ClearView Flight Sim Wishlist (Ongoing) - Page 4 - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Dec 04, 2006, 12:57 PM
TerryE's Avatar

The flights in CV seemed "smoother" to me. It may have been the computer I was using for Phoenix (not mine, a buddy's) and I do not know his full setup. I am running CV on a P4 3.4 GHz with an NVidia Getforce Graphics card so it screams! I am very used to the model behavior in CV (especially the edge and Harvard which I fly the most) so I was using their behavior to compare with Phoenix. CV models seemed o respond "quicker", but that may be due to the parameter settings more than the physics engine.


Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Dec 04, 2006, 02:08 PM
Registered User
Thanks Terry. As part of my development process I compare the flight behavior as implemented in ClearView to G3, Reflex and AFPD Pro . I know for a fact there is none in the CV physics that is lacking compared to these sims. (When I find something lacking I allways implement it so it is lacking nomore) I was thinking if I have to spend $160 now to add the Phoenix as one of the benchmark sims I use to measure ClearView flight model or not. The same for FSOne. My current thinking is to wait a year for these sims to catch up with bugs and implement stable flight model.

Dec 04, 2006, 03:28 PM
Registered User
wallaguest1's Avatar
skirtz take a look to thoose videos, maybe that will hel you,
Dec 04, 2006, 03:49 PM
Registered User
wallaguest1's Avatar
Phoenix got a big dongle to use his sofware, and connot be used with a USB Transmitter, you must got a real one, then connect the interface.

USB <------------> jack 3,5mm -------------> Real Transmitter

im planning to buy a 40$ USB transmitter so i will not be able to use the sim if i buy the usb transmitter =P
unless some guy with electronical skillz make an adaptor to USB <--> Jack 3,5 mm to connect the dongle =(
Last edited by wallaguest1; Dec 04, 2006 at 04:04 PM.
Dec 04, 2006, 04:27 PM
Registered User
Originally Posted by wallaguest1
The videos tells nothing, you can't judge the flight model by videos...
And to me the heli on the video does not looks like realistic flight physics, sorry.

Dec 04, 2006, 04:36 PM
Registered User
Originally Posted by wallaguest1
im planning to buy a 40$ USB transmitter so i will not be able to use the sim if i buy the usb transmitter =P
unless some guy with electronical skillz make an adaptor to USB <--> Jack 3,5 mm to connect the dongle =(
If you want to fly r/c you will need a proper transmitter anyway, so why not use that? I prefer to use my real one on the sim and not a dummy, as you get used to the feel of your transmitter in the sim so it feels familiar when you fly the real thing. I find that the feel of the dummy transmitter sticks is too different from the real one.

I even use my Tx neckstrap, and stand in front of the screen to make it more real. It's way different to stand and fly compared to sitting down.
Dec 04, 2006, 05:13 PM
Registered User
I have recently reviewed Phoenix and I'm currently reviewing CV for Stefan.

I know we kind of butted heads on this before Stefan and I don't want to get into that again but please, if you are going to talk about Phoenix at least have the program or beg/borrow a copy and be able to talk about it from first hand experience, I know you made that clear in your post but it doesn't make sense to comment on a flight model you haven't seen or tried.

By the way the review is coming along nicely and I'm hoping to get it out sometime over Xmas.

I guess you wrote this bit in a hurry as the two statement directly contradict each other .....

The videos tells nothing, you can't judge the flight model by videos...
And to me the heli on the video does not looks like realistic flight physics, sorry.
Dec 04, 2006, 05:27 PM
Registered User
Hehehe.... Hi Ashely, how are you. As usuall your sharp sence for detail... Let me clarify:

>The videos tells nothing, you can't judge the flight model by videos...

Good pilot can make poor flight model looks ok by faking some movements by imputing unnatural controlls. Also, in the video editing, some non-realistic looking elements may be removed or not performed.

>And to me the heli on the video does not looks like realistic flight physics, sorry

Have seen real helis performing similar things like in the video, video does not evoke great level of similarity; To me, from the video, I think Px models are too easy to fly and do not model the model mass well (and this can be just my lying eyes)


PS: Can't waith for your review, hope is a good one for CV. Anyway, I can promise this: - Whatever problems you find, I will address them in 3 months or less !
Last edited by skirtz; Dec 04, 2006 at 05:38 PM.
Dec 04, 2006, 05:40 PM
Registered User
hehe thanks for clarifying Stefan

You do have to try it to get a sense of how it flys, same with all sims. Similarly a good pilot can make an awful heli look great in real I know where you are coming from.
Dec 04, 2006, 08:02 PM
Registered User
wallaguest1's Avatar
something work bad on the CV,

test time expired but i can still move the model in any way but make it fly,
Last edited by wallaguest1; Dec 04, 2006 at 08:11 PM.
Dec 04, 2006, 08:08 PM
Registered User
When the trial time expire, the throttle is cut of, this preventing the models from flying. All other controls are left working. Please note, that when setting the controller, the trial time does not run (is kept on hold).

Dec 04, 2006, 08:11 PM
Registered User
wallaguest1's Avatar
no way to use it at full screen? is not smart (for me) play with the windows bar at the bottom, the icons of desktop as background, and the toolbar in the top.

the java icon is not smart too xd
dont take it bad :P
Dec 04, 2006, 08:15 PM
Registered User
wallaguest1's Avatar
Originally Posted by Drachen
If you want to fly r/c you will need a proper transmitter anyway, so why not use that?

bcos its much more expensive.
Dec 04, 2006, 10:01 PM
Registered User
wallaguest1's Avatar
Dec 04, 2006, 11:28 PM
Registered User
othmanskn's Avatar
Originally Posted by skirtz
Hi TerryE,

Can you please describe the flight model differences between ClearView and Phoenix ? I am interested in the flight simulation only.

If I have money, I would love to have both Clearview and Phoenix and RFG3.5.

Phoneix for its water effect simulation when I want to play with water vehicles.

RFG3.5 for its tutorial and trainings and crash effects.

Clearview for its ease of converting models into its environment.

Since I am a novice, I can't really differentiate between all these RC Sims because they all offer similar features in flying characteristics such as moving surfaces, photo sceneries,and shining textures.

For professionals, it may be a different case. I notice that they can tell that AFPD is good for 3D planes, Reflex is good for heli, Phoenix may not be good for both, FSOne good for planes. Those with money will go for all of them, some even going for RFG3 for its fun and multi-player facilities.

If Clearview can have water effects and tutorials/training modes, it can satisfly all the needs of the novices but no guarantee that they will choose it if they have lots of money,unless it can match or exceed the effects of its competitors.

REcommended course of action for Clearview:

Continue what it has been doing for supporting ease of import of models into Clearview and help in making the planes fly more realistically with help from users.

Users like myself are more than willing to contribute modelling models for others within our abilities. I'm surprised that my quick attempt at a P47d modelling using the P47c is still useable for some. I'm also surprised that no FMS model exist for this plane.

My most important task in importing and modelling for Clearview is the propeller simulation because it is the most obvious feature that can be easily seen.

My additiional wish-list for this is:

1. Clearview models the Propeller as moving at a slow speed even at full throttle. This is wrong and misleading because it should becomes transparent, at 3000 RPM, which is usally about half throttle only.

At idle, the propeller should spin slowly but it can be used to gauge its RPM speed.

The speed of rotation of the prop should be realistic and depends on engine and throttle position. At the moment, there is no parameter for engine type or RPM characteristics, but as an interim measure, the throttle can be used for estimating the RPM of the simulated Prop.

a) The disk should be completely invisible. In fact I delete the disk because it interferes with slow speed simulation. However at high speed, the slowly rotating prop is clearly visible.

b) At more than half throttle, the prop must be invisible,while the disk is visible.

2. Since I spend most of my time testing models, a reload model is vital. Please incorporate such key/menu for reloading models or sceneries.

In fact, if I don't develop / test models/sceneries, I get bored playing the RC Sim. So the more models I test, the more I play, and now, I'm pretty good at RC piloting, even for cars, i.e. during taxing.

That is why I don't mind volunteering for user's requests for new models that are challenging.

However the first moving item to model is the Prop and also the easiest and the most vital.

Also my style is to work for a few ours on modeling, and stop for a while to test it, and then record down what I had done, and ponder for new solutions or information.

I won't work for projects that need to be completed for more than a few hours. Working on moving rudders and ailerons, take too long, so I work on rudder first, once it had been tested, I shall work with ailerons.

But now I better work on new and exciting models in the FMS world once I know how to import them.

I shall convert as many as I can, keeping them intact first, without any moving parts. Just textures.

So the priorities are:
1. model
2. basic flight
3. textures
4. moving prop
5. moving rudder
6. moving airleron
7. advanced flight sim.

1. Give basic support for water effects. I notice that it is already there. My basic planes that I imported/exported to Clearview seem to be able to sink slightly into the ground and yet still move. The only thing missing is the ripple effects, which I believe is similar to the smoke effects, exect that its z-coordinates.

I shall try flying it on watery scenery. A special ground type for water would be nice that will model its friction nicely. The sinking can come in later.

2. crash effects.
Since the bodies are already made up of parts, these parts should be simulated separately and can be detached at will, while simulation continues with the remaining parts, while the detached part is also simulated as a separate body.

3. Sound effects for moving parts and other controls,when near. For fun, can add gun firing sound for those combats using sound devices.

4. All radio channels can be tied to any moving objects or sound. Ability to disable Clearview dual rates/ exponentials, and mixing, relying all on the Radio itself. This is a better option and even more flexible than simulating the mixing and exponential rates withing Clearview.

These are not difficult to implement. It is just that few people ever thought of them as viable or feasible but we learn while we use.

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Blade CX on Clearview Flight Sim skorp_ian Simulators 6 Feb 09, 2008 03:46 AM
FMS flight sim Steven9026 Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 10 Oct 25, 2001 01:03 PM
Real Flight Sim rckid Electric Heli Talk 0 Jul 30, 2001 11:46 PM
FMS - The free R/C flight sim - Why does it crash on me ! steve lewin Electric Plane Talk 2 Jun 19, 2001 01:52 AM