Posts by tele1974

Thanks Jan... I have flown your Katana. Nice job.

Another suggestion for IPACS would be to hire a propilot to sit down with a few of the planes and really dial them in.
It would be nice to have some base settings to work from and apply to other airframes.

I would just have to disagree with on that point the the physics engine is really good for 3d.
The 3d planes hang in the air like they are filled with helium. The list goes on. I think I will take some time and post some a list of my observations and publish here for comment. Aerofly 5 really isn't the "go to" sim for 3d training. Just look at how many 3d user models are posted. Their is another sim out their where the members have developed and modified hundreds of airframes for 3d practice and training. That simply is not occurring with AF5. Why? The 3d flight characteristics are very poor. If it was good the users would be developing more models and training with them.

Following the think tank thread. I thought I would start a thread to help the developers with the flight physics. I see in the advertising that the physic engine is all new.

Those of you that already have 7 please comment on the physics... Have they improved the airplane 3d flight physics? I am very interested to hear. I use AF for IMAC practice only and use another program for 3d training as AF is very lacking in this area. So what do you think guys? Is the 3d flight physics better?

AF certainly has a lot of eye candy, and games...But does the simulator truly simulate the real physics of our model aircraft. Also, those of you that know how it can be improved. Please post your suggested physics improvements. AF has a great program here... and with your help we can make it better in an opensource format.
Let's help make AF the go to sim...

Thank you,
Patrick