FMS Forum

by **chall** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:36 pm

This is by no means intended as a flame, just some observations on how FMS compares to the $$$ RealFlight simulator.

I'm trying to learn to fly an R/C plane, so I set up FMS to help me get started. I found the software works great, does amazing stuff, and has super support for adding my own transmitter.

But somehow I didn't seem to be getting any better at flying the real plane. In desperation, I finally broke down and bought RealFlight for $200. It includes the "transmitter" and an interface to your own radio as well, but this is EXPENSIVE software.

My first impressions: the backgrounds are more photo realistic. This wouldn't matter except that it holds the interest of a lamer such as myself better. Little touches like smoke from the plane make the flights more fun too. There are many more obstacles on the default flying fields, both to dodge and look at.

It also includes a "Virtual Flight Instructor" which shows an instructor and his plane performing various maneuvers. You can fly along if you're good enough.

And there are games like "pylon racing" and "limbo" to keep the pilot amused.

I guess what I'm getting at is all these apparently needless features add up to something that holds a beginner's interest better than flying around a blank sky. I had thought that RealFlight would only be of interest to expert fliers intent on customizing the zillions of controllable options for flight and scenery, but I think it has appeal for beginners as well.

Oddly, I don't think the planes in Real Flight fly one bit more realisticly than those in FMS.

I'd be curious to hear what others think.

by **KenM** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:46 pm

My opinion is that the physics model in Real Flight G2 is better than FMS. I am focusing here on the slow speed handling of a given model and G2 represents the mushiness close to stall better than FMS. This is particularly important for practicing landings.

That's just one man's opinion about one feature. There's enough unique in FMS that I would still buy it if it was on sale and worked with my Radeon card (I used to use FMS with my Voodoo 5)

by **IMAC Pilot** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 1:48 am

I have only ever played the original realfight, and I must say the greater range of aircraft for FMS is quite nice, but my interface(an old Attack4 hijacked for gameport) will not work, and the performance on my elderly PC (this typed from a my mac) favours realfight.

by **Steve Lewin** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 7:25 am

I'd say the physics in RF G2 are better but not enough for a real learner to notice much. Personally I find the "photo" backgrounds and games distracting rather than helpful but if you're not really interested in learning to fly and need some tricks to keep your attention then go for it.

For me it mainly comes down to budget. FMS is free, G2 costs at least as much as two or three new planes of the sort I build. I'd rather have a second/third plane than a prettier sim and I rather resent paying through the nose again for any new planes just because the RF developers won't release the details so that no-one but them can develop models.

If you want to spend a bunch of money on a sim there are plenty of others around and while G2 was good when it came out I wouldn't say it's still the best these days.

Steve

by **IMAC Pilot** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:27 am

by **Keiron Rado** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:28 am

by **KenM** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 8:25 pm

by **IMAC Pilot** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:52 am

Just falls out of the sky? without nosing up into a stall? well there's a problem with the physics engine.

by **fratermus** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 2:20 am

>My first impressions: the backgrounds are more photo
>realistic.

Not a feature I care a lot about.

>Little touches like smoke from the plane make the flights
>more fun too.

I do like the smoke trails, although I'm interested only in electric.

>There are many more obstacles on the default flying fields,
> both to dodge and look at.

The stuff to dodge is important in my opinion, but can't we design our own FMS landscapes? Haven't messed with that yet.

>And there are games like "pylon racing" and "limbo" to keep
> the pilot amused.

I don't care much about that.

>I guess what I'm getting at is all these apparently needless
>features add up to something that holds a beginner's
>interest better than flying around a blank sky.
...
>I'd be curious to hear what others think.

I'm not big on "feeping creatures" (creeping features). But then again my wife says I'm a weirdo.

by **dukkflyer** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 9:17 pm

i have found that if i go straight up the plane reverses and barrels towards the ground

by **Oddjob** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 4:49 pm

If you look at you'll find loads of scenery, limbo.. aircraft carrier.. pylons... training etc...

That should keep you amused for a while..

Regards, Oddjob.

by **Crash** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:16 am

Hey fellas
has any of you used the Smartpropo interface? I have windows xp. I down loaded the dll and intalled it in the FMS folder. I'm wondering if I need to down load the "VDM" version as well.

by **Alan69** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:31 am

Crash: I do PICs so built one of those first, haven't tried the Smartpro thing yet. Since I do hardware and am interested in it anyway I'll try it soon and let you know how it works.

KenM: With some of the models included, they seem to have a bit much lift on the airfoil and hard to bleed off speed. ME109 seemed to fly the most like a plane to me, in fact flying it with full up elevator and using throttle for altitude control is what made me see the proper vector format for flying planes.

Original Poster: Your problem with becoming bored and needing extras to keep going had nothing to do with 'needing' Realflight. You were a beginner, progressed to a point, and didn't know how to proceed. If you needed Realflight to keep you into it and get you to work at it enough to figure out how to proceed on your own, then it was still $200 well spent. But I am certain I could have seen where you were at in your learning, and told you how to visualize the next higher way to see your flying, and gotten you beyond your plateau without Realflight. Whether you got it from me, from playing with Realflight and figuring it out on your own, or even from the flying hints in Realflight, what you needed was a bit of new direction to go in not bells and whistles. It didn't come from the scenery or smoke, it either came from the flying hints OR you simply worked yourself past it by just flying some more, even if that extra flying DID come from the bells and whistles..

by **Crash** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:05 pm

Alan69
Thanks for your response. I too am good with electronics, I can build anything, but I understand that Pics need to be programed. That is something I cannot do. Which schematics did you build?

by **Alan69** » Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:03 pm

Crash,

OK lets take it to the other interfaces forum. I've gotten Smartpropo working on mine, it was pretty easy so we should be able to get it up on yours too. If not a simple pic programmer is also easy, shouldn't be a problem to get you up and running..

Alan

FMS Forum

Realflight vs. FMS - Do beginners need all those features?

Who is online