100 or so flight parameters in Reflex so that I can try and get my plane represented. I am taking settings from various planes that are similar to mine (there really isn't one that's exactly like mine....a large (10 pound, 81" wing span, 1250 square inch wing area), high wing trainer converted to an electric tail dragger) and translating them to what I think mine would be. The paramaters they use are pretty technical....like you have to be an aeronautical engineer with millions of dollars worth of measuring equipment...to really be able to know exactly what values to use. I'll just plug along and see what happens.

Have a good one!

Breakstuff5050

There should be a "keep ground in view" option somewhere, it keeps the ground in view at all times but it doesnt zoom in as much when you get farther away, but in g3 thats all i use unless im practicing IMAC which I never do with a sim anyway.