Phoenix tweeks

[IanR]

I've been trying to get the wind effect in Phoenix to be more realistic and posted a question, yesterday. In replying, BEB and Steve W-O have raised more doubts/concerns about realism, in general.

I have now found Steve W-O's thread - "Phoenix plane questions" dated 20/03/2011 - which asks all the right questions for me also so I won't repeat them here but as he says "...to me it is important to know how the sim is compared to the real models..."

To be honest, as a newbie I'm basing my daydreaming/choice of future model purchases on my experience of them in Phoenix and I bet a few others are doing the same. However, if there's a possibility that they are not particularly realistic then this is obviously not the right thing to do.

In Steve's thread BEB says "...So come on folks what "tweeks" have you found necessary to make the Phoenix version of your "pride and joy" to fly just like the real thing?..."

I can't see any replies so I'll repeat:

What tweeks have you found necessary to make the Phoenix version of your "pride and joy" fly just like the real thing?

and add:

Which Phoenix models fly just like the real thing "out of the box" without tweeking?

Ian

(if there is sufficient interest and enough replies I would even ask the Mods to make this a "sticky" - is that the right phrase?)

[Steve W-O]

So many replies, I'll never get time to read them all!

 

Looking at other threads it would appear that quite a number of people have Phoenix.

 

The fact that no one has rep0lied to say any model behaves as the real one does in real life can say one of two things.

 

 

1) Nobody owns any of the models they fly on Phoenix , or Phoenix does not have their model.

Unlikely, as I would think that did a fair amount of research before choosing models.

 

2) None of the models in Phoenix fly like the real model.

 

 

From my experience, I will go with no2 as being the reason there are no replies

[Steven Butler]

Phoenix is I believe fairly realistic for most models. The one thing find less realistic is the take off, especially for things like the spit or mustang models. The real thing needs rudder to hold a straight take off line and a little elevator to hold the tail down to prevent nose over, this has to be gradually released to raise the tail plane ready for more elevator when flying speed is reached.

 

With the sim it seems to be power up pull back and that is it.

 

The really good thing about phoenix is the infinite tweaks so you can (when you have flown your model for real) tweak the control throws/expo/dual rates/c of g and size etc to match your model quite well.

 

I have a funtana 90 which is a real beast to start with in phoenix but with reduced throws and expo built in you can get it flying close to the real thing.

 

The other thing that is different in phoenix is the instant and 100% reliable throttle which will get you out of trouble in the sim but you have to be aware that real models are less reliable and generally do not throttle instantly.

 

Overall I would say that Phoenix is realistic but generally after you have flown a model so you can tweak the sim (and it doesnt matter if you crash)

 

I really like phoenix and to me the best thing for newbies is that it teaches muscle memory thereby making flying more instinctive when you finally fly a real model.

 

Steve

[John Tee]

I found the Blade CX2 contra rotating heli just like the real model. I also recently bought the Eflite 4site micro indoor model, but not got it set up correctly due either to a cg or thrust line problem as it stands on its tail as soon as it takes off. The one on pheonix flies as I would expect. I am in the process of building an Hirobo Sceadu 50 heli but not ready to fly it yet. I've tried it on Pheonix and it is not as difficult to control as I expected sensitive but managable. Not tried playing with the wind settings yet only out of the box settings.

 

John

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

There are two aspects to accuracy in a simulator:

 

1. The accuracy of the physics model - ie do the planes fly like planes?

 

2. The accuracy of the representation of individual particular models - ie does katana fly like a real katana etc?

 

Generally speaking I think as regards basic flying, the physics models in Phoenix are as realistic as they are on any other sim - which is to say they are superficially realistic, they basically do what you would expect. But they do have some major areas in which they are not realistic - for example it seems to me to be impossible to provoke a high speed stall in Phoenix - or a flick out of a high G move or a ground torque reaction (as refered to above) not matter how high you have the torque set! Presumably the physics for these is simply not in the model. Is that a problem - well I'd say 99% not. For basic flying, and even some quite advanced aeros, the physics is accurate enough. And if you are likely to get yourself into high speed stall territory then you should be aware of the limitations of sims!

 

I've tended to find that more advanced you become in your flying then the less "realistic" you need the sim to be - I know that sounds strange but I have reasons for my belief. When you are a beginer you don't know what it feels like to just fly normally - so you need it realistic. But when you are more advanced and trying say to learn to fly "knife edge" for example I think its it all about "muscle memory"! In otherwords acquiring the instincts as to which way to move the sticks when the model goes out of line one way or the other. The sim doesn't have to be super accurate to learn this - just basically right. The only way you going to finally learn this is by doing it for real - but at least before you try at the field you want to have your fingers basically "conditioned" to do the right thing. Even a fairly crude sim can do this.

 

Regarding are the models in Phoenix accurate in terms of their renditions of the flying characteristics of their real cousins? Well I can't comment extensively as I don't have, or haven't flown, all the models in Phoenix. But I do have a experience of some. Of those I conculde the following general points:

 

1. The aerobatic types - ie Extras, Pitts etc. - are generally speaking reasonably accurate and feel quite like the actual model. Except in hi-g as stated above.

 

2. The basic trainers are quite realistic.

 

3. The scale models are mixed bag. Some like the Tiggie and the Camel are quite realistic. Others, like the bigger Spitfire, feel slow, underpowered and easier to fly than the models to me.

 

But the glaring error is the WOT4. They use a flat bottomed section wing with dihedral and very small aileron movement - result it flies like a Irvine Tutor! As I've said before, change the section to something like NACA0015, set the wing incidence at +2 degrees, remove all dihedral and increase the aileron throw by at least 50% and you'll have something more like a WOT4!

 

BEB

[John Cole]

I suggest that choosing your next model based on how the Phoenix simulator model flies is being a bit hopeful. My experience of simulators (but not Phoenix) is that the physics can be good but the detailed representation of the aero characteristics of specific models is not. Indeed I have found that sometimes many models share a single aero representation.

[Steve W-O]

I like Phoenix mainly for the choices, flexibility and flying fields, but I remain unconvinced that the use for practice is any better than planemaster.

 

It's a bit like ms fs, for blind ILS approaches, or instrument navigation, it is as good as the real thing.

 

The planes are reasonably realistic to, but I can consistently with ease land a fully loaded 737 at London City, on a wet runway, and not end up in the drink.

 

In real life the engines would be charcoal trying, and the discs would be so hot they would melt the tyres. And that is with the realism set on high, stress causes damage etc

 

 

I still think one has to accept that the sims are fine for some aspects, but they will never simulate the real flight, and they will never allow a beginner a seamless transition from simulator to field.

 

I think in Ian's case, there is another barrier, maybe nervousness, maybe the feeling of everyone watching.

[IanR]

Steve, crossed threads, I think, but you're right about me. Not so much the feeling of everyone watching - they're a grand bunch of lads with not a critical/cynical word from any one of them. But yes, nervousness. I'll try and get over it on the flying field and not in front of the monitor.

 

Cheers

Ian