Nothing can really compensate for a sensitive-in-pitch flight model. The underlying flaw will still be there. I hasten to add I haven't tried the Seneca so this is a general point. Apart from the somewhat coarse pitch stability tweak in the cfg file, which again doesn't really solve an underlying flaw but does make it less prominent, stick sensitivity settings in FSX are quite important. Overall the FSX sensitivity settings don't, or shouldn't, reduce the maximum pitch or bank capability of a given aircraft. What they do is make a steeper or shallower input exponential curve. Using high sensitivity the first quarter or third of movement on your input device is somewhat exaggerated and then falls off nearer the end of travel. By contrast low sensitivity provides for a gentler initial reaction which then exponentially increases as you get to the end of joystick travel.Personally I like to set an exponential curve in the flight model itself (gentle beginning, stronger end) because most domestic joysticks have a very very short range...a matter of three or four inches compared with maybe one or even two feet of movement on a generous real joystick. That means that for a given desired pitch or bank change you are using up to a fifth or less of the movement required on a real joystick or yoke. That makes "games" joysticks intrinsically over-sensitve and the practical solution to this is to lessen the pitch response, provided it doesn't compromise the overall positive or negative G capability of a given aircraft. This is where it takes hours and hours of tweaking to get a good compromise.The realism settings, and especially the top slider "general sensitivity" have an entirely different function. With anything less than maximum general realism, the flight model is always dumbed down and this results in easier control, much more slick roll movements and a host of flight model detail being disabled, including the ability to spin or side slip, because a less than max setting wipes out a lot of detail in the relationship between pitch and lift, and roll and lift. Thus, if a flight model has been designed to use max realism, you should never ever reduce the general realism slider from max. Even one tiny increment back from max dumbs down the flight model. But some good flight modellers set their dynamics to respond well to less than maximum and if this is a deliberate ploy then it's perfectly ok to set the general slider to the recommended settings of each developer. All the RealAir aircraft are calibrated for max general realism, as are all the aircraft I've co-designed (Eaglesoft, PSS, FeelThere, Just Flight, Maam Sim, Jan Visser etc).On the other hand, helicopters are almost impossible to control properly with the realism slider maxed out because the core FS flght model engine is not really designed for them, and most choppers respond more realistically with this set to half to two thirds.The torque and p factor sliders merely damp or exaggerate the tendency to swing at high angles of attack or on take off runs, or to torque-revolve the fuselage in the opposite direction to that of the prop rotation. These two controls do not fundamentally change anything in the rest of the core flight model.Hope this helps!Best Wishes,Rob Young

Rob,I find it interesting that the posts subsequent to yours ignored your inspired knowledge and comments around the true underlying problems with the Carenado flight models (it isn't just the Seneca - the problems are there with the Arrow too), in favour of scratching the surface of the problem, or trying to push the point that there is no problem with the Seneca FDE and we are all wrong, or have our FS settings wrong.Rob, I fear that until Carenado drop you an email about getting your FDE magic into their visual magic, the simple fact is that where Carenado have true skill in visual modelling, they are quite weak at FDE design and we'll have to continue to tweak the heck out of each Carenado release. (Saying that, I'd still buy everything they release).I'd just like to say finally Rob that your work in FDE is of the same esteem and quality as Carenado's visuals. When I see your name credited in a release (RealAir or otherwise), I know it's gonna be a beauty to fly!David.

On the other hand, helicopters are almost impossible to control properly with the realism slider maxed out because the core FS flght model engine is not really designed for them, and most choppers respond more realistically with this set to half to two thirds.

Hi Rob,I find that most FSX choppers are very forgiving. And the payware Dodosim 206 FSX is challenging yet controllable with all realism sliders to max. That is by the way the recommendation of the developers. Of course joysticks must be set accordingly.

Rob,I find it interesting that the posts subsequent to yours ignored your inspired knowledge and comments around the true underlying problems with the Carenado flight models (it isn't just the Seneca - the problems are there with the Arrow too), in favour of scratching the surface of the problem, or trying to push the point that there is no problem with the Seneca FDE and we are all wrong, or have our FS settings wrong.Rob, I fear that until Carenado drop you an email about getting your FDE magic into their visual magic, the simple fact is that where Carenado have true skill in visual modelling, they are quite weak at FDE design and we'll have to continue to tweak the heck out of each Carenado release. (Saying that, I'd still buy everything they release).I'd just like to say finally Rob that your work in FDE is of the same esteem and quality as Carenado's visuals. When I see your name credited in a release (RealAir or otherwise), I know it's gonna be a beauty to fly!David.

Hi David, That's kind of you and appreciated, but I ought to reiterate that my post was a general comment about twitchy FDEs and definitely not a swipe at Carenado whose products I haven't tried - but they've always looked very well made to me. Regards,Rob Young

Rob,I find it interesting that the posts subsequent to yours ignored your inspired knowledge and comments around the true underlying problems with the Carenado flight models (it isn't just the Seneca - the problems are there with the Arrow too), in favour of scratching the surface of the problem, or trying to push the point that there is no problem with the Seneca FDE and we are all wrong, or have our FS settings wrong.Rob, I fear that until Carenado drop you an email about getting your FDE magic into their visual magic, the simple fact is that where Carenado have true skill in visual modelling, they are quite weak at FDE design and we'll have to continue to tweak the heck out of each Carenado release. (Saying that, I'd still buy everything they release).I'd just like to say finally Rob that your work in FDE is of the same esteem and quality as Carenado's visuals. When I see your name credited in a release (RealAir or otherwise), I know it's gonna be a beauty to fly!David.

David-I find your post puzzling. I don't own any other Carenado titles but I do own this one and I find the fm quite believable.I certainly don't ignore Rob's advice and consider his works some of the best in fs world-but scratching the surface etc. or pushing the point there is no problem with the fm? I consider myself in neither camp. The control settings were posted in a spirit of helpfulness in case that could be the problem. It seems you took it differently. (and by the way-the control sensitivity posts were made before Rob's post)-I am genuinely puzzled at the reports here.I find this my favorite aircraft right now because it fly's just a lot more like my aircraft in performance than anything else out there right now. I don't have twitchy issues and I don't find the pitch over done. That is my opinion.

Hi all,I just installed the Seneca (installer included the fix) and took the lady for a short trip. Flies perfectly well. Pitch and roll sensitivity is comparable to other twin aircraft that I fly in FSX. I use a Saitek Yoke and CH pedals. All axis assignments are handled by FSUIPC. No need for any tweaks in the aircraft.cfg here.

-I am genuinely puzzled at the reports here. I don't have twitchy issues and I don't find the pitch over done. That is my opinion.

Geof, just to add to your "puzzlement"... When you pull back on the throttle and propellor lever a bit afterfull take-off power, does your head not rock forward and back... I particularly notice it when lookingto the forward/left and seeing the window pillar rock back and forth relative to the left engine..

Geof, just to add to your "puzzlement"... When you pull back on the throttle and propellor lever a bit afterfull take-off power, does your head not rock forward and back... I particularly notice it when lookingto the forward/left and seeing the window pillar rock back and forth relative to the left engine..

I'll give it a try a little later when home and report back

Geof, just to add to your "puzzlement"... When you pull back on the throttle and propellor lever a bit afterfull take-off power, does your head not rock forward and back... I particularly notice it when lookingto the forward/left and seeing the window pillar rock back and forth relative to the left engine..

Yes it does! Strange...

I have a PPL/IMC - I've flown the Arrow in real life and am currently training for my MEP on a Seneca here at Oxford Kidlington so would like to think I am reasonably qualified to comment on these two aircraft.I agree with David on this. I have both the Carenado Arrow and their Seneca. Both exhibit quite odd flight characteristics, expecially on take-off. You'd have to have the elevator trim well back (and then some!) to replicate the Carenado Seneca's "harrier like" take off (problem is with that angle of attack the stall warner would be bleeping like hell!)TrafficPilot

I have a PPL/IMC - I've flown the Arrow in real life and am currently training for my MEP on a Seneca here at Oxford Kidlington so would like to think I am reasonably qualified to comment on these two aircraft.I agree with David on this. I have both the Carenado Arrow and their Seneca. Both exhibit quite odd flight characteristics, expecially on take-off. You'd have to have the elevator trim well back (and then some!) to replicate the Carenado Seneca's "harrier like" take off (problem is with that angle of attack the stall warner would be bleeping like hell!)TrafficPilot

Yes but was the Arrow that you've flown the T-Tail, or the standard (pre '80) model? They fly very differently.Mind you, I'm not defending the Carenado flight model - both the Arrow and the Seneca are pigs in terms of their flight models. Carenado sure can model a stunning looking aircraft and VC, but they need someone like Rob Young on board to seriously improve their dodgy flight models.

Geoff,No Beef here :( ........... I just felt that Rob's post was ignored, and that given that he is a true genius of flight modelling, that seemed odd in a debate about a flight model.I appreciate some people are happy with the Carenado Seneca's flight model, but many of us equally feel that the quality and 'feel' that you get with the likes of a RealAir or Eaglesoft flight model, just isn't there with the Carenado Seneca and Arrow.

Yes but was the Arrow that you've flown the T-Tail, or the standard (pre '80) model? They fly very differently.Mind you, I'm not defending the Carenado flight model - both the Arrow and the Seneca are pigs in terms of their flight models. Carenado sure can model a stunning looking aircraft and VC, but they need someone like Rob Young on board to seriously improve their dodgy flight models.

T-Tail. Have been discussing this in the other thread on the Carenado Seneca. Conclusion from flying it last night (much like yours)..rubbish FDE nice eye-candy.The DA Cheyenne still rates as my favourite most immersive and accurate FSX twin prop addon. RealAir Duke comes second only because my framerates plummet when ever I try and fly it.RegardsTrafficPilotPS: Yes if Rob Young re-wrote the Seneca FDE I'd definitely give it a go again. I still fly the RealAir 172 in FSX - it flies just like our real one:)

T-Tail. Have been discussing this in the other thread on the Carenado Seneca. Conclusion from flying it last night (much like yours)..rubbish FDE nice eye-candy.The DA Cheyenne still rates as my favourite most immersive and accurate FSX twin prop addon. RealAir Duke comes second only because my framerates plummet when ever I try and fly it.RegardsTrafficPilotPS: Yes if Rob Young re-wrote the Seneca FDE I'd definitely give it a go again. I still fly the RealAir 172 in FSX - it flies just like our real one:)

Gotta say-the Carenado flies close to my Baron with of course the limitations of fsx and a non motion static monitor..very happy with it. It certainly isn't gonna fly like a 172. Interested in what makes it rubbish? If you are talking the prop sounds which seems to be a fs limit-I am with you-manifold shouldn't change them-prop should-but all fs aircraft seem to have this limitation.Of course this is the best-just experienced it at Oshkosh (and a 172 sim)-but it costs about $60,000 USD or so-I want one. Did some stalls, chandelles, landings and it is the next step...http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=256065I'd rather have the Red Dog-but very happy with many of the titles-including the Seneca and Duke for a fraction of the cost-molto fraction of the cost.Thanks to Ron of Eaglesoft for arranging the 1/2 hour ride for me-it was "as real as it gets". I am not sure who took the video but have a feeling it was Ron..