Which is to say that you could have had better results with the CH and Saitek hardware if you had actually tuned things appropriately and that it's with some luck that the Warthog worked to your liking with the default settings. Think about it.

Well, it could be that I was just too lazy to have actually tuned things appropriately, and instead lumbered along at default settings because I hadn't thought about it. :wink:Or it could be that the greater degree of mechanical slop and electronic noise made it difficult to get a predictable response out of either the CH or Saitek hardware (or the Saitek X-52 or the Logitech G940) at any of the 31 response curves available via the registered version of FSUIPC.I'm not sure which it was.OT for this discussion, but worth noting that the test results in the Sim HQ review of the Warthog give a good sense of how much more precise the response is of a heavy stick equipped with Hall Effect sensors. Though in fairness the CH Fighterstick comes close (a very good stick but too light for my taste).Now back to our regular programming... :(

Edited January 2, 201214 yr by Alan_A

It's been a while, but I do remember when FSX first came out that a primary complaint was that the default aircraft were too stable, giving the impression of driving on an invisible road requiring one to adjust the settings if they wanted more realistic flight characteristics. I recall a number of experienced simmers and real-world pilots being frustrated by this and making exaggerated statements about the suitability and accuracy of the flight modeling. I also remember telling them the same thing I'm telling people now: "Then go ahead and adjust things to your liking and stop whining about it."

Microsoft's FSX is "stable" by defalt. That means smooth calm air. And................it IS realistic! As a long time MSFS user, and beta tester for MSFS as well as 3rd party addons..............I don't seem to remember the "too stable" comments. If there was, I would have commented on the subject. I have seen the "on rails" comments though. And they're from ones, who don't understand the situation.When you look at an airplane flying overhead, straight and level........................does it seem to be jerking all over the place? It may, if it's windy and turbulent, but chances are, it's just nice, smooth, straight and level. And that's what MSFS is portraying by default.I've already said, numerous times, what "on rails" means to me. It's FS98 or auto-pilot. FS2000 through FSX won't remain straight and level, and on course, without pilot help. It will wander off heading and altitude, just like a real airplane. Just because the takeoff and climb is nice and smooth, it certainly doesn't mean it's on rails. It means the pilot is doing a good job in smooth, calm air.Now............if you want MSFS to bounce around, then get some real weather, or add in turbulent weather effects. You can also fly over mountain areas for some nice feeling mountain waves.I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but I'll do it again. I've got lot's of hours in (real life) Van's RV airplanes. They don't have near the stability of a high wing Cessna, but are still easy to keep on course, if you're looking. Reach over to grab something, and you'll probably start to roll off to the side. This is why auto-pilots are highly recommended in these planes for IFR. Mine had a two axis A/P.My RV has taken off many times in smooth air, and looks and feels just as much stable as a takeoff in FSX. It's just a perfect climb, on what looks like a straight line. No jerks, and no bobbing. Smooth air usually happens in the morning or evening hours. You can expect more smooth hours in colder months versus warm. Noon time flights will often end up bumpy. Sometimes flying over mountains can be smooth, or varying stages of turbulence. Just depends on winds, or heat of the sun (thermals).Personally, I like the gentle mountain waves that FSX produces. If I'm simulating stormy weather, then I expect bumps. But other than that, I don't like simulated turbulence. I find it just as annoying as real turbulence. X-Plane 8, and possibly 9 to a point, had built in "shakes" that annoyed me so much, that I quit using it after very short flights. Yet some simmers............seemed to feel that that's what real planea always do. And therfor X-Plane was simulating more realism. Well, that's WRONG!And BTW---- I totally agree with Geofa & Morten when it comes to the controls. I know that Morten has spent a lot of time in getting the control surfaces to feel and act more realistically. My joystick settings for X-Plane 9/10 are left at default.L.Adamson

Microsoft's FSX is "stable" by defalt. That means smooth calm air. And................it IS realistic! As a long time MSFS user, and beta tester for MSFS as well as 3rd party addons..............I don't seem to remember the "too stable" comments. If there was, I would have commented on the subject. I have seen the "on rails" comments though. And they're from ones, who don't understand the situation.When you look at an airplane flying overhead, straight and level........................does it seem to be jerking all over the place? It may, if it's windy and turbulent, but chances are, it's just nice, smooth, straight and level. And that's what MSFS is portraying by default.I've already said, numerous times, what "on rails" means to me. It's FS98 or auto-pilot. FS2000 through FSX won't remain straight and level, and on course, without pilot help. It will wander off heading and altitude, just like a real airplane. Just because the takeoff and climb is nice and smooth, it certainly doesn't mean it's on rails. It means the pilot is doing a good job in smooth, calm air.Now............if you want MSFS to bounce around, then get some real weather, or add in turbulent weather effects. You can also fly over mountain areas for some nice feeling mountain waves.I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but I'll do it again. I've got lot's of hours in (real life) Van's RV airplanes. They don't have near the stability of a high wing Cessna, but are still easy to keep on course, if you're looking. Reach over to grab something, and you'll probably start to roll off to the side. This is why auto-pilots are highly recommended in these planes for IFR. Mine had a two axis A/P.My RV has taken off many times in smooth air, and looks and feels just as much stable as a takeoff in FSX. It's just a perfect climb, on what looks like a straight line. No jerks, and no bobbing. Smooth air usually happens in the morning or evening hours. You can expect more smooth hours in colder months versus warm. Noon time flights will often end up bumpy. Sometimes flying over mountains can be smooth, or varying stages of turbulence. Just depends on winds, or heat of the sun (thermals).Personally, I like the gentle mountain waves that FSX produces. If I'm simulating stormy weather, then I expect bumps. But other than that, I don't like simulated turbulence. I find it just as annoying as real turbulence. X-Plane 8, and possibly 9 to a point, had built in "shakes" that annoyed me so much, that I quit using it after very short flights. Yet some simmers............seemed to feel that that's what real planea always do. And therfor X-Plane was simulating more realism. Well, that's WRONG!And BTW---- I totally agree with Geofa & Morten when it comes to the controls. I know that Morten has spent a lot of time in getting the control surfaces to feel and act more realistically. My joystick settings for X-Plane 9/10 are left at default.L.Adamson

Larry, do you use EZDOK, if not you should! I use it in DHM mode only which is weather influenced and get bumps when in turbulent air, and it stays smooth in calm air. This to me seems very realistic, especially in planes like the SF-260!

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by tf51d

I don't seem to remember the "too stable" comments.

Whether you remember or not, it was a common complaint around the time of FSX's release.

I have seen the "on rails" comments though.

So you haven't seen the comments, and you have seen the comments. Which is it?

And they're from ones, who don't understand the situation.

Correct, the situation being that you have to adjust the control settings to get a more realistic experience.

I don't like simulated turbulence. I find it just as annoying as real turbulence. X-Plane 8, and possibly 9 to a point, had built in "shakes" that annoyed me so much, that I quit using it after very short flights. Yet some simmers............seemed to feel that that's what real planea always do. And therfor X-Plane was simulating more realism. Well, that's WRONG!

No, it's not wrong, it's just a difference of opinion. What makes a simulator more realistic for you isn't what makes it more realistic for everybody. And don't kid yourself into thinking that everybody with your real world flying experience will necessarily agree with you.

My joystick settings for X-Plane 9/10 are left at default.

That's your prerogative, of course, but then don't come in here whining about how poorly some aircraft handle when you could easily fix things simply by adjusting a couple of sliders.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Mountain Man

I have to admit-I never saw "too stable" comments but I have seen "rails" many times which I can agree with on simple modelled aircraft.However, I have to again disagree about joystick settings-the plane has to be well modelled..no amount of twiddling is going to make a dog fly imho.

No, it's not wrong, it's just a difference of opinion. What makes a simulator more realistic for you isn't what makes it more realistic for everybody. And don't kid yourself into thinking that everybody with your real world flying experience will necessarily agree with you.

I've been installing a heating system at an airport hangar..............for the last few days. Today, I seen your comments on my I-Phone. I then presented the question to a group of pilots. They ALL agreed with me! It's NOT a difference of opinion, and quite frankly, you haven't a clue of what you're talking about. You got a bit ticked off the other day, when it was my piloting experience against your non-pilot experience. You felt that I belittled you. Today................you're really going out of your way to tick me off. And the other day, you did the same with Geofa. You just don't know what you're talking about!!!!

I have to admit-I never saw "too stable" comments but I have seen "rails" many times which I can agree with on simple modelled aircraft.However, I have to again disagree about joystick settings-the plane has to be well modelled..no amount of twiddling is going to make a dog fly imho.

Interesting isn't it....................considering we were both beta testers, and around all these forums, all the time.

I've been installing a heating system at an airport hangar..............for the last few days. Today, I seen your comments on my I-Phone. I then presented the question to a group of pilots. They ALL agreed with me!

It's nice and all that your close group of friends agree with you, but I've seen comments from real world pilots on these and other forums that disagree with you.

You got a bit ticked off the other day, when it was my piloting experience against your non-pilot experience. You felt that I belittled you.

I honestly don't recall that happening, but if you say so.

That's your prerogative, of course, but then don't come in here whining about how poorly some aircraft handle when you could easily fix things simply by adjusting a couple of sliders.

You better get a grip on what I complain about. Some do rather well we these settings. Some just suck........period!I flew R/C with little 2" sticks for many years. I've flown the Pitts with a stick, that you just think about banking with. I've flown a Stearman with a longer stick, and my RV which is rather sensitive. Point is, I don't need to change sensitivies for "feel". I'm already use to them, and don't over control.

I have to admit-I never saw "too stable" comments but I have seen "rails" many times which I can agree with on simple modelled aircraft.

So like LAdamson, you haven't seen the comments, and you have seen the comments.It's like we're in the Twilight Zone. :(

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Mountain Man

I'd say perhaps you need a lesson in aerodynamics. Do you know what stability is and part 23 FAR that is required for certification of US aircraft?Riding on "rails" has nothing to due with stability. The rails comment I've seen since the begining of the franchise.......and I'll ask you again with your joystick setup-trim the 172 and then put it in a shallow bank and let go-what happens? Trim the plane (if you can) for level flight -then pitch up slightly and then let go- what happens?

It's nice and all that your close group of friends agree with you, but I've seen comments from real world pilots on these and other forums that disagree with you.

Yep.............mostly X-Plane forums. Especially the org.

I'd say perhaps you need a lesson in aerodynamics. Do you know what stability is and part 23 FAR that is required for certification of US aircraft?Riding on "rails" has nothing to due with stability. The rails comment I've seen since the begining of the franchise.......and I'll ask you again with your joystick setup-trim the 172 and then put it in a shallow bank and let go-what happens? Trim the plane (if you can) for level flight -then pitch up slightly and what happens?

I think he needs a ride in a real plane. At least in calm conditions. BTW--- I'm showing this thread to my wife. She has 114 hrs. in our RV6. She's often made the comment while flying over the Great Salt Lake, or the farm lands of southern Idaho.............that it seems as if we're standing still. And yet we're at approx 200 mph, and perhaps 2500 - 4000' agl. And then of course, I have to say............that some simmers just don't believe it....

Those Salt Flats are magnificent! Although I have flown over them many times-I had the chance to drive thru this summer-talk about feeling like you are standing still!

I have seen the riding on rails a lot as well but I have to agree with the others that I don't remember the term 'too stable' popping up as an argument. I am a little perplexed, Mountain Man, I know you have said you have no RL experience and that you have said you go by what you imagine flight would feel like yet you are continuing to tell pilots that their experience is just their opinion, as you are entitled to yours. That is well and valid in a lot of conversations, like which fantasy game do you like better, warcraft 1 or warcraft 2. Opinions are a different thing when we talk about something more factual and I am not sure why you are persisting to tell them how flight is when you admit you are only guessing it.

Riding on "rails" has nothing to due with stability.

Criticisms I've seen have said that default FSX is too stable, as if the planes are riding on rails or driving on an invisible road. If you like, you can try and convince yourself that they were criticizing some other aspect of the sim.