To: Ian Scott Cessna 172 Flight Model - RealAir

[LAdamson 240]

I think Ian needs to learn to fly radio control for a while. This might help with the feeling of twitchniness & over control in pitch..I've flown both R/C as well as the real ones, and our home controls are somewhere between the very small sticks of an R/C transmitter, and the full size stick/yoke.From reading Ian's review, and knowing the limitations of our P/C controls, some R/C "little stick" sensitivity practice wouldn't hurt! :) FWIW --- I don't think I've met a "real" pilot who didn't over control an R/C plane the first time. And that goes for 767 captains also :)It's the same thing in this simulation, as I don't "personally" percieve the FS2004 172's pitch properties to be a problem. I guess that's what realism settings are for, in case things need to be dumbed down a bit. L.Adamson

[Guest Douglas K]

>It's the same thing in this simulation, as I don't "personally" percieve the FS2004 172's pitch properties to be a problem. I guess that's what realism settings are for, in case things need to be dumbed down a bit.

[Avcomware 1]

Mr. SAdamson.Why don't you try to learn to fly, Real Airplanes instead, then compare. Last I checked this was not a "RC simulator", look around there are other games that do that. As a pilot your comments look very foolish and ridiculous. RA airfile, and some from Ron are at this point still better models then the just released models. TV>I think Ian needs to learn to fly radio control for a while. This might help with the feeling of twitchniness & over control in pitch..

[nudata 10]

Hmmmm,For instance, you might have said that "perhaps Ian is reacting too strongly to the twitchiness". "It may be the size of the controls that is at issue." "I have found that small controls often make an otherwise viable aircraft difficult to control:. While more words it is also more gentle - as in gentleman. And, perhaps you are correct, the controls may cause a tendancy to over control but I suggest that one should INVITE Discussion and not imply an absolute. In fact the implication of absolutes is a strong tendancy on the Internet. People making overly strong statements to bolster, or bluster, their positions. A simple statement that invites discussion and does not deal with the character of the poster, directly or indirectly, will be more welcome to all.Yes, we are all guilty of involving the personality or character of a poster in a response to them. It is all too easy to dash of a hasty note based on your upset stomach.Dick KLBE

[LAdamson 240]

Avcomware.........Your the _______________ (fill in the blank) that told Rob Young that his RealAir Cessna 172 update wasn't any good either! :-( P.S. ---- as a flight instructor, have you yet noticed that the AI is still adjustable, just as in FS2002. You claimed it had a problem.......... what was it?I look foolish!!!? It's "you" that's still trying to pass off FLYII as the perfect simulator!! :) Who else wrote that FLYII is the simulator that others try to be, and that even FS2004 failed..L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

"And, perhaps you are correct, the controls may cause a tendancy to over control but I suggest that one should INVITE Discussion and not imply an absolute."Problem is, when I read one of these reviews............... the words coming out of the "authors" mouth, keyboard or whatever---- seem to be an absolute!Part of the 172 review:In fairness, I have to say that the 172 in FS2004 does have an improved flight model and seems less "twitchy" than it did in FS2002, but it is still difficult to tame the beast and achieve smooth transitions from climb or descent to level flight. Please trust me when I say that I do know how to level off from a climb and trim an airplane for straight and level flight. But you would have every reason to doubt that statement if you watched me trying to do the introductory lesson in FS2004! The "instructor" (more on this in my upcoming contribution to AVSIM'S review of the flight training aspects of FS2004) was as unimpressed by my efforts as I would have been back when I was a flight instructor 30 years ago.Okay, I trust that he knows how to level off from a climb, and trim for straight and level...... in the real 172. But just because he can't seem to do it within the simulation isn't exactly the sims fault! I know that "fact" because I CAN.....Yes, the air.file isn't perfect in all ways; but yet with my controls, I don't have any problem with self induced PIO, or twitchy transitions. But to read the article, you'd think that's just the way it is! Now I DO have a non-pilot friend who knows aircraft controls, but constantly get's twitchy oscillations with my simulator. And note........... this has nothing to do with ability of flying a real 172. It's more about personal observations with the simulator, that will have many variables.L.Adamson

[Avcomware 1]

Hi, SAdamson.Your disrespect for people that know what they are talking about and are trying to help this community and M$ for that matter of fact, is phenomenal.I am afraid there is no hope for you, try to work and buy your sim next time, instead of begging and compromising your integrity for $45.00.What I said about RA air file was that it was not perfect, and the person that created it agreed with me. You went around trying to pass this a PERFECT model, including exact Spin behavior, and you were wrong again. I recommended that air file from the day it came out, not perfect but a lot better than the Flying chewing gum that came with 2k2.The main problem with that release was the installer, that could not handle a modified directories / names of the files involved, and as far as I know that may still be a problem?The air files for 72 in Fs9 is a lot better than 2k2, but still marginal at best, the proof is in the file I just mentioned. That said, neither one will do a level slow flight with the stall horn on, have you any knowledge of that maneuver? And there are many other issues that I am sure you will never understand.That

[LAdamson 240]

>What I said about RA air file was that it was not perfect, and>the person that created it agreed with me. You went around>trying to pass this a PERFECT model, including exact Spin>behavior, and you were wrong again. Did I say that? Find it............. :-( L.Adamson

[MadDog 353]

Larry,You know I respect your opinion and many of your observations (i.e. your analysis of Fly! has been dead-on accurate from the start) - you also know we tend to disagree occasionally; but I find your latest statements extraordinarily perplexing....>Okay, I trust that he knows how to level off from a climb, and>trim for straight and level...... in the real 172. But just>because he can't seem to do it within the simulation isn't>exactly the sims fault! I know that "fact" because I>CAN.....Yeah, I CAN too... but that doesn't make it right. Calling it a "sim" implies that it is trying "simulate" reality. If a pilot can do it in a real C172, then he should be able to do it in Flight Simulator without altering his/her technique! I say it IS the sim's fault.>Yes, the air.file isn't perfect in all ways; but yet with my>controls, I don't have any problem with self induced PIO, or>twitchy transitions. But to read the article, you'd think>that's just the way it is! Now I DO have a non-pilot friend>who knows aircraft controls, but constantly get's twitchy>oscillations with my simulator.That's because he's not a pilot... and he's having to learn how to apply his knowledge of aircraft dynamics on a platform that is much more sensitive to control inputs than the real thing. Once he figures out how to fly in Flight Simulator, he'll find that flying a real C172 is a piece-of-cake.>And note........... this has nothing to do with ability of>flying a real 172. It's more about personal observations with>the simulator, that will have many variables.How about these variables? Fly the Learjet, the King Air, or any other "default" high-performance aircraft in light to moderate turbulence. Try to keep them within +/- 50 feet of an assigned altitude and let me know about your personal observations. I've flown sims for many years but I admit, I CAN'T always do it - I'm curious if you can.Regards,Marc

[LAdamson 240]

>Yeah, I CAN too... but that doesn't make it right. Calling it>a "sim" implies that it is trying "simulate" reality. If a>pilot can do it in a real C172, then he should be able to do>it in Flight Simulator without altering his/her technique! I>say it IS the sim's fault.Too many varibles in a simmers hardware controls to make everything the same-------- as in the real aircraft without making a little mind alteration. The perfect example was Pete Sidoli having some high time commmercial pilots over to fly FS2002. They both had a terrible case of PIO. Does that mean the sim was way off? No, the controls, control throw length, and feed back is just different. I had to learn to be "light handed" to fly a Pitt's the same as I was with R/C; without control surface feedback & lack of exact stick lenght/forces---- it's no different in the sim. I don't alter the technique in FS2004 for the 172..>>>How about these variables? Fly the Learjet, the King Air, or>any other "default" high-performance aircraft in light to>moderate turbulence. Try to keep them within +/- 50 feet of an>assigned altitude and let me know about your personal>observations. I've flown sims for many years but I admit, I>CAN'T always do it - I'm curious if you can.>He,he........... I doubt I can keep a real airplane within 50' in moderate turbulence either....For the sim, there is still a few tricks. Thanks to the pot's in a joystick/yoke trim there is always those gaps that seems to make you trim just too little or too much. A trick is a very slight adjustment of throttle ---- either way. It won't hold solid altitude, but is close to what a real plane will do. You'll either have to keep an eye on it, or use auto-pilot.L.Adamson

[Guest Douglas K]

Well with all this dissent the original intent of this thread has been lost, so to reply to nudata's questions:>Of course the VC panel is not clickable but all else works.My point is - Ian can you take a look at the RealAir 172 and see if it really exceeds the stock model sufficiently to make it worthwhile. I believe that it did in FS2002, but under 2004 it really should be checked by a qualified pilot.And, perhaps you are correct, the controls may cause a tendancy to over control but I suggest that one should INVITE Discussion and not imply an absolute.FWIW --- I don't think I've met a "real" pilot who didn't over control an R/C plane the first time. And that goes for 767 captains also

[Guest iflyskyhawks]

I have about 120 hours in late model Skyhawk's (both the 160hp C172R and the 180hp, "special performance" C172S). I've just started my training for the Instrument Rating.That said, my first impressions with the C172S in FS2004 are that it is an improvement over the default 'Hawk in FS2002. I seem to have an issue - however - when trying to take off in FS2004 with my CH Rudder Pedals. They're overly sensitive or something because I look drunk when I'm trying to takeoff in the default Skyhawk (back and forth trying to regain control).I installed the RealAir C172S and instantly did not have the steering problem on the ground.I still prefer the RealAir flight model.I also agree that controls in the simulator are more "sensitive" than flying a real Skyhawk. Someday when we get force-feedback yokes, we'll get closer...Of course there is also that "seat of the pants" sensation that - as I've acquired more hours, I've realized becomes a significant factor in one's ability to "sense" required control inputs when flying the real Skyhawk.Please visit my web site at http://www.NoticeToAirmen.comI have lots of information about flying real Skyhawks, including several videos of takeoffs, landings, enroute flying and maneuvers. It should wet your appetite!

[LAdamson 240]

>>>FWIW --- I don't think I've met a "real" pilot who didn't>over control an R/C plane the first time. And that goes for>767 captains also<>>Well for what this is worth, after nearly twenty years of>dealing with these fellows, (and owing much of this>observation to the fact that my wife works in crew tracking at>AA and a good number of pilots try to curry favor with her by>pretending to be her friend in hopes of gaining some extra>consideration as far as their schedules are concerned), I have>never met an airline captain who was interested in playing>with radio contolled models, and I find it very difficult to>imagine one of them with controller in hand staring>steadfastly into space as they try to avoid overcontrolling>the model airplane.>Just the thought of it makes me laugh.>Douglas,I just read your whole piece to my wife.......... and it made her laugh too! It's obvious you don't know me, or very little about me.I've been in the Experimental Aircraft Association for many years, and know many commercial pilots personally. Don't assume by any means that their after work hobbies are just the stock market & sex. For these guys, and gals too, it's all about building experimental catagory aircraft; many of which are very manuverable as well as fast. The aircraft I'm speaking of are the Van's RV series, Harmon Rockets, Lancair's and Glasair. I own a RV6A/Lycoming 180HP/CS prop myself.My personal observation about the 767 Capatain is very true. This same "Captain" also owns an award winning Harmon Rocket with 260 HP, which indeed looks like a rocket! But now, he's took up R/C as an additional hobby. I also personally know a famed aircraft restorer who rebuilds WWII aircraft for customers worldwide. His hobby is "trains". When I was active in an R/C club over 10 years ago, we had numerous real life general aviation pilots, commercial pilots, and military pilots in the club. And since my wife knew these people as well, it was reason for her to laugh!When I speak about the Pitt's, R/C, and Cessna 172's.......... it's from experience. I've flown many 172's, Pipers, the Pitt's, Marchetti SF260, Stearman and numerous homebuilts. When I say something about personal P/C home stick sensitivity & throws.......... it's something I mean, & not guess work. After reading all your "dribble" & concluding you have no idea of what your really saying to me........... I'll sign off..L.Adamson

[Guest SoarPics]

Hi Douglas K,You wrote:"Yes this "controls deficiency" (controllers, FS control interface etc.) has been offered by some people as the reason for the flight dynamics shortcomings, it does not explain all the inaccuracies and departures from realism however, and the persons advocating this theory conveniently ignore the improvements that are possible via programming the software correctly."The fact of the matter is that flight controllers are indeed an important variable, and one that goes largely ignored in these flight model discussions.Earlier today I made a flight with the stock 172. I configured the sim for no turbulence (I was flight testing a new piece of hardware). I had no problem establishing a steady rate climb, and then leveling out for trimmed flight. And the 172 held that altitude for 40 minutes!! Yes, you read that right... 40 minutes. In that time the aircraft lost 80' from my chosen altitude. It didn't "hunt" around the pitch axis one bit. It probably could have continued on much longer, but I was running out of valley and toward mountains.And have I performed the very same test in FS2K2 several times during the past few months. Same results.The issue of hardware quality is important to this discussion... you dismissing it only reveals a weak point in your arguement. Until hardware weaknesses can be eliminated as a factor, please don't make the mistake of blaming the flight dynamics. This is a complicated issue... one made up of numerous variables, including hardware.Regards,

[nudata 10]

I moved the RealAir version of the Cessna over to FS2004. I did this because the flight model is supposedly better than the stock (ref your review). Of course the VC panel is not clickable but all else works. My point is - Ian can you take a look at the RealAir 172 and see if it really exceeds the stock model sufficiently to make it worthwhile. I believe that it did in FS2002, but under 2004 it really should be checked by a qualified pilot.Thanks & regards,Dick KLBE