G4: plane's ground is above visual ground?

[cloud-9]

This is in the demo, and I wonder if it's a problem in real G4.

The plane never touches the ground. A few feet away, it's not noticeable. But a few hundred feet away, the plane crashes several feet above the ground, or what visually is the ground. That far away, you can't get close to the ground without crashing.

Is this so?

Thanks,
Jim

[stephengroff]

Try hovering a heli over water in G4 and notice there is no propwash on the water.

[jim_ag3y]

I have noticed that on the default flying field, as you taxi toward the trees, the airplane will rise above the visual ground. I would suspect that if you did a real low pass back there, you would crash the plane, but then again, you have those trees to contend with in the first place !

I have seen others complain about the ground handling of G4. My personal issue is that in reality, there is a lot of bouncing and jiggling around of wingtips etc. when a plane is taxi-ing, but no matter what the appearance of the ground, in the simulator, the roll is as smooth as if the plane were on glass!

The rest of the physics are so good, that I choose to overlook that shortcoming, but for some, it could be a problem.

As stephengroff says, there is no propwash on the water, and furthermore, a good amount of wind does not seem to make the surface any more ruffled. But considering that 3.5 didn't even animate the water ( from what I understand ) the water presentation in 4 is quite an inprovement !

Think of G4 as a "work in progress", and remember what the main purpose of it is; which is to train you how to FLY an R/C airplane or heli!

Cheers! Jim

[cloud-9]

I have noticed that on the default flying field, as you taxi toward the trees, the airplane will rise above the visual ground. I would suspect that if you did a real low pass back there, you would crash the plane, but then again, you have those trees to contend with in the first place !

I have seen others complain about the ground handling of G4. My personal issue is that in reality, there is a lot of bouncing and jiggling around of wingtips etc. when a plane is taxi-ing, but no matter what the appearance of the ground, in the simulator, the roll is as smooth as if the plane were on glass!

The rest of the physics are so good, that I choose to overlook that shortcoming, but for some, it could be a problem.

As stephengroff says, there is no propwash on the water, and furthermore, a good amount of wind does not seem to make the surface any more ruffled. But considering that 3.5 didn't even animate the water ( from what I understand ) the water presentation in 4 is quite an inprovement !

Think of G4 as a "work in progress", and remember what the main purpose of it is; which is to train you how to FLY an R/C airplane or heli!

Cheers! Jim


Thanks for the reply, and verifying what I described in the default field. That's exactly what I mean, in the distance the plane is not on the ground, which more importantly means you can crash while you are visually well above the ground.

I since bought Phoenix and have Aerofly Pro Deluxe on the way.

Thanks
Jim

[flyx]

You can easily adjust the ground level via changing the Z
in the scenery edit option. I'm positive you'll have to do the
samething in aerofly or phoenix, depending what panorama
you use.

Try loading a raw pano into aerofly without resizing the panorama
into the proper size and you'll see what will happen.lol

Equirectangular. Mmm... equator, the horizon must be at the
center of the image.

The reflex sceneries are 8160x3060.
You need to change the canvas size to 8160x4080....then
resize it to 8192x4096.

Not all panorama are taken by the same photographer.
Some use a tripod, and set the tripod to variouse height
Some use hand held, not everyone has the same height.
You have to adjust the Z accordingly to get a proper perspective.

You have to build transparent buffer zone in order for the model
to be able to fly behind an object or crash into it.

example, I alter the Z to 200', this way the model will fly under
me becuase the pano was taken from roughly 200' above the ground

[Johndou]

Although I agree that it can be adjusted, should it have to be? This is a default field from RealFlight. If the techs at RealFlight were unable to get it adjusted correctly - the experts if you will, what are the chances that someone who's never done it before can get it adjusted correctly?

There are a lot of photo flields in RealFlight that are like this. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the customer to adjust everything in the "Best R/C Flight Simulator in the Unuverse..." They've been asked to adjust the physics for the plans and heli's - because their not quite right - in thread after thread after thread. They've even been asked to move the knobs and switches in the Elite controller because the don't match the proper configuration to most other controllers ... now we're being told to just adjust the photo field(s). Maybe it's time to start adjusting our attitude towards RealFlight and start buying the better flight sims... the ones that don't need adjusting.

[cloud-9]

Huh, that's interesting. But the ground is fine at the viewer's feet, it gets off as you go away from the viewere so it's several feet at the tree line.

Anyway, I have bought Phoenix and Aeriofly Pro instead because of this.

[bilboa]

Huh, that's interesting. But the ground is fine at the viewer's feet, it gets off as you go away from the viewere so it's several feet at the tree line.

Anyway, I have bought Phoenix and Aeriofly Pro instead because of this.

I have both Phoenix and RealFlight and prefer Phoenix. However Phoenix isn't perfect in this regard either. I've never encountered a case where it crashes while visibly above the ground, but I have encountered cases where it crashes into a tree even though it didn't appear to be close to it. I think that's more just because it's difficult to model depth perception on a 2D screen. I have found some definite errors in the indoor scenery in Phoenix too, where you can actually fly through the wall in one place and the aircraft just disappears. I think they fixed that one though.

Anyway, I bought a flight sim to use as a tool for learning new RC flying techniques, not as a video game, so I'm not really concerned about things like this since I don't feel that they get in the way of the overall accuracy of the flight simulation.

[flyx]

It's just a skybox. Phoenix use exactly the samething.
If you think that's bad, wait till you get aerofly. It dose the samething.
Aerofly gets mapped via a sort of cyliner/ semi sphere.
There's a big swirl right on top. The sun halo/glair hides it.

Reflex has the problem, that's why the top portion of the
sky gets painted, to remove the swirl for sphere mapping.

Not everything in a photolistic scenery are going to get buffer zones
in any sims. I can find flaws in everyone of them. If I fly out
1000' away from me, 5' off the deck..But I'm not going to do that
in real life.

Havn't you tried to fly into that hill on the G3 demo.
You'll never hit it.lol

FMS looks just as good. There's wind in FMS. You can map in objects
in photo field in FMS. You can adjust models perimeters in FMS.
You can change sounds, color sceheme..ect.
If you wanna go chase mode or cockpit...there's Flight Gear.


I adjust my TX different from everyone else anyway.
And I have different Eq, engines, and set up the control throw different.
Whatever feels right to me. None of models in any sims feels exactly right
to me as defualt setting
I don't know what feels right for you. Most people get cross eyed
when they fly my models.