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

[Crash]

Alan69
I made the cable $5 US. Smatpropo works beautifully.
I even feel smart that I din't spend $200 on RealFlight G2 or $50 on a special cable. YEEHAA!
Thanx for your help.

[Crash]

Now I love FMS

:p

[DrWatt]

FMS is such a great program, I can't believe its free. That said, if I could add only one more thing it would be backgrounds with enough features so that I can tell where I am when flying.

If I take off from a certain place its almost impossible to get back for me. There are not enough landmarks and I often cant see them anyway (another view might be nice).

I only have about 2 hours logged on FMS, so perhaps I will learn it better. Its great fun trying.

Kudos to the developers.

[Rekvin]

I think FMS is great fun and it mainly teaches how to control the aircrafts. What way to pull the stick in all kinds of situations.

However, I find the physics a bit unrealistic. It's far too easy to fly the aircrafts. You never get into these deadly spins or these unexpected stalls. And not to talk about unexpected WIND.. which can give you really big surprises.

I tried another R/C simulator that I actually thought had better physics.. but much uglier graphics.



You can download a free demo there. It has really ugly graphics, but I got a much more realistic feeling when I took off with the trainer model found in that simulator.

I still prefer FMS, but it's because I use it for recreational purposes.

[DrWatt]

I have solved most of my orientation problems by downloading some of the many fine landscapes from other sites. Several (such as NEWS) have lots of landmarks and ways to tell where you are.

I also find that if you download a slow flyer or even a zeppelin and spend some time just abling around the place you soon begin to recognize the landscape.

I have never flown a radio control aircraft, but have flown real planes so I can't speak to rhe physics of FMS. In a real plane under visual flight rules you can look down out the window and tell where you are (usually). Its much easier to do touch and goes and make landings when you can look out the window of a real plane and know if you have made a 180 degree or a 270 degree turn.

Anyway, this is a fine program and I am enjoying it immensely.

[edrumor]

I think Real Fligth G2 and Aerofly are more realistics than Fms and have a better graphics designs but Fms is the best simulator
because it´s freeware program that aid much to fly at all modellist.

Edu

[crashcow]

I've never tried G2 but personally, I think I'd rather use the money on a new TX or plane, but then I'm cheap, rather I'm frugal, anyway I'm glad your enjoying your software.

[rc-halk]

I never used G2 ,but I did use aero fly before and yes it is more complex then FMS , especially on the landing and taking of part
the in flight part I could not really see a difference , the hellies is also not as easy to fly as in fms, but hey lets face it $200 vs free software + free plane and landscape
I take FMS , and besides that Alpha 8 is starting to get as close as it gets , crosswind landings and take off's, in flight gust that through you of course, what more does one want, one thing that will be cool is if there can be some scenario that guide you through different maneuvers , and a ghost instructor that will give you a run for your money, so that you have to try and copy cat him, and maybe some competitions to complete ,(postals , spot landing .......)


but keep up the good work FMS if GR8

[KenM]

Just for the record, I would like to mention that my criticisms of the physics model in FMS do not apply to the newest version.

In my humble opinion, the new version seems to properly model a reasonable glide ratio. Also, on a glide path, the normal behaviour of gradually bleeding off airspeed as AOA is increased (and altitude is maintained), appears to be modeled well. This allows for realistic landings.

Although I own G2, I also enjoy the differences found in FMS.

[jmf]

[chall]

[KenM]