Another G3 vs XTR thread, split from discussion about a trade

[adaptabl]

Why would you downgrade?

[nose-over]

Why would you downgrade?

LOL. Well I "downgraded" about a month ago and can absolutely tell you that Reflex IS the more realistic sim. It doesn't have all the cool "game" features that G3 has though. It dawned on me that I was doing maneuvers in G3 that there is NO WAY a real plane can do so effortlessly. I wanted a sim to make me look better on the flying field and not my computer. So if someone wants the more realistic and serious "simulator" Reflex wins hands down. Glad I got rid of G3! I just wasn't into all the "game" stuff. G3 also doesn't even come close on looks. Very "video game" looking.

Seth

[bkahuna]

Relex is good on the heli stuff, but G3 is better on airplanes. Depends on what you want. I had a Nextstar and I can tell you the physics is right on. I used to own Reflex and upgraded to G3. ;)

[nose-over]

Thats whats so funny... I just got rid of G3 which I have used for a long time and I can say absolutely that The physics for Reflex or more 'REALISTIC". Period! No it doesn't make you look as good as G3 does on the computer but is the point of a sim to be able to do every maneuver in the book effortlessly? No. I believe people (including me) like G3 because it's physics allow you to do everything really easy. "It must be a better sim if I can do that." IT IS NOT REALISTIC. If you don't own G3 or Reflex and are wanting to see for yourself, goto RC Universe and search for G3 Videos, Then goto The w3 Groups web sit ( www.w3g.us ) and watch Reflex videos. The G3 vids are so laughable. If you have never flown a real plane and see G3 you might think it is better because of all the incredible manuevers that you can do on it, But remind me to NEVER let you fly one of my real planes if you learned to fly on G3 thinking you can do those maneuvers so easily.

Seth

[Mark Wood]

Tell us what you REALLY think, Seth. ;)

mw

[adaptabl]

Thats whats so funny... I just got rid of G3 which I have used for a long time and I can say absolutely that The physics for Reflex or more 'REALISTIC". Period! No it doesn't make you look as good as G3 does on the computer but is the point of a sim to be able to do every maneuver in the book effortlessly? No. I believe people (including me) like G3 because it's physics allow you to do everything really easy. "It must be a better sim if I can do that." IT IS NOT REALISTIC. If you don't own G3 or Reflex and are wanting to see for yourself, goto RC Universe and search for G3 Videos, Then goto The w3 Groups web sit ( www.w3g.us ) and watch Reflex videos. The G3 vids are so laughable. If you have never flown a real plane and see G3 you might think it is better because of all the incredible manuevers that you can do on it, But remind me to NEVER let you fly one of my real planes if you learned to fly on G3 thinking you can do those maneuvers so easily.

Seth

Actually the oposite is true. G3 planes fly much more realistic than the video game program Reflex. I do not fly heli's so I don't know what sim is better for heli's. I had Reflex and am glad I dumped it and upgraded to G3. G3 makes you a much better R/C pilot. Reflex improves your Xbox skills.

[nose-over]

LOL. So misguided. Multiplayer, flying through fake tunnels in the sky, Unrealistic lighting.....Any of this ring a bell? G3 IS the most video game, cartoonish of them all.

[adaptabl]

LOL. So misguided. Multiplayer, flying through fake tunnels in the sky, Unrealistic lighting.....Any of this ring a bell? G3 IS the most video game, cartoonish of them all.

After you get a little real fight experience you will realize that G3 physics is much more realistic than Reflex. The planes act like the real models and it makes a better pilot. Enjoy your Reflex soon you will realize that you need to upgrade to G3. Actually the multi player helped me and my son doing some formation flying last summer. After a few G3 sessions we were able to keep together much better at the field. Reflex planes flew like they did in a old Dave Bown simulator from years ago. I am glad I upgraded.

[nose-over]

Well I'm 53 years old and have been flying rc since servos only turned one way and full throw. You probably have no idea what i'm talking about. I already had G3 and it IS REDICULOUS! Say whatever you want to your not convincing anyone. The video's out there back me up.

[max z]

I don't know how reflex does its registering.
They don't. Software is freely available from the Reflex site. Protection is in the hardware lock/USB adapter.

Max.

[Zaragon]

Well I'm 53 years old and have been flying rc since servos only turned one way and full throw.

Blimey :eek: not too many people know what Bang-Bang radios were never mind remember them. Of course I'm not 53 and I only used them in boats so a little less susceptible to crashing. :D

(Hows that for changing the subject.)

[slowdown]

Speaking of the old days-- here' s a little RC history just for fun:
I started flying RC 46 years ago (in 1960). This was before digital radios were invented. My first RC airlplane was a Carl Goldberg Cessna Skylane powered by an 049 engine. The radio was a single channel transmitter that had one button on it. You pushed the button once for right rudder (full rudder only) and once again after a slight delay to get full left rudder. When you let the button go it returned the rudder to center. Since this was the only possible sequence, you always had a slight right turn before you could make a left turn. But if you were quick enough on the button, it was almost unnoticeable. The airplane was rudder only, no ailerons, no elevator, and no throttle. The horizontal stab (no elevator) was trimmed for a slight climb under full engine power (no throttle either). Once the engine stopped, it reverted to a slight descent. You controlled the direction with the rudder. The servo (only one) was powered by a rubber band stretched back through the tail and connected to a little crank. You wound up the rubber band before the flight and it powered the servo. You had to land before the rubber band ran out or the rudder went to full right and so did the plane. The servos were called "escapements". The term "servo" had not been invented yet for RC. The receiver had a single little vacuum tube in it. It was powered by two different batteries, one 6 volt battery to light the tube's filament and the other (22 volts) to provide the high voltage for the tube to work. Amazingly you could do some aerobatics with a rudder only airplane. For example, you could do a loop by banking hard over until the plane began a dive and picked up a lot of speed. Because of the slight up trim and the increasing speed, when you leveled the wings the plane went into a fairly hard climb and if you had enough speed, it would go over the top and you had a loop (sort of!). You could do barrel rolls, wingovers, Immelmanns, split-S, a a few other sloppy maneuvers with just a rudder. It took very good timing. If you want, I'll tell you about "galloping ghost" radios, 10 channel tone encoded radios, and how the digital proportional radios you have today were a by-product of the space program and moon landing in 1969.

cheers,

Harlan

[Zaragon]

I don't go as far back as escapements and only read about galloping ghosts (never could work out why they were called that). In some ways we have come a long way and in others not very far at all really.

[adaptabl]

Speaking of the old days-- here' s a little RC history just for fun:
I started flying RC 46 years ago (in 1960). This was before digital radios were invented. My first RC airlplane was a Carl Goldberg Cessna Skylane powered by an 049 engine. The radio was a single channel transmitter that had one button on it. You pushed the button once for right rudder (full rudder only) and once again after a slight delay to get full left rudder. When you let the button go it returned the rudder to center. Since this was the only possible sequence, you always had a slight right turn before you could make a left turn. But if you were quick enough on the button, it was almost unnoticeable. The airplane was rudder only, no ailerons, no elevator, and no throttle. The horizontal stab (no elevator) was trimmed for a slight climb under full engine power (no throttle either). Once the engine stopped, it reverted to a slight descent. You controlled the direction with the rudder. The servo (only one) was powered by a rubber band stretched back through the tail and connected to a little crank. You wound up the rubber band before the flight and it powered the servo. You had to land before the rubber band ran out or the rudder went to full right and so did the plane. The servos were called "escapements". The term "servo" had not been invented yet for RC. The receiver had a single little vacuum tube in it. It was powered by two different batteries, one 6 volt battery to light the tube's filament and the other (22 volts) to provide the high voltage for the tube to work. Amazingly you could do some aerobatics with a rudder only airplane. For example, you could do a loop by banking hard over until the plane began a dive and picked up a lot of speed. Because of the slight up trim and the increasing speed, when you leveled the wings the plane went into a fairly hard climb and if you had enough speed, it would go over the top and you had a loop (sort of!). You could do barrel rolls, wingovers, Immelmanns, split-S, a a few other sloppy maneuvers with just a rudder. It took very good timing. If you want, I'll tell you about "galloping ghost" radios, 10 channel tone encoded radios, and how the digital proportional radios you have today were a by-product of the space program and moon landing in 1969.

cheers,

Harlan


No wonder you like Reflex. Brings back old memories for you.






Just pulling your chain. Both sims are pretty good. I just feel G3 is more realistic to me. I started in 1976(after many gillows and sterling free flights and control line flying(lil satin,Ringmaster,etc)). I had a MRC two channel(two stick) with a Cox Q-TEE and a baby bee .049 (Paper route money). I flew until 1982(girls,cars,wife,house and kids got in the way). I started back in 1999. My son started in 2004 at 10 year of age and is doing very well(he got his wings at the end of 2004). I think indoor flying this winter has really made him a much better pilot. I think he will be ready for the .46 Matt Chapman Cap 580 he has been wanting since he first saw it. Last year at the cleveland airshow my son waited near Matts plane for 2 hours hoping to get his autograph. When Matt finished his show he saw my son still standing there he spent over 20 minutes showing him his plane and talking to him about R/C flying. He gave him a nice big poster and on the back wrote the instructions to perform the Cobra maneuver they talked about. What a nice guy Matt is.

[slowdown]

Names lke Ringmaster bring back a lot of memories, too. Those were the days of Super Tiger, Veco's, and later Enya engines, and even the old terrible McCoy engines.

I've been flying and doing everything RC continuously for 46 years (sailplanes, helicopters, boats, cars, fixed wing (Sunday flying and pattern) , 3D, hovercraft, etc. Sure has been a lot of change. I've gone nearly totally electric now and have enjoyed it more than ever.

On the simulator realism question, I've seen several and own Reflex and I've seen good and bad flying models on each one. I realize that how realistic any simulator flies is related to how good the airplane builder understands and models the aerodynamics. Any simulator could be made to fly great or lousy depending on the aero values put in the airplanes. I think we often judge the software (simulators) by how the airplanes fly. To get a true assessment would required a controlled study with the same airplane modeled by a guy with equal skill in assigning values in each simulator. So in reality, it all boils down to which one you like the best.

I still have a couple of old escapements and an old radio. I've been thinking about making a working display to show guys who think RC has always been the way it is now.

When I get some more time next week, I think I'll post a little more history of RC radios. Maybe some people would be interested in how we got here.

Take care,

Harlan

[Zaragon]

I had quite a few McCoy .049 glow engines for a small control line model, not that I wanted them but once the glow head went I never could get them to start again with a new head ended up buying a new engine till I decided it was cheaper to get another model with a different engine.

I think the other factor with simulators is how well they handle the background which makes it more believeable. I certainly think it helps if you feel like you are actually there at the field flying. But I think that they are all probably on a par so that again it comes down to which you like the best.

[1satnaam]

and please do not bash products. Every one has a view and not all modelers like the same product.

Thanks in advance

satnaam

[nose-over]

It's not really hijacking your thread anymore. Your request was answered and done rather quickly. At that point the thread is up for whatever people choose to do on it. You do have the ability to close a thread after you got what you needed.

[P-38J-Lightning]

no thats not true nose. if you want to argue about it make your own thread

[nose-over]

Ok thats fine, just close the thread then. his request was answered.

[Roj]

Why kill the thread yet?


Noseover is right - the video captures of G3 simply can't be compared with reflex.

There was a famous thread last year where some guy posted a reflex video - and all the G3 guys on this forum thought it was a hoax, that someone had taken real footage and tried to say it was from a simulator.

That's what sold reflex to a lot of us.

[jbourke]

I've split this thread from the original by request of the thread starter: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=490317

Jim