Like many people, I have oodles of add-ons in FS9, which means moving to FSX involves a substantial financial "investment" well beyond just the cost of the sim itself.  I have encountered a characteristic in FSX that is making me stop short and I was wondering what others might have to say about it.

 

When I fly the default 172 in FS9, it behaves fairly well.  When I rotate, it's smooth and the airplane lifts off the runway nice and easy.  Typical for just about any aircraft in FS9.

 

When I fly the default 172 in FSX, the story is quite different.  When it comes time to lift off, the airplane leaps into the air and pitches up very quickly.  Entirely different experience.  Same thing with the default Baron.  I've tried setting the sensitivities to both extremes.  The only effect of setting sensitivity to zero is that it takes more throw to get the airplane to rotate, but once it does, I get the same "pitch and leap" behaviour.  Landings are a similar story - lots of gyrating with minimal control input.

 

I've only experimented with the 172 and the Baron, as I have no payware for FSX.  

 

My question:  Is this related to the aircraft or is this a general characteristic of the sim?  i.e. is FSX just "twitchier" than FS9 or are the default aircraft I've tried just poorly designed?  

 

Who else has had this experience and what are your thoughts?

The default airplanes are just the default airplanes, and I wouldn't read too much into their accuracy, in either sim. I haven't used FS2004 in a long time, and I haven't used default airplanes in FSX in almost as long, but if you are intending to go the payware route, I don't think this leaping behavior will be a factor. Actually, I do remember experiencing that some in FS2004, but can't recall ever seeing it in FSX, now that you mention it.

If your system can handle FSX, it is actually smoother than FS9... but it does take a LOT more computer resources to run nicely.

 

Re the C172, try setting the take-off trim differently

My question: Is this related to the aircraft or is this a general characteristic of the sim? i.e. is FSX just "twitchier" than FS9 or are the default aircraft I've tried just poorly designed?

They have been designed, in both versions, to be very "user friendly" and no so much realistic. Could you imagine the complaints MS would have got if they made them realistic. Look at the complaints on "how do I fly the ILS" its broken There are mods out there for the default baron and KA that help the funky elevator controls for FSX.

Hi MJL, 

 

   I too have noticed the jumpy behavior of the C-172 and Baron on takeoff. Lot's of stick to get off the ground, even at a pretty high runway speed where you would think the plane would start to float a bit, and then, boom, up we go.

 

   In my limited knowledge/experience with FSX, I have to go with the other comment's to your thread: it may be specific to the Microsoft models. I had originally thought Microsoft aircraft would be pretty sophisticated, but the more I see good freeware (the Blue Angels mods to the F-18 make a FANTASTIC flyer, and Dino Cattaneo's F-14 is a stunning freeware package), and the limited payware aircraft I have (I highly recommend the Lancair Legacy from SWREG), it does appear that MSFT did not expend as many resources on these two aircraft (at least) as they could.

 

JKH

I don't think I've seen any difference between 9 and X on flight models or control performance.  Maybe it's just that now I'm 99% FSX time and forgot any difference.

 

scott s.

.

 

is FSX just "twitchier" than FS9 or are the default aircraft I've tried just poorly designed?

 

I fly both platforms frequently and don't really notice the difference on either default planes or 'light' payware.  However, the FSX .air files allow for a lot more detail to the flight model, and on quality payware (aka the Realair Lancair Legacy), it shows.