How do I stop slewing violently to the left or right?

[LAdamson 240]

If you wish to pursue this crusade, Morten, go for it. However, I believe Tom Kyler graciously helped Larry with tweaking the Vans aircraft to get it how Larry liked it. If that didn't change his perception, temper your expectations.

He did, to a point. But ran out of time. Apparently, it's a rather time consuming job, and I much appreciated it. It even made X-Plane interesting and fun for a while. And when ever I fire up X-Plane.................there it is, my colorful RV with invasion stripes and checkered tail.However, while improving some flight characteristics in the last build, the plane then started diving towards the ground whenever the throttle was pulled back for landing. And at that point, no flight or engine controls would do anything to prevent it, short of hitting the pause button. So when I do use it, I use the previous build that wasn't near as close in regards to throttle settings and speed, but at least is landable. And best of all, the simulated RV didn't pitch up with flap deployment as the "simplistic, unpainted" defaults do.Like I said, I much appreciated what was accomplished, and for that very reason I'll support his Falco. After all, the Falco is much along the lines of my RV in size, engine, and performance. Both utilize a sliding canopy which I think is great for adding some extra peripheral vision.Now, you know the full story...L.Adamson

[60North 120]

Ok, so if we "fix" the Vans will you let XP live in peace?M

[Aerodynamic 0]

He did, to a point. But ran out of time. Apparently, it's a rather time consuming job, and I much appreciated it. It even made X-Plane interesting and fun for a while. And when ever I fire up X-Plane.................there it is, my colorful RV with invasion stripes and checkered tail.However, while improving some flight characteristics in the last build, the plane then started diving towards the ground whenever the throttle was pulled back for landing. And at that point, no flight or engine controls would do anything to prevent it, short of hitting the pause button. So when I do use it, I use the previous build that wasn't near as close in regards to throttle settings and speed, but at least is landable. And best of all, the simulated RV didn't pitch up with flap deployment as the "simplistic, unpainted" defaults do.Like I said, I much appreciated what was accomplished, and for that very reason I'll support his Falco. After all, the Falco is much along the lines of my RV in size, engine, and performance. Both utilize a sliding canopy which I think is great for adding some extra peripheral vision.Now, you know the full story...L.Adamson

Tom seems like a heck of a nice guy, I'm glad he made that effort for you. He mentioned that he is updating his MU2 and encouraged me to give that a try. I likely will. I have heard good things.I will agree that there is a terribly small amount of aircraft for X-Plane that "feel" right. I'm not a pilot yet (starting training soon) nor am I a developer. But some of the stuff I have tried in X-Plane seems really off. I have tinkered with my yoke settings in game and sometimes aircraft seem way too sensitive to inputs. I find myself porpoising with some of the aircraft I have tried. Others do not do that on the same settings. Therefore I must conclude that it is just the way the plane was made or the way the plane reacted to some of the updates to the sim.I think it goes with what was mentioned earlier, that the results achieved are directly related to the quality of input/research. I don't think it's necessarily always X-Plane's fault. There are just a small amount of people developing for X-Plane that really know what to do to make things as realistic as possible. The number is growing, slowly. I heard from Tom that there are some nice improvements on the way in X-Plane 10. It may be a ways off, but I think the quality of the default aircraft will be improved. Aside from the Cessna, Cirrus, and Malibu, I find most of the current X-Plane default aircraft pretty dismal. There are, however, a lot of things that I really enjoy about X-Plane. With improved aircraft on the way, I think you may be surprised at some point soon.X-Plane, I have learned, takes a bit of patience. Patience to learn how to set up, patience to learn how to use addons. Patience when it comes to development. (I'm not always patient, but I'm trying!) I was not trying to pick at you, Larry. Hope I didn't come across that way. There is a place for X-Plane constructive criticism, and that is to make improvements. I guess sometimes you come across as an FSX a really excited user that doesn't care about improving X-Plane, which is what this forum is all about for users. Maybe your true intent is lost in the type. Not sure.Scott

[LAdamson 240]

Ok, so if we "fix" the Vans will you let XP live in peace?M

Sure, with one condition. A kind of a "big" condition... :( I no longer care to see marketing, that insinuates that MSFS is for scenery viewing, while X-Plane is for those who are truly interested in flight. Let's face it, for many, the campaign has worked! And it's constantly thrown around at the org., almost daily. In reality, the FAA status means very little. The X-Plane "old timers" will verify that.The best solution here, is to promote BOTH sims. One is not flight, while the other is arcade. Both ARE simulations, as well as games..........period! And I'll be as happy as can be, to promote that idea everywhere! I've attempted to do just that at X Pilot.com. The org. is nearly fanatical, as if MSFS is a dirty word. It's kind of comical.Thanks for listening..L.Adamson