build (roll) your own airplanes in Realflight g2

Hi
I havent read the whole manual yet! if ever
But can you make your own airplanes for realflight g2 and how ?
many thanks !!! :)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I havent read the whole manual yet! if ever | | But can you make your own airplanes for realflight g2 | and how ?
You cannot. RFG2 only lets you edit existing airplanes, and you can't really make any serious changes. You can only change some of the flight parameters and apply a new `skin' (basically a paint job) to the plane.
If you want new airplanes, you need to pay for them, in the form of the Add-On packs. $30 a pop.
It sort of looked like G3 has a much more functional plane editor, but I haven't actually used it -- and with their `Have G2? Want G3? Buy G3 at full price, and we'll insult you with a $25 merchandise rebate' policy, I probably won't be.
--
Doug McLaren, snipped-for-privacy@frenzy.com
No good deed goes unpunished. --Clare Boothe Luce
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...
Basically the same deal as in G2, only now the parts grow and shrink and move around as you edit. The in flight graphics change, however. It still draws the landing gear, for example, even if you remove them. The propeller seems to be the only exception; it disappears if you select some other power source, and presumably the disc changes as it did in G2.
That said, though, I don't feel much limited by the number and types of changable params. I remember being disappointed in not being able to model some weird control surfaces, but can't recall off-hand what they were. G3 adds polyhedral wings, or multi-section spans if you want to think of it that way. This probably takes care of the rest of the outlyers. The other big change is how the CG is handled. You now have to eyeball it, rather than pretend to measure in 1/100's of an inch.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug while you are partly correct, G2 is a bit like George Washingtons Axe.
Replace the engine, the prop, the wingshape, the wingspan, the tailspan, the fuse length, the undercarriage and to me that is getting pretty near a new plane.
David
Doug McLaren wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Doug while you are partly correct, G2 is a bit like George Washingtons | Axe. | | Replace the engine, the prop, the wingshape, the wingspan, the tailspan, | the fuse length, the undercarriage and to me that is getting pretty near | a new plane.
Perhaps, though you're assuming that a `plane' consists of, from front to back, of: an engine [optional, though removing it won't remove it from the graphics], some fuselage, then a wing [does G2 let you change the shape? I forget], then some more fuselage and a vertical and horizontal stabilizer. Somewhere down below is a landing gear in many cases.
Perhaps most planes fit into this general shape, but hardly all. You can't make any flying wings, any pusher planes, anything with a T tail. There's a V-tail plane there, but I suspect it's modeled to fly as a classic horziontal/vertial stabilizer tail plane.
And even if you do change these parameters that you're talking about, the plane doesn't *look* any different. Sure, you could change the skin, but that doesn't really help if you've made the wings longer.
Obviously Real Flight/Knife Edge has some sort of editor that they use for creating planes, but it has not been released, and the file format doesn't appear to be documented enough for somebody else to write their own editor. RF would much prefer that you buy Add-Ons.
| Doug McLaren wrote: |
| > | > | I havent read the whole manual yet! if ever | > | | > | But can you make your own airplanes for realflight g2 | > | and how ? | > | > You cannot. RFG2 only lets you edit existing airplanes, and you can't | > really make any serious changes. You can only change some of the | > flight parameters and apply a new `skin' (basically a paint job) to | > the plane.
--
Doug McLaren, snipped-for-privacy@frenzy.com
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

No, and yes.
In G2 you can redecorate the wireframe, and change its size and aerodynamic values, but not its SHAPE.
And changing size seems to introduce some odd flying characteristics.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't much care about the graphics, what I wanna know is: can I alte
things like wing washout, powerplants (from a K&B Sportster .45 to a O FSR .45 to a Jett .45 can be a helluva change), props, fuels, contro throws, dihedral, field surfaces, adding retracts, needlevalv settings, AUW, etc. in G2 or G3?
They can make all the airplanes look like a single generic icon for al I care. The only reason I would want a FS is so I can experiment/pla with stuff on the computer instead of learning the hard way
-- Prawni ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Prawnik's Profile: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?action=getinfo&useridH97 View this thread: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid0929
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Prawnik wrote:

yerrs. I thnk so.
powerplants (from a K&B Sportster .45 to a OS

yes.
props,
Yse
fuels,
No.
control

Yes
dihedral,
Yes
field surfaces,
No.
adding retracts,
Yes.
needlevalve

No.
AUW,
Yes.
etc. in G2 or G3?
All those from G2.

G2 had NEARLY all I wanted but not quie enough., G3 is better allegedl.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

G2 had a handful of more or less generic "torque curves". You could modify them by specifying a single percentage to scale it by. G3 has a large catalog of electric and IC motors, and an honest by gosh graphical editor for the honest injun torque curve.

Whole inch increments in G2. G3 has different prop types and materials in 1/10" increments. I wouldn't put too much stock in how they're labelled, since it says nothing of how its modelled. Close enough is sorta close enough. The aircraft editor is a bit handier now. You can run up the motor to check static thrust, amps, rpm, etc. In flight efficiency is still far far too optimistic. One model is pulling 80%+ total efficiency with a 14" EDF on a geared Hacker B50. I'd stand in line outside in a January blizzard to buy one of those if they made one.

Bump the torque curve a few percentage points...

Polyhedral multi-span wings in G3. It models a corsair without cheating, and winglets too if so desired. Sideforce generators seem possible, but I haven't tried yet.

G3 is responsive to material changes, but I haven't spent much time taxiing to say how well they've done it. Also, airframe fragility is modelled. Balsa stick models shatter satisfyingly, and foamy wings bounce and then take flight again.

In general, both versions simulate random component failures. All simulators more or less assume the parts are either working 100%, or done broken. Not good training for the newbie, but I wouldn't know how to go about improving that. In regards the needlevalve in particular, you might come close by editing the torque curve, but it won't change throttle response and similar differences.

Component weights, really, which changes the AUW. G3 lets you move things around in the airframe (or out in space around it, for that matter) to change CG. You can still "fake" a CG adjustment without adding weights, but at least you'll know how far you're moving it.

The much ballyhooed graphics in G3 are not worth it, IMHO. I reckon it can be quite lovely if your system can handle it with all details and features cranked, but I wouldn't know. Just adding trees and clouds drags the framerate down to 6, from 30+ without them. G2 with AddOn 1 has plenty of "atmosphere"; I was quite pleased when I ran it recently and was reminded. But there is compelling reason to prefer G3. Zipping a flying wing around and through a suburban subdivision amply illustrates the dire fact that despite all these many years, I have never really learned to fly. :-) I'm having a ball now, and ruined for life. Reality, and its flat empty flying fields, will be quite dull in comparison come spring.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Boat wrote:

Actually 'your engine was too rich' has popped up on mine once or twice.
The most fun was with teh rtiwn engined plane with a guaranteed engine failure. You have about 1/2 second to close teh throttle before the thing goes into an irrecoverable flat spin :-)

:-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.