Does anyone have a tweak or fix for this? I always need about 60% to get her moving, and then 45% N1 to keep her moving!Thankshttp://www.alfaone.co.uk/bab/images/bab.gifhttp://www.alfaone.co.uk/767pic

I heard this is "built" into the FS2002 itself - you can say it is the limitation of the FS series.Michael J.

yeah, but look at the default King Air. That aircraft just wants to takeoff on the taxiway at idle, even with an almost feathered prop. Very strange indeed...Evan

I read somewhere (maybe Dreamfleet forum) that it was partially due to the wrong friction coefficient used for the ground. Microsoft used a value of 1.6 instead of 1.3 (or something like that). That means planes need a lot more thrust to start and keep going than in the real world. At the end of the day, it still boils down to the fact that planes were not meant to be driven. They suck on the ground. (Hey!, perhaps that sucking action is the reason we need such high initial thrust :))

Hmmm, "Brake Off?"(SORRY just had to do that)Timothy

Well - with King Air there is a different kind of problem. They simply did a very poor job of implementing the beta range of the prop (even the looks of the pedestal is wrong). For reasons like that I never fly default planes.Michael J.

Hmm, "Try the tely tubies forum, you would fit in well?"(SORRY just had to do that)Thankshttp://www.alfaone.co.uk/bab/images/bab.gifhttp://www.alfaone.co.uk/767pic

This is a design flaw in FS. The only way to correct it would be to increase the low throttle engine thrust to unrealistic values which would create unrealistic behaviour in the air, so better to leave it alone I think. Right now the 767 air file produces exactly the right engine thrust at idle (~2500lbs/engine).

Good point. You change one variable in the PIC, and it will affect a dozen others. Fix one problem, cause 20 others.I like her just the way she is, why mess with it? I would rather have the realism in the air rather than on the ground any day.Reminds me of people messing/tweaking fuel scalars and the like, then fiding out the drag(s) calcs were off and a variety of other changes resulted....resulting in an aircraft no longer flew the same, but hey, the fuel burn was "right" ;-)Not worth messing with IMHO.Rob.

AlL:There is a tweak for this but it requires familiarity with AirEd. I have adjusted my aircraft to a realistic idle thrust taxi at light load. My favorite 757 requires about 40% to break loose and then idle to taxi at 10-15 kts with half load of fuel.JS

And what other variables have you affected with the tweak??? Will any of the basic forces be affected (thrust/drag/lift/etc)? I know I sound paranoid, but I have been surprised and disappointed by the "harmless" tweaks people have posted...that then lead to a series of flaming posts and everyone goes home upset ;-)Rob.

Exactly Rob. Steve Small made a great post on this subject shortly after the DF734 was released and someone wanted to edit the airfile that Steve had created for the DF Team. Steve said no. The guy kept saying that he knew of particular "tweaks" that would effectively change some function without altering any other functions. From what Steve said, it just isn't possible in most situations. Make the plane behave well in one phase and it screws everything up in other phases.As I spend all of maybe 1% of my PIC time on the ground and the other 99% in the air, I'll take good air handling characteristics any day over taxi performance.

Actually Ben, it isn't as far fetched as it seems....Kellogg (US manufacturer of breakfast stuff) had this Falcon at Chicago-Meigs. It is rather a short field for such an animal. So it taxiied into position, put on its parking brake and waited for its release.Well, tower issued clearance and the pilots poured on the power. As they went down the runway they couldn't understand why they were not building up any airspeed.....and off the end they went...splashThey got out of the sinking bird-and during the investigation the FAA/NTSB discovered the parking brake was still on. Its the simple things that can kill us the quickest.Also there is a "fix" that inhibits the red-text indicator from being displayed. And someone used it, got real confused and irrate when he couldn't taxi..... Timothy

It is too bad, you would think MS could make some decent default planes with a great flight simulator. I do enjoy the cessna 172 though :)

It probably is an MSFS problem, but there is an interesting angle to it in the real world. The 767's (real ones, that is!) generally want to start moving by themselves, even at heavy weights. It doesn't take much thrust to get them moving and keep them moving, unless you are going up hills, such as at Paris CDG.The 757, on the other hand, seems to have square wheels, regardless of weight. My experience is that it takes a lot of thrust, at least in terms of throttle movement, to get these girls moving, and frequent "gooses" of the throttles to keep them going. Thank God we don't fly them into CDG! So in a back door kind of way, this behavior is approporate, at least for the 757-200 series!