ClearView Flight Sim Wishlist (Ongoing)

[imsofaman]

Yeah...that G4....what is the price of that now? :rolleyes:

Clear View is an unbeatable bargain and not only that....we are on the "ground floor" of this embarkment if our flight sim. We own our licence.....so all of our updates are free. Think about what our sim will be like in a year! Look at all the improvements that have been made in just a few month's time. The other simulators will make you pay even more $$$$ just to get new models.

Stefan.....you are the man!!!! :D

Dave

[mitchfx]

Yeah...that G4....what is the price of that now? :rolleyes:

Two something...
two...um, too...
too MUCH!

:D

I only bring up the blade specular feature as an idea for possible future Clearview wishes.

[imsofaman]

WAY too much! Then the add ons. :mad: I will stay with Clear Veiw. ;)

Dave

[jackosmeister]

Sorry to be bearer of bad news stefan - 4.93B's funtana still does it :D Ill just have to fly less "extreme" for a bit

[skirtz]

I will check it out, in the meantime, just lower the throws a bit in easy setup.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[RACER526]

Hey jackosmeister, I had the same problem with the Funtana. I lowered the elevator throw to 40 in the easy setup and it works fine.

[Ohio AV8TOR]

I will check it out, in the meantime, just lower the throws a bit in easy setup.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

I did the B upgrade last night and that seemed to fix flying the Futana. I fly a Precision Aircraft Extra 260 so I like flying the Futana but sure wish an Extra was in the future plans for CV (hint – hint) The Yak still snaps but with the Yak I always felt like it is set up with aft CG. I have not really looked into plane setting yet, is CG adjustable?

[TerryE]

Adjustable CG would be awesome!

You could use it to fine tune the CG of a model before you did the maiden of the real one!

Great idea

Terry

[TDisaster]

Adjustable CG would be awesome!

You could use it to fine tune the CG of a model before you did the maiden of the real one!

Great idea

Terry
Its already in there. You just gotta go into the adjustable parameter section and edit it. Look on the clearview website theres a whole little tutorial on editing params.
Mike

[mitchfx]

I'm in the process of converting some FMS models over and something that I've noticed is how self illuminated surfaces appear in Clearview. I checked all the stock models and they all seem to suffer the same problem, as if the ambient light in the scene is too high. This takes away from the three dimensionality of the models and makes their shape hard to read from a distance compared to other sims that have more accurate lighting.

Is there any way to adjust this setting either via the surface parameters of the object, or via a global ambient light value? Eventually I want to bake some ambient occlusion into my models in 3ds Max (I do visual effects for a living) and try to bring that into clearview...but still need to work out a smooth pipeline. This would help with the lack of proper lighting but not completely.

Thanks,
M

[Ohio AV8TOR]

Its already in there. You just gotta go into the adjustable parameter section and edit it. Look on the clearview website theres a whole little tutorial on editing params.
Mike
I am at work right now with ClearView at home for the CG are you talking the pull menu or param file for each model in it’s folder?

[skirtz]

I'm in the process of converting some FMS models over and something that I've noticed is how self illuminated surfaces appear in Clearview. I checked all the stock models and they all seem to suffer the same problem, as if the ambient light in the scene is too high. This takes away from the three dimensionality of the models and makes their shape hard to read from a distance compared to other sims that have more accurate lighting.

Is there any way to adjust this setting either via the surface parameters of the object, or via a global ambient light value? Eventually I want to bake some ambient occlusion into my models in 3ds Max (I do visual effects for a living) and try to bring that into clearview...but still need to work out a smooth pipeline. This would help with the lack of proper lighting but not completely.

Thanks,
M


Please e-mail me at support (at) rcflightsim.com and I will send you runtime where you can control the lights values. I don't think this is lightning problem. In ac3d, each surface has assigned material with ambient, diffuse and specular components. They control the surfaces appearance. You may experiment setting proper ambient and diffuse values.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[skirtz]

I am at work right now with ClearView at home for the CG are you talking the pull menu or param file for each model in it’s folder?
In advanced settings, for the new flight model (verNumber 5) this is the CG parameter:
pWingCG 0.0

I think positive number is moving CG back and negative is moving it forward. I could be wrong and could be the other way around, so experiment to check it out.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[jackosmeister]

Ohio av8tor -

Just give it more gas and more elevator and she'll do it :D Ill wind the rates down and try again.

A PA extra 260 would be the business!, a couple of the hyperion 25e series planes would also be rock. Clearview does lack some realistic flying 3D aircraft, the funtana is the best, I dont like the feeling of the yak either, find it really hard to hover.

Cheers.

[mitchfx]

Stefan,

Thanks for the reply. I'll send you my email for the runtime...sounds cool. I will give the surface property settings in AC3D a look tonight. It's not a bad little modeling package considering the price, but I'm pretty spoiled using $3k+ software for the last 10 years :) Still looking for an AC3D exporter for 3dsMax.

Cheers,
Mitch

Please e-mail me at support (at) rcflightsim.com and I will send you runtime where you can control the lights values. I don't think this is lightning problem. In ac3d, each surface has assigned material with ambient, diffuse and specular components. They control the surfaces appearance. You may experiment setting proper ambient and diffuse values.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[jackosmeister]

A bit more info on the funtana -

The plane accelerates with elevator input, still does it at 40% rate just not as much. Couldnt see anything in plane parameters guide on how to increase elevator drag.

[TDisaster]

Try adjusting the MAX SPEED. That helped with the Tensor.

[skirtz]

I looked at the Funtana - the problem is that the wing had very low induced drag coefficient - change this parameter:
wingInducedDragCoef 0.038 to
wingInducedDragCoef 0.09
This will do it. You may change wingDragCoef from 0.9 to 1 or 1.1 as well.

Since the wing had impossible low drag, at tight turns, the lift comes up slightly forward and pulls the plane even faster. For now this will do it, and latter I will look at the code to see if it can be improved (well, it WILL be improved... but takes time).

Thanks 3Disaster, I almost forget about this as well:

- Another good combo that may be even better:
maxSpeed 28
wingDragCoef 1.0
wingInducedDragCoef 0.07
With this settings the model will glide better.


Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[jackosmeister]

Cheers :)

[Ohio AV8TOR]

Here is something I wish ClearView would have in a future release (maybe it's there and I have not seen it), is to have the mouse cursor disappear until the mouse moves.

[shizack]

Yeah, the cursor thing is annoying at times, but why waste code and programming time on something that takes the user 2 seconds to remedy?

[Ohio AV8TOR]

Yeah, the cursor thing is annoying at times, but why waste code and programming time on something that takes the user 2 seconds to remedy?

I hear ya but it still drifts back in the screen from time to time. Remember this was a "Wishlist" ;)

[Ohio AV8TOR]

I have not read through this entire thread so sorry if already posted but considering this a wishlist again is there any likelihood of have an import models feature from any other Sim other than FMS?

[DampRabbit]

Still looking for an AC3D exporter for 3dsMax.

Cheers,
Mitch
Good luck, even Polytrans doesn't support it. I'd rather see support for a standard format like OBJ, VRML or something instead of a proprietary format that requires purchasing another 3D program.

[DampRabbit]

Hmm, Blender supports AC3D. Maybe there's an answer there.

[mitchfx]

Good luck, even Polytrans doesn't support it. I'd rather see support for a standard format like OBJ, VRML or something instead of a proprietary format that requires purchasing another 3D program.

I totally agree. AC3D is such an obscure 3d package and the file format isn't supported by any of the major software. I own 3ds Max for my line of work and it would be nice to use that instead of having to purchase another app. I can export dozens of geometry types...but .ac is not one of them.

Something like OBJ would be ideal and is widely supported by just about every 3d package.

[skirtz]

ac3d is quite capable low poly modeler at $70. If that is too much, Blender is free and also supports the ac3d format. Therefore, anyone can create ClearView models for free or for $70. Will you be more specific and suggets 3d format AND affordable 3d modeling software that supports that is BETTER than ac3d?

If you do that, I may consider adding one more model format, but you must prove it is better. I will not use 3ds format because very few people can afford to pay a lot of $$$ for 3ds max.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[DampRabbit]

ac3d is quite capable low poly modeler at $70. If that is too much, Blender is free and also supports the ac3d format. Therefore, anyone can create ClearView models for free or for $70. Will you be more specific and suggets 3d format AND affordable 3d modeling software that supports that is BETTER than ac3d?Anyone can learn Mandarin too but there are easier ways to do things by supporting one of the many standards. I have made a number of posts suggesting a number of standard formats. By using an open format you REMOVE the requirement that someone buy & learn your or other software to make models.

If you do that, I may consider adding one more model format, but you must prove it is better.That has been done. Prove it's better? That seems a bit harsh for a wishlist. How about you prove multi player works instead of blaming it on at different times, my high speed cable, my video card, or my dual core Intel machines lack of speed. You can feel free to refund one of the 2 licenses I bought if you can't prove this. And by the way Ken wrote me and confirmed it doesn't work. Honestly I'd rather you get your advertised features working before spending time on the model format.

I don't think it's our job to prove it's better, it's an offer to have free work done for you, take it or leave it. You have to weigh if it's to your advantage to keep your profits from your AC3D bundle or open the format by using a standard.

I will not use 3ds format because very few people can afford to pay a lot of $$$ for 3ds max.
3ds is not Max's format, 3ds is an open format from the last century along with all the others I have suggested like VRML DXF, OBJ.

[helo36]

Now Now..let's not get carried away and flame each other out...This is my point of view and my opinion only....I bought ac3d when I started playing with clearview...I have always been interested in 3d modeling but did not want to shell out the dough for the expensive ones...Hell I even tried using autocad to spark my interest with a friend who designs house for a living...he offered to teach me..but I could not spend the numbers of hours to learn....and drawing houses was not what i really wanted to do. I spent several hours trying to figure out the model editor in reflex xtr as at the time there were NO english translation for it and I gave up...I bought Clearview and AC3D...within 4 nights of learning I was putting models in CV...they were rather crude in the begining, but with Stefans help I began to experiment and learn...AC3D was so easy to learn once I understood the basics....so for me AC3D kept me interested in making models. Just my 2 cents....Making the models is a HOBBY for me as well as RC Flying....I enjoy them both..but I also have a real job and family to take of....I have 7 grandkids...

Ken

[imsofaman]

Ken.....we appreciate all you do for us. Thanks for helping me out on AC3D. I hope I will get to a point that I will make a model from scratch instead of just mish mish moshing evering thing together from other aircraft. I had so much fun with the autogyros.

My next project will be making a Speedy Bee


Dave

[simages]

I own 3ds Max for my line of work and it would be nice to use that instead of having to purchase another app.
And it would be nice if we all could get 3d Max for the AC3D price of $99. :rolleyes:

I messed around with gmax and a few versions of 3DMax to compile models for RealFlight, but the process just got too involved with all the converting plus the software was too expensive for me personally. AC3D is very affordable and AeroFly uses it as well. I gave it a shot mainly because there Many Many designs thanks to Ken and skirtz to help jump start putting a model together. I hope to return to the screen soon along with Solidworks modeling as well.
Regards -

[Turtle_Flyer]

I would like to know if there is a way to setup CV to always keep the ground in view. If not can it be added to the wish list? I found this a nice feature in my "former" sim RF 3.5.

[skirtz]

"ground in view" will be implemented in one of the next versions.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[Turtle_Flyer]

Great. Thanks.

"ground in view" will be implemented in one of the next versions.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[Turtle_Flyer]

Double post. sorry.

[imsofaman]

What is a good panaramic stitching program that will work in Clear View???

I tried doing it on my own on Paint Shop Pro X but it did not turn out well.


Dave

[mitchfx]

Stefan,

Sorry for my late reply...I've been hanging out mostly on the CV dev forum lately. I have nothing against AC3D as a modeler...just questioning using .ac as the only file format. It's fairly obscure and not supported by 9 outta 10 3d apps. For a 2nd choice I'd have to recommend OBJ. It's probably the defacto model interchange format, at least in my industry. It's far superior to 3ds due to the fact it supports polys with more than 3 verts, materials, smoothing information, etc. All the major 3d apps (Max, Maya, XSI, Lightwave, Modo, Cinema4D) all export OBJ without the need for 3rd party plugins. There may be issues with OBJ for use with Clearview you are aware of as a programmer, but from a content creation standpoint it's without rival.


DampRabbit is spot on with his comments about .3ds. It's a very common misconception that this is Max's native format. It was originally the format for the ancient 3D Studio DOS software, but has stuck around as a fairly widespread file type for 3d interchange. However, the format is HORRIBLE since it doesn NOT support polys with more than 3 sides. Pretty much useless in this age of subdivision modeling, not to mention ugly to look at :)

I've yet to try Blender, but plan to download it this weekend and test the .ac export for Clearview. If all goes well I'll do the majority of the modeling in Max, then bring into Blender for conversion to .ac. Has anyone else used Blender with Clearview yet (without using AC3D in the process)? My AC3D trial ends tomorrow.

-Mitch

ac3d is quite capable low poly modeler at $70. If that is too much, Blender is free and also supports the ac3d format. Therefore, anyone can create ClearView models for free or for $70. Will you be more specific and suggets 3d format AND affordable 3d modeling software that supports that is BETTER than ac3d?

If you do that, I may consider adding one more model format, but you must prove it is better. I will not use 3ds format because very few people can afford to pay a lot of $$$ for 3ds max.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[mitchfx]

Ok, I've been trying to set this up. Is there a way to have one plane use for example, the left stick for rudder and another plane to use RIGHT stick for rudder? This is what I was talking about when I mentioned customized controller settings for each model. thanks.

The radio settings are individual for each model and can be changed in easy and advanced settings.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[skirtz]

This specific setting (right stick on the rudder) is not supported now. I am not even sure how to add it without creating confusion for people who do not need it or don't even know it exists. It is used game type of planes and is not standard mode1 or mode 2 so I am not that sure what to do at this point.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[chris1379]

This specific setting (right stick on the rudder) is not supported now. I am not even sure how to add it without creating confusion for people who do not need it or don't even know it exists. It is used game type of planes and is not standard mode1 or mode 2 so I am not that sure what to do at this point.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com
I think I know what mitchfx is trying to do. Here in the US, it is very common to put the rudder on the right stick on a 3 channel plane. When you don't have ailerons, the rudder becomes the primary directional control and it's just less confusing that way. My Slow Stick has the rudder on the right. Could this be accomplished when designing the model?

Chris

[skirtz]

It is easy to add model specific setting in params.txt that define that model with rudder on the right stick. The problem is, how to show that this model is with rudder control on the right stick? People will think something is wrong with the controls. I have to show a pop up message warning of this special control configuration each time the model is loaded and I don't like that as too intrusive. If I show a warning message, it may not be noticed. That's why I still have not decided what to do.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[mitchfx]

I'm not sure how confusing this would be if used on planes that have it set up that way in the real-world (Hobby Zone Super Cub, Multiplex Easystar, etc). Like Chris said, most 3ch planes have the rudder on the right since it's your only steering control. I agree with you that a pop-up would be annoying and too intrusive.

What about forcing the display TX on when you load a model that changes the rudder stick assignment, and add some kind of text or color coding to signify it?

It is easy to add model specific setting in params.txt that define that model with rudder on the right stick. The problem is, how to show that this model is with rudder control on the right stick? People will think something is wrong with the controls. I have to show a pop up message warning of this special control configuration each time the model is loaded and I don't like that as too intrusive. If I show a warning message, it may not be noticed. That's why I still have not decided what to do.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[BaracW]

Why not put it in the name, i.e (EasystarRSR) Right Stick Rudder?

[skirtz]

Why not put it in the name, i.e (EasystarRSR) Right Stick Rudder?

I like that !!! I will add this to the next version.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[Turtle_Flyer]

Ooops.

[Turtle_Flyer]

I have not read this entire thread. It may have already been mentioned. But, I would like a basic display noting wind speed, direction and altitude.

[BaracW]

I like that !!! I will add this to the next version.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

Yipee! My suggestion gets used. Does that mean I get my next software upgrade free??? :D

[TDisaster]

Yipee! My suggestion gets used. Does that mean I get my next software upgrade free??? :D
Yea, and every other one for your life. Congratulations!

[BaracW]

Yea, and every other one for your life. Congratulations!

I know, aint Clearview the best? :p

[mitchfx]

Some more wishes...

As others have mentioned, some way to visualize wind direction and speed. Maybe some kind of 3d arrow, flag or virtual windsock that always stays in the lower left corner on the view.

A windsock object you can place somewhere in the scene.

Wind direction variation.

Toggle on/off for ALL weather effects. This way you can quickly disable/enable weather with having to edit all the different parameters.

Transmitter reliability setting.

Option to always keep horizon in view.

Readout for heading, speed, altitude, etc.

Plane POV cam, similar to the closeup-cam (of course, this won't look quite right with panoramic scenes).

Ok, I know this is HUGE...use DirectX instead of OpenGL in order to support thinks like reflection mapping, AA, AF and better shadows, etc. Maybe something for version 5 or 6.

[skirtz]

Some more wishes...

As others have mentioned, some way to visualize wind direction and speed. Maybe some kind of 3d arrow, flag or virtual windsock that always stays in the lower left corner on the view.

A windsock object you can place somewhere in the scene.

Wind direction variation.

Toggle on/off for ALL weather effects. This way you can quickly disable/enable weather with having to edit all the different parameters.

Transmitter reliability setting.

Option to always keep horizon in view.

Readout for heading, speed, altitude, etc.

Plane POV cam, similar to the closeup-cam (of course, this won't look quite right with panoramic scenes).

Ok, I know this is HUGE...use DirectX instead of OpenGL in order to support thinks like reflection mapping, AA, AF and better shadows, etc. Maybe something for version 5 or 6.


Most of the list items will be added soon. OpenGL is as good as Direct X (some will say it is better). AA and AF are supported if selected from the video card setting software. Reflection Mapping is supported now. Set modelReflection 1 in startupParams.txt to enable it (and set it to 0 to disable). It needs some work but is here. It will be improved soon as well.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[mitchfx]

Stefan,

Great to hear most of these are already in the works (I assumed as much). On the subject of OpenGL vs. DX...I guess I thought some of the more "advanced" stuff was easier to implement in DX, or at least more optimized for faster performance with the latest generation of video cards vs OpenGL. I guess one good thing about OpenGL is it keep the option of Clearview for other platforms possible.

With reflection mapping...is it a global map for all models, or do I need to set that somewhere in the .ac file? I'll give that and the AA/AF settings a try now. Which EXE do I set the graphics options for? There are a ton of java exe files in the /bin/jre/bin/ folder but I'm not sure which one to assign in the Nvidia control panel.

Thanks,
Mitch

Most of the list items will be added soon. OpenGL is as good as Direct X (some will say it is better). AA and AF are supported if selected from the video card setting software. Reflection Mapping is supported now. Set modelReflection 1 in startupParams.txt to enable it (and set it to 0 to disable). It needs some work but is here. It will be improved soon as well.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[mitchfx]

Just checked out the reflection mapping...pretty cool overall. Eventually, it would be ideal to have this controlled by the model somehow instead of being only a global setting (keeping some kind of global toggle override, of course...like smoke). Also, variable amount of reflection and, if possible, some way to apply to specific surfaces only. Another good thing would be the ability to BLUR the reflection map to simulate non-mirror finishes. This should be controlled at the model level too.

Mitch

[mitchfx]

Why not put it in the name, i.e (EasystarRSR) Right Stick Rudder?

I like it! Maybe the most intuitive way to implement this would be to have the name of the plane first, the append "(right stick rudder)" in parentheses automatically if this setting is found in the params?

[macr0t0r]

Good gravy, mitchfx, I guess it speaks miles for Clearview if your main requests are per-model settings of environment reflections! ;) Honestly, I'm not sure why I'd want to change graphic parameters on a per-model basis. Wouldn't that be a bit of a pain when sending models to other people if they have to change the settings to match their computer?

Auto-naming a model based on a parameter is also a bit odd. But if it's easy to implement than I guess it would useful. I prefer re-naming my altered models myself.

I do think that being able to re-map controls per airplane may have some benefits, since altering the control layout within the model may be overly complex to some people. But, to be perfectly honest, I'd rather that Stefan worked more on the models and interface than on graphics and customizations. One of the main reasons I like Clearview is that it has reasonable system requirements and a simple interface.

Best suggestions to date (in my opinion):
1. a "keep ground in view" viewpoint.
2. a better wind indicator
3. a better "gusts" wind model
4. updating all models and planes to the new physics model

I'm sure the break-apart crashes and reflective waters makes for great eye-candy that helps sell more copies. But they really don't serve the purpose of practicing flying and takes away precious development hours that Stephan could be applying to physics and interface. Clearview is not Phoenix and hope it never tries to be Phoenix.

- Jim

[hancockdw]

I'm sure the break-apart crashes and reflective waters makes for great eye-candy that helps sell more copies. But they really don't serve the purpose of practicing flying and takes away precious development hours that Stephan could be applying to physics and interface. Clearview is not Phoenix and hope it never tries to be Phoenix.

- Jim

Yes!

Dave

[Turtle_Flyer]

--updating all models and planes to the new physics model



- Jim

Which models are the NEW physics ones? I am trying to use CV to learn some 3D moves. Harrier and rolling harriers. I am wondering which model would be most real in terms of physics.

[Turtle_Flyer]

I'm sure the break-apart crashes and reflective waters makes for great eye-candy that helps sell more copies. But they really don't serve the purpose of practicing flying and takes away precious development hours that Stephan could be applying to physics and interface. Clearview is not Phoenix and hope it never tries to be Phoenix.

- Jim

Well said.

[mitchfx]

Good gravy, mitchfx, I guess it speaks miles for Clearview if your main requests are per-model settings of environment reflections! ;) Honestly, I'm not sure why I'd want to change graphic parameters on a per-model basis. Wouldn't that be a bit of a pain when sending models to other people if they have to change the settings to match their computer?

The reason I suggested per model setting for reflections is because not all models need them or would that even be desirable. To me it just makes sense to have reflections only enabled for models that would actually be reflective...plus have a global on/off toggle if you don't want them at all (like if you're graphic card can't handle them). A simple toggle with no per-model settings would be fine I guess, as long as you can change the amount of reflection and it was accessable inside clearview and didnt require restarting.

Auto-naming a model based on a parameter is also a bit odd. But if it's easy to implement than I guess it would useful. I prefer re-naming my altered models myself.

Yes, but the reson I suggested auto adding the "RSR" text is because Stefan was worried people might be confused if they loaded a model that uses right-stick rudder. If you leave it up to the creator of the model to add the text, then there is a good chance it would be left out of the name.

I'm sure the break-apart crashes and reflective waters makes for great eye-candy that helps sell more copies.

I don't really care that much about break apart models and relflective waters either. The reason I think reflective MODELS would be nice is because some planes actually ARE reflective and seeing them that way in the sim mimics the way you seem them in the real world. I agree that concentrating on the basics such as physics, weather and interface should have priority...but I also just plain like impressive graphics. When a simulator looks more realistic and is pleasing to the eye it makes me become more immersed which translates into spending more time actually playing due to sheer enjoyment. Of course not everyone is the same.

-Mitch

- Jim

[mitchfx]

I'm sure the break-apart crashes and reflective waters makes for great eye-candy that helps sell more copies.
- Jim

Funny enough, I never even mentioned either of these features. Although I kinda agree with this, keep in mind that more copies sold could equate to more revenue which could lead to a bigger budget for more developers which in turn means more and better features down the road. Of course, Stefan may have no interest in it getting to that level and that's fine.

Don't get me wrong, I love clearview and have been enjoying it. However the thread is called "clearview wishlist" and these are things I personally think would be nice additions. Not everyone may feel the same way about which features are important...that's just the nature of opinions.

-Mitch

[macr0t0r]

Sorry if I sounded harsh, Mitch. I'm a developer as well, so I sympathize a little with Stefan when he is attempting to put all requested features into Clearview. I know you didn't mention break-apart modeling, but I see reflections and break-aparts as both being eye candy. It's understandable that different users will have different opinions on feature requests, so I'm only throwing my voice in.

I realize that graphics such as smoke, reflections, moving control surfaces, etc may make the simulator more realistic, but that's at a cost of FPS. For those of us running on slow systems or under emulation, that's an undesirable cost. I'm more interested in dynamics, environment, and viewpoints.

Simply put, for better or for worse, I'm tossing my vote in that I'd rather Stefan worked on other features. We're all competing for his time to get what we want! ;) However, my concerns may be baseless if it's something easy for him to implement or can be disabled for the rest of us. I wouldn't know, though.

- Jim

[mitchfx]

Sorry if I sounded harsh, Mitch. I'm a developer as well, so I sympathize a little with Stefan when he is attempting to put all requested features into Clearview.

No worries, I totally understand your perspective. Stefan is doing an amazing job for a single developer on such a complex program, and I'm sure he will exercise sound judgment on where to invest his time to make Clearview a better product. I can't wait to see what he comes up with in the next release!

-Mitch

[skirtz]

What interesting discussion. You more or less touch on the balance that is needed to keep ClearView moving in right direction - hopefully becoming better and better. I try to struck the right balance between the visuals (the eye candy is what sells the program and help keep bills paid) and physics (which makes the program valuable in long term). I also want to keep the program simple to new fliers and also want to keep the models open so anyone who wants and have the skill level can create new models and scenes. The investment in visuals will not slow me down. I am very close to make the models and scenes in ClearView as good as the best models in best "other" sims. The breaking part and the collision physics in ClearView is now equal or better to the best available. So at some point ClearView visuals and ground interaction will be top notch. At that point I can add a lot of substantial addition in features and usability, because they are easy to implement. As far the physics, they are constantly improved. I test number of sims and I personally am very happy with ClearView physics and how they compare with other simulators and with the real models that I fly. There are many areas to improve, but the progress will be incremental and more model specific.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[Ohio AV8TOR]

I am very close to make the models and scenes in ClearView as good as the best models in best "other" sims. The breaking part and the collision physics in ClearView is now equal or better to the best available.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

Stefan and we appreciate everything you are doing. I sold my Reflex and just using ClearView now. I cut out most of your reply above and just to comment on the models. I would love to see more current popular models, I hope this is what you are referring to.

[mitchfx]

AA and AF are supported if selected from the video card setting software. http://rcflightsim.com

Which EXE do I set the graphics options for? There are a ton of java exe files in the /bin/jre/bin/ folder but I'm not sure which one to assign in the Nvidia control panel.

[skirtz]

Stefan and we appreciate everything you are doing. I sold my Reflex and just using ClearView now. I cut out most of your reply above and just to comment on the models. I would love to see more current popular models, I hope this is what you are referring to.

Please list here or e-mail me with the models list.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim

[Turtle_Flyer]

Please list here or e-mail me with the models list.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim


A 3d model setup close to a real one. 3DHobby Yak, or Extra. Perhaps there already is on but I do not know if it is realistic.
Lightflite Bug (This would be a first for sims.)
Any Precision Aeroworks planes

[Ohio AV8TOR]

A 3d model setup close to a real one. 3DHobby Yak, or Extra. Perhaps there already is on but I do not know if it is realistic.
Lightflite Bug (This would be a first for sims.)
Any Precision Aeroworks planes


Ditto on the above. Basically do to the planes what you have done with the Helicopters. You have most of the popular models in them and they look just like what people are flying for real. Would love to see some ARF models in the color scheme that they come in such as the Precision Aircraft or 3D HobbyShop modesl. People are flying a lot of ARF models now and I am sure they would love to see those instead of converted FMS models that have been around the sim world for some time. (Although they are cooler now with the breakable additions to them).

Please list here or e-mail me with the models list.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim

Precision Aerobatics planes such as the Katana, Extra 260 (please) and Addiction
http://www.precisionaerobatics.com/

Great Planes Reactor Bipe

3DH- ASPERA
http://www.3dhobbyshop.com/detail.aspx?ID=1950

[BaracW]

How about some EDF models, instead of all turbines. I'd like the Phase 3 F-16, Hobby Lobby's F-18 & Corporate Jet, BVM Electra, oh, an a multi-engine airliner like the E-flite Airliner or Windrider A380 edf. Oh, and how about some 4D models, with the variable pitch prop, could work like the idle up in a the helis.

[mitchfx]

Here's my list...

HobbyZone Super Cub
ParkZone T-28 Trojan
ParkZone P-51
ParkZone Micros (Ember, Cessna, Cibriata)
GWS Slow Stick

These are the one's I'm building for Cleaview myself and will share once finished...

Alfa Mig-15
Alfa F-86 Sabre
Hobby Lobby F-18 Viper (Red and Silver)

Also, do you plan to include some of the excellent models of popular planes others have created in the next build? Good examples are gguner's T-28 and Ken's Easystar.

[macr0t0r]

Boy howdy, let the floodgates open! For awhile there was a bit of grassroots model development going on, so hopefully it picks up again.

- Jim

[Turtle_Flyer]

I will second the VPP/4D airplane setup. That would be nice. Although I am YEARS from trying one for real.

[handyflyer]

Where are the planes that you already have done?? I have the Cub and would love to try it out. Look forward to your other models. DonHere's my list...

HobbyZone Super Cub
ParkZone T-28 Trojan
ParkZone P-51
ParkZone Micros (Ember, Cessna, Cibriata)
GWS Slow Stick

These are the one's I'm building for Cleaview myself and will share once finished...

Alfa Mig-15
Alfa F-86 Sabre
Hobby Lobby F-18 Viper (Red and Silver)

Also, do you plan to include some of the excellent models of popular planes others have created in the next build? Good examples are gguner's T-28 and Ken's Easystar.

[mitchfx]

Where are the planes that you already have done?? I have the Cub and would love to try it out. Look forward to your other models. Don

I guess I should have been more clear. The top list are ones I'd LIKE to see added to Clearview. The bottom list is what I've been working on myself. However, I did actually start on a Super Cub this morning but it's a couple of days away from being RTF.

Here are the two that are ready (sorta) so far...

http://www.mitchgates.com/models/mig-15.zip
http://www.mitchgates.com/models/Sabre.zip

I haven't actually flown the Alfa jets yet (need more practice first), so if anyone with direct experience could give some feedback I'd really appreciate it!

-M

[Turtle_Flyer]

I guess I should have been more clear. The top list are ones I'd LIKE to see added to Clearview. The bottom list is what I've been working on myself. However, I did actually start on a Super Cub this morning but it's a couple of days away from being RTF.


-M

Mitch,
I am not a jet guy. However, I did like the planes.

I do have 100's of hours on a Super Cub though so I look forward to that.

[mitchfx]

Oh, great...an experienced SC flyer! What existing planes have you found closest to it's behavior in Clearview, and what do you feel is "wrong" about each? This will help me get the flight characteristics right.

Thanks,
Mitch

Mitch,
I am not a jet guy. However, I did like the planes.

I do have 100's of hours on a Super Cub though so I look forward to that.

[Turtle_Flyer]

Oh, great...an experienced SC flyer! What existing planes have you found closest to it's behavior in Clearview, and what do you feel is "wrong" about each? This will help me get the flight characteristics right.

Thanks,
Mitch

I have not flown the cub type planes in CV yet. I am too busy messing with the Yak's and Extras. I do not even know if there is a 3 channel cub type electric. I think the DHC Beaver has ailerons.

However, I can tell you the mistakes other sims make.

First off the S Cub with it's stock motor will cruise at 1/2 throttle. Most sims program the thing to cruise at full throttle. In other words you have to be at wide open throttle to keep altitude. Not right. The cub will cruise level at 1/2 throttle

Second, when turning (Rudder obviously) you need slight up elevator to stay level. Always, no exceptions. I flew on S Cub on another sim where you would move the rudder and it would turn like a car going around a corner.

Third, takeoffs go like this. Full throttle, bump the elevator and she will climb all by herself. No need to hold up elevator. Use the throttle to level her off.

Fourth, there is no negative yaw when the Super cub turns.

If I think of more I will post them. I am stoked that you are making one. With all the planes I have I still enjoy the cub. For $150 you cannot beat it. There are even rumor threads of a Super Cub 2.

Lastly, if I may make one suggestion. Consider doing a bush pilot version. Big tires type thing. No other sims have a bush Super Cub that I know of. You could be famous! :D

Check it out here... cubdriver749er.com - demo video 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XYFcw1c-Oo) (0 min 27 sec)

[notruthless]

I looked at the Funtana - the problem is that the wing had very low induced drag coefficient - change this parameter:
wingInducedDragCoef 0.038 to
wingInducedDragCoef 0.09
This will do it. You may change wingDragCoef from 0.9 to 1 or 1.1 as well.

Since the wing had impossible low drag, at tight turns, the lift comes up slightly forward and pulls the plane even faster. For now this will do it, and latter I will look at the code to see if it can be improved (well, it WILL be improved... but takes time).

Thanks 3Disaster, I almost forget about this as well:

- Another good combo that may be even better:
maxSpeed 28
wingDragCoef 1.0
wingInducedDragCoef 0.07
With this settings the model will glide better.


Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com


Stefan,
I tried the latter setting for the Funtana and it seemed to help. At least it delays the increasing loop speed to later in the control sequence.

I found another strange reaction today with the Shockflier. While trying to do flat spins, both upright and inverted, the plane went to an uncontrollable spin if you maintained full deflections for the spin long enough. Any suggestions here?

Thanks,
Chris

[mitchfx]

Second, when turning (Rudder obviously) you need slight up elevator to stay level. Always, no exceptions. I flew on S Cub on another sim where you would move the rudder and it would turn like a car going around a corner.

Third, takeoffs go like this. Full throttle, bump the elevator and she will climb all by herself. No need to hold up elevator. Use the throttle to level her off.

Fourth, there is no negative yaw when the Super cub turns.



Stefan,

What param settings can I adjust to cause the plane to lose elevator/nose down when engaging rudder? Also, how would I make it tend to climb even without pulling back on the elevator stick (I also noticed this too when flying the cub).

I'm not 100% sure about the negative yaw comment or what it means exactly.

Any chance we will get a help file that lists what ALL the settings in Params.txt do?

Thanks,
m

[dj_d]

Let me throw out the challenge again - I'd LOVE to try flying a hotliner in Clearview! What a way to try something new and save $400 in crash parts practicing. :) Anyone up to giving it a shot?

[Kadath]

One thing I would like to see added is some kind of "game" play. For example, there could be a race with say, 10 gates. Each gate could be a square box that you need to fly into. The gates could be made smaller or bigger to change the level of difficulty. I'm guessing that it shouldn't be too hard to code.

That's just one example but many different little "games" could be fun. The main point for me would be to help do "something" with the heli while practicing. Hovering is ok but it gets boring after a while. And when I fly forward it's hard to see if I have control or if the heli is having control over me. With precise goal such as gates, it seems like it would help to sharpen one's skills.

Thanks!

[Turtle_Flyer]

Stefan,



I'm not 100% sure about the negative yaw comment or what it means exactly.

Any chance we will get a help file that lists what ALL the settings in Params.txt do?

Thanks,
m

Mitch,
Negative yaw (at least my definition) is when flying you turn the plane right using rudder and the wings roll left. I could have the term wrong. It might actually be "Adverse Roll Coupling".

In real model flying this happens on some models. I had a bipe that did it. But in CV it is very pronounced in almost all planes of the Cessna/Cub variety. I think dihedral is used in real life to correct this. On CV even the planes with dihedral do it very severely. This is not right based on my experience in the real model flight world.



Fly the Cessna on CV you will see what I mean.

[hancockdw]

Please list here or e-mail me with the models list.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim

Do most flying wings (such as the Zagi, Ritewing, Unicorn, the Sylvan Aircraft Frenzee I just bought ;) , etc.) fly like the Stryker? If not, I'd like to see one or 2 wings.

Dave

[ggunners]

I actually created the ClearView versions of ParkZone P-51 (http://gunnerson.homestead.com/files/clearview/ParkZone-P51D.zip) and ParkZone FW-190 (http://gunnerson.homestead.com/files/clearview/ParkZone-FW190.zip) but haven't had time or actual owners to help tweak the flight characteristics. Anybody have some time to tweak the params.txt, pass along the results by email.

-- ggunners

[skirtz]

Stefan,

What param settings can I adjust to cause the plane to lose elevator/nose down when engaging rudder? Also, how would I make it tend to climb even without pulling back on the elevator stick (I also noticed this too when flying the cub).

I'm not 100% sure about the negative yaw comment or what it means exactly.

Any chance we will get a help file that lists what ALL the settings in Params.txt do?

Thanks,
m

The model behavior when applying rudder is modified by following parameters that define the amount of dihedral and how rudder affect the plane turns:

dihedralCoef 0.1 // how strongly the plane rights itself (dihedral amount)
dihedralElevCoef 0.1 // rudder - elevator coupling
dihedralFlag 1.0 // set to 1 so all these parameters take effect
dihedralRudCoef 0.1 // rudder - roll coupling

The example values here are taken from aileron trainer. You can apply small dihedral to some models where you want the plane to roll at the same direction as the rudder.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[wannaheli]

To start with, let me say great job on the sim. Excellent value for the money. I play with it every night and it has saved me lots of money in actual crashes.

How about a rewind feature where I can go back one second before I crashed and play it again? It can be the "mulligan" feature.

[mitchfx]

Stefan,

Thank you so much for the info. This has helped me get much closer to matching the real behavior with all my models. The one thing I still can figure out is how to get the Cub to "nose up" when you hit the throttle. It will fly fairly level at half throttle, and the tail gear doesnt come off the ground immediately when you throttle up for take off. It flys almost as if there is a slight bit of elevator. I'm guessing there is more than one way to achieve this, but what would be the most realistic?

Also, the Hobby Lobby F/A-18 tends to "knife edge" when you hit the ailerons at low speed. How would you emulate this behavior?

thanks,
m

The model behavior when applying rudder is modified by following parameters that define the amount of dihedral and how rudder affect the plane turns:

dihedralCoef 0.1 // how strongly the plane rights itself (dihedral amount)
dihedralElevCoef 0.1 // rudder - elevator coupling
dihedralFlag 1.0 // set to 1 so all these parameters take effect
dihedralRudCoef 0.1 // rudder - roll coupling

The example values here are taken from aileron trainer. You can apply small dihedral to some models where you want the plane to roll at the same direction as the rudder.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[mitchfx]

Turtle Flyer,

Check out what I've done with the Cub's flight characteristics so far...

http://www.mitchgates.com/models/SuperCub.zip

Right now it uses the geometry from the Magistar. I'm almost done with the model but waiting until it's finished to bring it into CV.

Feedback appreciated.

[milwiron]

Stefan,
Thanks for all the hard work; Clearview is a great value for the money.
I've been flying since the early days of proportional... my first radio was a used 10 channel Controlair reed system.
I've purchased way too many sims over the years and got tired of always paying for expansion packages or the latest upgrades/versions. Then there's been a few that never upgraded or improved at all.

You've hit the nail on the head between function, cost and free upgrades.
Denny

[chris1379]

I just made a discovery that I wanted to share with other Clearview pilots. I noticed that the graphics in Clearview were not as smooth as I thought they should be so I wanted to know why. I went to the 3D settings on my Nvidia Geforce 7600GT and was able to set the quality to max without any noticeable loss in frame rate. The graphics are now smooth as silk and flying seems to be easier 'cause I can see it better. Clearview seems to make very efficient use of 3D acceleration, unlike some other sims. I just wish I had the time and knowledge to stick a Trex canopy on that Honey Bee King2.

Chris

[skirtz]

Stefan,

Thank you so much for the info. This has helped me get much closer to matching the real behavior with all my models. The one thing I still can figure out is how to get the Cub to "nose up" when you hit the throttle. It will fly fairly level at half throttle, and the tail gear doesnt come off the ground immediately when you throttle up for take off. It flys almost as if there is a slight bit of elevator. I'm guessing there is more than one way to achieve this, but what would be the most realistic?

Also, the Hobby Lobby F/A-18 tends to "knife edge" when you hit the ailerons at low speed. How would you emulate this behavior?

thanks,
m

Pulling nose up when applying throttle behavior:

highWingCoef 0.2 // engine pulls the model up (throttle adds elevator)
highWingFlag 1.0 // enable this feature

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[skirtz]

In recent messages, there where some requests to explain some of the current params for planes (verNumber 4). Here I created a page where most of that info is compiled together with example how I set a specific plane using a ClearView wizard for creating new params.txt:

Creating plane params.txt from scratch (http://www.rcflightsim.com/planesetup.html)

Hope this page explains most of the parameters. Please e-mail me directly if you have more questions or require clarifications. I will answer and update the document accordingly.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[Turtle_Flyer]

Pulling nose up when applying throttle behavior:

highWingCoef 0.2 // engine pulls the model up (throttle adds elevator)
highWingFlag 1.0 // enable this feature

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

Stefan,
Are you implementing this Coef parameter as a radio function? Specifically, a throttle to elevator mix? Or is it a pure physics/behavior parameter?

In other words does your program logic see the throttle increase and add elevator? Or does it see the speed and say, more speed, results in up nose?

[skirtz]

It is physics behavior parameter.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[mitchfx]

Stefan,

Please consider adding these helpful definitions you've already provided here to your parameters document...

highWingCoef 0.2 // engine pulls the model up (throttle adds elevator)
highWingFlag 1.0 // enable this feature
dihedralCoef 0.1 // how strongly the plane rights itself (dihedral amount)
dihedralElevCoef 0.1 // rudder - elevator coupling
dihedralFlag 1.0 // set to 1 so all these parameters take effect
dihedralRudCoef 0.1 // rudder - roll coupling
cruisespeed - minimum speed at which plane maintains altitude

Once again, thanks for all the help. The new document has been extremely helpful!


In recent messages, there where some requests to explain some of the current params for planes (verNumber 4). Here I created a page where most of that info is compiled together with example how I set a specific plane using a ClearView wizard for creating new params.txt:

Creating plane params.txt from scratch (http://www.rcflightsim.com/planesetup.html)

Hope this page explains most of the parameters. Please e-mail me directly if you have more questions or require clarifications. I will answer and update the document accordingly.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[frac]

What interesting discussion. You more or less touch on the balance that is needed to keep ClearView moving in right direction -
Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com


hrrrumph! :D

frac

[frac]

accidental duplicate deleted

[korven]

Hi,

Finally I got FMS to work with my Esky 6ch transmitter on Vista. But the looks is really bad since it lacks textures (in Vista that is, apparently it works fine in XP and older).

So I got the advice to d/l ClearView. So I did and it said it was to include a trial period (dont know how long) - but so I could check that the control work as it should. Said and done, I downloaded it, but when I started the prog first time a popup said "trial period has ended". The control works, except for the throttle which goes from 0 rev to I guess just before lift-off.

Is this the way it should be? I'm willing to spend some money if I could test it, but I cant.

And BTW, I am from Europe, meaning that I use controls "mode 1", and the visible control seem to be US only ("mode 2"). That would be on my wish list too, apart from a trialperiod... :D

[skirtz]

Trial flight time is 15 minutes. The timer goes down only when the models are flying the air, so you can take your time to set the controller. I have few reports that the program did not provide any flight time. So far I can't reproduce that problem (if there is a problem). Here is how to get more demo time:

- Start ClearView, select "Settings" then "Activate", then click "OK" and type:
moredemotime
then click OK. Restart ClearView so the new settings take effect.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[korven]

(if there is a problem).


???