just finished my one millionth test on these two aircraft. these two have been a love hate relationship ever since i've met them. at first they were THE two most unflyable aircraft ever! next day after some more testing they were THE BEST! hands down number one! next day after some more testing i would be so ashamed for saying that. i wanted to crawl under a rock, hide and change my post name on the forums. these guys probably think i'm some sort of nut for saying those wonderful things about those aircraft. no wonder they don't fly the defaults! i experimented with different weights, payloads and fuel. got different results each time. some good, some not so good and some that made me not want to fly ever again. well, as of now i'm climbing out on that limb again, saw in hand. here it is: i'm running in 800x600 resolution with AA set at 2. doesn't look bad at all really. not as good as higher resolutions but it works. i'm more into how an aircraft flies and feels than eye candy so it's not a big deal for me. good framerates and very smooth. it defaults to that resolution also and i keep all the other default settings. for one thing the aircraft do fly better at default settings. everything seems to flow better. for the mooney and its roll to one side it's doesn't seem to be yaw since for one yaw is sideways motion and the mooney rolls instead of sliding to one side or the other. with just 2 passengers up front with equall weight of say 170lbs you'd think it would balance out and not roll, right? for some reason that didn't work. i lowered the co pilots weight to 100lbs and kept the pilots weight at 170 and it flew straight, no roll at all. maybe just a tiny bit after a few minutes. i think it will fly properly after a few more weight changes but there does seem to be something working right along these lines. for the baron 58, same setup, but from the default control settings under sensitivities i moved the elevator and aileron slider to the left just a few notches so it's alittle less sensitive and moved the null settings up a few notches. about equal distance from the default settings in the other direction. believe it or not it flew great! well, ALOT better than it normally does. enough to make me come and post this and hopefully not make me go hide again in shame as i'm going to try it some more. william

ok try this for the baron, control sensitivies: leave aileron settings at default and slide the elevator slider all the way to the left, null setting about 5 notches to the right of default. new airplane. william

I had a similar problem with the Mooney. Symptoms -- and a workaround -- are discussed here: http://forums.simradar.com/cgi-bin/gforum....=View+Flat+Mode

thanks, that answers alot of questions. guess that's one plane i won't fly anymore. as far as i'm concerned it's not meant to be flown. if it was then there wouldn't be that problem. thanks for the link. william

If it's too much trouble, there are lots of other planes to fly. The Mooney, though, is my favorite. It's fast (for a single-engine prop), very nimble, and flies high if you need it to. I've flown it all over Japan, much of Europe, and most of the eastern United States.

i'm afraid add-on planes might take a big hit on framerates so i stick with the defaults. the mooney does fly very good except for that roll. i don't know how MS let it and the baron out like that and am hoping it's something i'm doing wrong but i'm having a time convincing myself. did you change the fuel gauge in the mooney? i'm not quit sure how to deal with it yet. usually if there's something wrong like a bug in an aircraft and they won't fix it then i won't fly it. it's ashame they would put in so much effort and detail into an aircraft only to make it utterly impossible to fly. i don't understand it at all. what happened to quality control? anyway, i'm changing the aileron and elevator sensitivities and null settings and am hopefully about to get a good flyable setting for the baron. i just started an around the world voyage last weekend from south carolina and am up into newfoundland now. gonna do some sightseeing along the way too. way off the beaten path. william

"usually if there's something wrong like a bug in an aircraft and they won't fix it then i won't fly it. it's ashame they would put in so much effort and detail into an aircraft only to make it utterly impossible to fly. i don't understand it at all. what happened to quality control?"Since I design FDE's--and have made mistakes with FDE's--I can only say it happens. How many aircraft were packaged with this release? I can nit pick all day on the ones with problems. Here's a great opportunity for you to learn the art of FDE editing. It isn't that hard.You simply have a choice, and I had the same choice. Many mistakes were made with landclass data, as an example. A metro area with about 100,000 pp, give or take, is missing from the FS2002/FS2004 database (Carson City/Gardnerville/Minden). It really bugged me because I used to live there. A missing hamlet is one thing--But seat of Nevada's State Government? :)Anyway, I learned what I had to do to fix it, and in the process of learning found it so fun that I wrote a tool that others have used to fix their cities and hometowns--and sometimes entire states.Microsoft can't be perfect, but they've given us tools--SDK's--to improve what they didn't get right and to create new projects. This sim is a heck of a lot more fun when you know you have the power to tailor any aircraft or mountain to how you think it should be.Last point--look at my system specs. I run tons of aircraft add-ons, like Flight1's Conquest and Eaglesoft's Citation. No problems with performance. Regards,

>i'm afraid add-on planes might take a big hit on framerates>Then you are poorly informed. On one hand you are "afraid" on the other you spend weeks trying to overcome poor design. I would rather put this effort into finding something quite flyable on your system with dynamics you won't ever experience on an out-of-box aircraft. And it doesn't even have to be payware. And it will look a ton better too and it's panel will at least resemble the panel of the real airplane.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

i have a neighbor with high speed internet "cable" so i might look into downloading something this weekend and be done with it once and for all. i just get a little frustrated when flying these two planes and have to blow off steam. they are the two that i'd really like to get into and that's one reason i bought FS9 because i read somewhere the flight model was fixed in both aircraft compared to FS2K. william

thanks john, i'll look into the SDK and nice to see you can run those add ons with the specs of your system. impressive! thanks again, william

william,Considering all your posts here, on this thread, you may want to try my Baron Panel Pak (barpan.zip). Still not availibale, but should be with in hours.Awesome panel, new sounds, and a "fixed" Aircraft cfg. file. All still default.This could be just what your looking for.Regards,Randy Burton (baddadnv) Mesquite NV.

http://library.avsim.net/download.php?DLID=36681Fast, sexy, and free.Greg

thanks randy, sounds good to me. william

thanks greg. william