Ive found reviews on RCU Magazine for Reflex XTR, Phoenix, and G3. The reviews were done by Michael Parsons.

Phoenix - Mar 2007
XTR - Jan 2007
G3 - May 2005

They all get the same rating for flying pyshics?
From what Ive seem G3 physics were well below XTR for Helis. Not sure about G3.5

At present Phoenix gets the highest rating. But with many updates appearing it may not be a true comparison.

I do Heli and Fixed Wing. So im after realistic phyhics for both. I want the scenery eye candy too. This is not just to learn more advanced manuevres on, its to get an RC fix when i cant fly my models.

Are there any plans for recent Reviews of G3.5, AFPD and FS One .

Im leaning towards Phoenix at the moment but would be interested in some updated reviews of the others.
If anyone knows any links to other reviews online for the major sims, please advise.

I can only speak for warbirds , but the guys at variuos shops I have visited and the field I go to swear by G3 for the most realistic warbird flight .
I tried the sims at the shop and have to agree that the closest thing to "warbird" flight is G3.5

As a general statement, I've found that most ad-supported magazines won't give honest appraisals of the negative aspects of products they review. Sometimes if you read between the lines and look at what they don't say, you can guess what the reviewer didn't like, but they clearly have a policy of not being overtly critical of products from companies who might buy ads in their magazine. So basically I think magazine reviews can be useful for getting a rundown of the features of various products, but you need to look at forums and non-ad-supported websites to get real pros-and-cons comparisons.

trextuning.com has nice thorough reviews of Phoenix and ClearView: http://www.trextuning.com/phoenix.php and http://www.trextuning.com/clearview.php

rchelimag has a review of FSOne in the Feb/March issue: http://rchelimag.idigitaledition.com/issue.php?issue=3

Electric Heli Beginners Guide has brief rundowns of most of the available RC sims: http://www.swashplate.co.uk/ehbg-v17/ehbg_index.html . See chapter 8.

Search around on here, rcgroups.com, rcheliaddict.co.uk, etc for lots of posts from people who've tried different sims. Obviously you need to take what you read with a healthy dose of skepticism, but if you read a bunch of stuff, and focus mainly on posts from people who actually have owned more than one sim, you can get an idea of the relative merits of different sims.

Thanks.

ajenkins

Fair comment. Dont bite the hand that feeds you.

I looked at those links thankyou.

Phoenix still on top and less expensive.

Theres no review on G3.5 yet that Ive found.

Cheers

Heres another review of Phoenix http://www.flyingsites.co.uk/reviews/phoenixrc.htm 01/2007

and Reflex XTR http://www.flyingsites.co.uk/reviews/xtrsimm.htm 05/2006

AFPD http://www.flyingsites.co.uk/reviews/aerofly.htm 04/2005

Different reviewers though. Again some reviews are a bit old.

I looked at the RCU review for Reflex a while back. It was worthless--completely without value. That's been the case for many RCU reviews lately. Marc and the staff have completely lost their way when it comes to reviews. They're nothing but product brochures, and they eat away at the integrity of the RCU brand name. My favorite example is the airplane review where the "reviewer" didn't assemble the model and didn't fly the model, but gave it a great review. Then there's the review for a relatively expensive product that duplicates the function of things most of us already own--no mention is made that the price point is silly, and there's no discussion on value at all.

For the Reflex review, nothing was written about the reviewer's computer system. Reviewing a piece of software without commenting on the performance relative to the hardware used is ridiculous. The review lacks any sort of credibility, which is sadly the case with most all RCU "reviews." It's shameful.

If you want the real scoop on any product, spend a couple of hours reading this forum. Most people talking about it aren't getting free copies, and aren't encouraged to leave out the negatives.

Yes, I suppose its difficult to find a review by someone that has no vested interest, even if they are not directly involved.

Money, sponsorship, advertising and Free examples. Sometimes money talks loader than integrity.

Hi all.....Contrary to popular myth “Money does not talk�, it literally screams!!!!!!!!! bert

Wow, You guys are tough. First off, as a reviewer, I have no interest in writing false information about a product. I tell it like it is and leave it to the Hosting site/Mag to either print/post it or not. You would be surprised at how many times we receive feedback from distributors and manufacturers to change this or tweak that and with the exception of mis-information on my part I will not change anything and have never had an article edited after submittal that changed my feelings.

I have had a few product reviews that have not gone to print because midway I refused to continue for various reasons. As a reviewer, I try and choose products that have a greater chance of yielding a positive review. Many of those choices rely on what other members have said about a product. While some products are manufacturer supplied some are offered at a lower price, but either way that has no bearing on the outcome of the article. Trust me, the amount of effort and time it takes to build, take photos, make notes, document each step twice, ensure photos came out clear, edit photos, make thumbnails, write article, proof read 18 times, spell check, write the HTML code and scripts so everything looks good, design headers images and double check article for accuracy 5-6 times... there is little to no financial benefit. We do it because we love it.

If I was ever asked to pad an article to better suit a vendors product, it would be the last one I typed up.

Pheonix is still my favorite today. I still own all three (although I am about to list XTR and G3). I was not greatly into heli's until recently, but XTR and Phoenix are very similiar in that department. Both are better than G3 IMO. At the time (2005) G3 was my favorite.

I downloaded the G3.5 and updated a while back and it wasnt an improvement in most areas. Some yes, but some no. I ended up going back to G3. I understand there have been quite a few updates to the G3.5 physics engine and the past problems had been repaired, but I cant confirm.

I really like the eye candy in Phoenix and as trivial as it is the water physics is what keeps it as my favorite.

Mike, I don't doubt your personal integrity or judgment, but if a person looks at RCU reviews as a whole, there are patterns that jump out. Things such as the above, reviewers dropping subtle (and not so subtle...) hints in the forums that if a person wants the real scoop on a product they should send a PM, and reviews that are so devoid of actual thought that they're merely pretty pictures and kind adjectives. RCU's review system really has no merit, and Marc and Michael should be ashamed of it. I was more involved when they launched the program, and I recall all the denials that it would be like print magazine reviews. How many print articles were never published for the same reasons you listed above?

RCU owes a duty of trust to its members, and that trust is regularly violated in RCU reveiws.

Out of curiosity, why didn't you talk about performance as compared to system specs? That sort of information is truly useful to readers.

Mike,
Just for the record, I don't take any offense to any ones post here as they are valid in my mind and to think it doesn't happen would be naive.

You know I never thought about it until you said something. Including my PC spec's never crossed my mind. I dont know why as in my other reviews, I almost always include "as tested" data. And it would only be logical to do the same. The good thing about web articles and why I enjoy writing for Online mags so much is the ink is never dry. I will work up a revision to the articles and submit it to Larry for update.

My PC specs are:
Homebuilt:
Windows XP Home Sp2
AMD Athlon 3700+
2.21 GHz
2 gb RAM
Nvidia GX 9600 video Card

I think what would be particularly valuable for people is if you could stick in frame rates, too. I don't know if the sims themselves can output that data or if you'd have to use a frame rate tool. One of the questions that often comes up here is whether or not the software will run well on slightly aged systems, such as yours.

One thing that would help people, too, is comparing the frame rates with a few different video cards. That's a bit more ambitious, however. What people often want to know is if an upgrade to their video card will produce a noticeable result. Testing a low end, medium (like you have), and higher end card would give the information some context, but obviously add time and expense to the process.

All very good ideas. The testing of different cards though is indeed a bit more ambitious and better left to other members to post their results. I have seen many members mention and post their frame rates on different cards. I will definately keep this in mind.

Mike Parsons,

Thanks for the reply.

My comments were not directed at you in particular. I was just generalising and stating that some reviews needed to be taken with a grain of salt.
Something you may have noticed too, which inspired you to take up writing your own reviews.

I admire your impartiality. As stated I was interested in reading a review of G3.5 and FS one by you as its better to read reviews of each BY THE SAME reviewer, for a better comparison.

I have used Reflex XTR and considered it better from my limited use of the others.

I see you still consider Phoenix better which is confirmed by some other reviews Ive read..

Cheers