Accurc

pvolcko

Well-Known Member
Some more thoughts:

- Faster machine definitely improved the response on the stick inputs on the Tx.

- This is a bit of a pig on system resources. I put it on my i7 2.4ghz 8GB Ram laptop and it does run much smoother than my initial test machine (i3 in the living room hooked up to the project screen). Even on this one, though, it runs best if I bump the graphics back to 1280x768. In that resolution it will run with full detail and anti-aliasing settings without missing a beat. Response on the sticks is snappy. All good. At 1920x1080 (Full HD res) even with details and anti-aliasing turned all the way back, it was skipping and lurching at times.

- Choosing models is unnecessarily complicated. You basically need to select a model from it's library, add it to your hangar (by giving it a name), and then you have to switch screens and select the model from the hangar. Then you edit as you wish. Seems overly complex and took a little while to figure out. Becuase models in the workshop automatically save all your edits to them as you do them the adding to the hangar step is necessary. Otherwise you'd be editing a default model that hasn't been differentiated from your other saved models, perhaps of the same base type. Seems there should have been a more fluid and natural way to do all this though. As it is now it is non-intuitive.

- So far I've played with the default model type (Synergy 700), a TRex 700E, a TRex 500E, and a Goblin 700. Have made some tweaks on the FBL system to get roll rates I'm used, to, etc. Played around a bit with editing blade selection and whatnot. The potential is interesting with what you can do with this in terms of mixing and match parts and getting actual modeled parts. Blades, servos, ESCs, batteries, etc. You could potentially build a model you want to own in the sim and try it out. Not sure how many companies will be interested in getting their stuff in the sim, though. And modeling this stuff requires either detailed specs from the manufacturers or the AccuRC team has to do a lot of empirical data collection and measuring, etc. to be able to model it in the sim accurately. I have my doubts as to if there will be much more going into the sim as result.

- The flight modeling is pretty good on that default synergy model, also the Goblin 700. There are noticable differences in control behavior and flight behavior between the two. Even differences in the noise each makes (aggressiveness of the blade farts, etc.). The synergy seems to be sturdier on ground contacts, the goblin falls apart at even minor contacts. Goblin a bit more nimble and precise feeling. The TRex models... I don't know what's going on there. They seem to be underpowered compared to real life. Under load the motor sounds bog a lot more than expected, and the power sag is so much the tail starts to spin rather easily. On steep dives or high power tight flips the TRex models seem to go out of control for a second, continuing the flip or flipping of their own volition. I know that such things can happen in real life due to blade stalls and other high speed issues, but it only appears to happen on the TRex models so far. The Synergy and Goblin models appear to be much more stable at high speed maneuvers and high load maneuvers. I don't know why this is.

- The flight modeling, particularly for 3D type maneuvers, is amazingly good. It really is something the AccuRC team can be proud of. And if you find that a model isn't quite right, you can tweak the FBL settings to more closely match what you're used to (more or less locked in, higher/lower gain settings, slight mismatch on min and max pitch, mismatched zeroing on swash at low, mid, and high stick, etc.). Unlike with other sims where you are tweaking parameters that are about impersonating real life behavior and physics, this sim does it's level best to model the real world accurately in a way the other majors sims do not even attempt. Because of this, AccuRC "parameters" are exactly what you're used to tweaking in order to get a model working right. FBL settings, Rx settings, mechanical setup, etc. Different blades will produce different damping on roll rates and high speed effects, etc. It is really amazing.

- As a piece of user software, it isn't quite ready for prime time, in my opinion. I've had a few crashes. I've been able to get it into a situation where a resolution change that my monitor didn't support would leave the app running in the background but unable to bring it to the foreground. There is a lack of popups or in app help on much of the application system settings which leaves you guessing what their effect might be. The flight environment vs the workshop is an interesting concept, but there are certain things you can only do in the workshop (such as app settings) which really shouldn't be restricted to that area of the app. Camera settings for flight mode can only be tweaked from workshop. There's more but you get the idea. Hopefully they'll be working on updates to get the spit and polish on it.


I'm going to work on a flight behavior comparison between phoenix and accurc at this point. Probably using the TRex line of helis as a comparison. Maybe goblin, if they're in Pheonix (can't remember).
 

pvolcko

Well-Known Member
Some more reaction as I switch back and forth with AccuRC and Phoenix.

AccuRC was not all hype. They definitely have something special here. And it has a lot of potential to become a mainstream sim game changer. I do not think they're there yet, though. They've definitely upped the ante in terms of flight behavior realism and have brought something new to the table for how these aircraft are modeled and manipulated in the editor by the user. Unfortunately, it is a processor hog by it's very nature, it lacks many features that have been standards in these sims for a few years now, and it has all the user interface friendliness of a late 1990's CAD program.

I'm not convinced that the realism of their in-flight behavior simulation is enough to overcome their more app centric short comings. Not when there are user generated models for Realflight and phoenix that come pretty darn close to hitting the mark in terms of flight behavior in all but the edge cases (high load power sag effects, high speed and high pitch blade aerodynamic effects, etc.). $150 is a big investment for many people and most will not be willing to part with that cash when they're already using Realflight or Phoenix, get the benefits of online multiplayer, in-flight tutorials, in-flight games/scenarios, and other niceties (along with years of work to get the user interface niceties worked into things).

People seeking the best in in-flight behavior simulation will want this and love it despite the shortcomings. Companies wanting to model their product ideas before going through the expense of generating a real-world model for testing will like this quite a bit, assuming AccuRC will play ball with them. People that have given up siming because it doesn't feel right will likely want to give this a try, and will probably like it quite a bit, especially for trying out new maneuvers or piecing together ideas for flight routines (I forgot to mention, AccuRC includes a built in MP3 player so you can work on music accompanied flight routines or simply listen to some tunes while in sim).

- Phoenix is much easier on the processing power and resource requirements of the computer. Smooth as silk on my i3 4GB RAM system. AccuRC, not so much. At lowest settings I can not get rid of a latency problem with the mouse inputs and transmitter inputs (using wired buddy box type connection). Once the sim recognizes the input the graphics and overall response can be made to be smooth at lowest quality settings, but it isn't the greatest thing to look at. However, on an i7 8GB laptop AccuRC is smooth and you can use just about highest quality settings available on 1280x720 resolution. At full hd (1920x1080) it gets choppy even at significantly lowered quality settings. I have yet to try it on my fastest system.

- The overall user experience is, imo, much nicer on Phoenix. There is a lot more "spit and polish" on it by comparison. Double clicks on rollout controls open up the controls (in accurc you need to click the rollout icon or + sign), selecting new models, editing models, etc is far more straight forward in Phoenix (advanced mode editing in Phoenix is arguably more complicated compared to AccuRC though). Presence of online multi-player in Phoenix is a big plus. Along with airplanes, sailplanes, etc. These things are coming for AccuRC, but who knows when. I like the accurc workshop concept and full 3D rendering, etc. But the complication of how they force you to do model selection from the hangar, name and add it to your models list, and then select the model from your personal model list before it will actually load into the workshop for flying and/or editing is non-intuitive at best.

- Flight mode graphics, even on highest settings, in AccuRC are not that great compared to Phoenix. With version 5 Phoenix stepped up it's graphics rendering in flight with far more detailed blade rendering. Both while spinning up on the ground (pitch based rendering differences int he blade disc, etc.) and while in flight (very nice specular light reflections against the disc, more visually compelling model renderings, etc.)

- Again, AccuRC, even on my slow i3 system, is better at modeling flight dynamics, wind effects, thrust/weight ratios, power sags (both load induced and battery discharge state induced). Editing a model in AccuRC is to swap components or tweak "real life" FBL type settings on a virtually modeled (down to the T) FBL controller that's controlling modeled (again, down to the T) servos, connected through linkage (modeled fully) to blade grips and blades (modeled fully). It really is amazing what they've done from an engineering standpoint. but...

So what? Does the mainstream, average sim buyer care about the best in-flight behavior simulation when stacked up against all the negatives of the current AccuRC offering and the ability to tweak other sim models to get close enough (or use a model supplied by another user that has already gone to the trouble)?
 

Lee

Well-Known Member
Nice write up Paul.
I think I'll wait for a few upgrades before parting with my cash :)
 

MikeRO

New Member
Just put v 1.5 on low spec laptop. Works a treat. I'm not an expert and am learning so much with this simple. Getting into nose in hover without the crash expense.
 
lets hear the newest gossip on the sim. If I'm correct the last post was over a year ago. What's the latest, I want that sim. Its so sexxy, yes an extra X! So lets hear it, good and bad.
 
Top Bottom