Actually downloading VB6 did not solve it for me - had the same problem. There are links however where to download this specifc *OCX and *.DLL files. If someone needs those files - let me know and I will email them to you.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200

>Haven't bought it yet, because I'm a bit confused after>reading a report in a German forum.Frankly I am not sure what he is talking about. I don't experience either of those 2 things.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200

>> It has everything to do with it.That's why I asked for two simple tests without needing the controls at all (can use a keystroke for full throttle)>> Anytime you change speed, power or pitch, you better get ready to trimYes, but to say again, I asked for two simple tests for comparison purpose. I can take my conclusion from the results.The tests are not related to any RW operation, where did I say that ?And to make clear, my questions have not been meant offensive at all.It would be great to keep answers in the same manner.Michael

Michael,To be totally objective I performed those two tests out of my own curiosity.Indeed, when trimmed for takeoff this 172 tends to pitch up. The cures are a few - trim differently while still on the ground (best solution), overpower controls and retrim after takeoff, etc - in other words you are far away from any stall if you keep your hands firmly on the controls. So yes, takeoff trim position may need a second look and I bet Flight1 may be releasing a patch - sounds like a very easy fix.Adding power - I performed this test - trimmed her for level flight at 1000 ft with about 2000 rpm, then added full power. This action resulted in both - slight increase in airspeed *AND* climb rate of 500 fpm. This is in perfect agreement with my real life experience.EDIT: I realized those two tests are not exactly what you were asking for in your last post but I believe they address some other concerns reported earlier.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

>2. Fly level at a certain altitude (say which you used), well>trimmed at a certain speed (e.g. 100kt). Note rpm. Now move>throttle full forward for 5-10 seconds, then return to the>original setting. Does the plane end up at 100 kt and approx.>how long does it take ?not sure what you are looking for. I did it and the plane behaves exactly according to what my real-life recollection is. You have a very letargic increase of airspeed combined with gradual pitch up attitude. You retard the throttle and things return to normal - obviously with slight pitch oscillations. It takes long time for things to settle - like in a real world so timing such events with a stopwatch would be difficult (how do you decide when things are settled? - 2 people could get vastly different results).Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200

>> but I believe they address some other concerns reported earlier.Absolutely ! Thanks a lot, that's what I wanted to know. No need to do exactly what I asked, these quick tests just spontaneously came to my mind.Michael

Michael - I did perform the other test you asked for - read my post just below ...Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200

Thanks, Michael. You get a little idea about the stability with the test (although I should have asked to quickly apply a certain elevator amount and then wait). But I wanted to combine the concerns raised by the German Forum user with it.You'll be surprised if you test some FS flight models this way. Some take forever to stabilize.But since you also fly the real McCoy, you know the longitudinal stability of the 172 ;)Thanks again, I got the right picture now ;)Michael

>>You'll be surprised if you test some FS flight models this>way. Some take forever to stabilize.This one I think is a gem in this regard. You have very nice stability (just compare with the default 172 :-erks ) but has those tiny excursions of very low frequency so typical for this type.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

You're welcome, just glad to be of some help. :)

well I just picked this plane up and while I can recommed it for it's visuals, the flight model is really off IMO.I have no time in a 172 - but I do have 13 hours in a low wing piper tomahawk. This plane doesn't stabilize...I get it trimmed up, but then a few seconds later the nose drops slightly...then speed increases and you'd think that since lift increases with speed the plane would level back out. Nope - the nose down attitude continues and speed continues to increase with no end in sight, requiring elevator adjustment to try and get it back to level flight again.Same on take off. I set the trim to the Take Off position, roll then take off with some back pressure on the yoke. Now the nose of the plane goes straight up, like the trim is too far back. I have to push down elevator and adjust the trim nearly to the full nose down position to keep it from stalling. If I didn't do anything, the plane would fly at a sharp vertical angle until it totally stalls out.I dont know...I'm going to replace the air file with the one for RealAir 172 and see how it flies. VC is fabulous, but I'm having a tough time enjoying it with the lack of stable feel in this aircraft.

Thanks for the tip. I'm starting to get a good handle on where my trim should be for my current controller setup and various weight configurations. Man, my heart skipped a beat though on that first flight. Stalling out at 300 ft is a scary thought, even in a sim! ;-)

>>Same on take off. I set the trim to the Take Off position,>roll then take off with some back pressure on the yoke. Now>the nose of the plane goes straight up, like the trim is too>far back. I have to push down elevator and adjust the trim>nearly to the full nose down position to keep it from>stalling. If I didn't do anything, the plane would fly at a>sharp vertical angle until it totally stalls out.I'm experiencing EXACTLY the same thing you are, with a sharp nose up pitch on takeoff, despite correctly adjusted trim. It takes an excessive forward pressure on the yoke to correct this, and is not normal IMO. Incidently, I do understand the proper use of trim, and have several hours in a 2002 Skyhawk (although most of my 200 hours are in C152s and older C172s).I posted on Flight1's support forum, but it looks like you and I are the only people having this problem, since the response was to ask if I knew how to set the trim properly. The issue was all but ignored and seemingly chalked up to my "ignorance" or "user error", as best as I can tell from the response. The visual's are great in this aircraft, and I have been waiting for a Skyhawk for a while. I'm a little frustrated with getting a power on stall every time I take off, unless I set the trim almost fully nose down for takeoff. Oh well, what do I expect from a $50 simulator anyway? Anyone else having this problem????

One post eh? Where you been? the flight model is really off IMO.I have no time in a 172 You know what they call a statement like this don't you? How can you comment at all on flight dynamics? This does not fly by the way, it simulates flight according to manuals, that is all. Even IF it did somehow fly it would not be the exact same as a Cessna you might have flown in simply because each aircraft behaves slightly different. If you don't think it's good then why purchase without waiting for the one post wonders to give us their valued opinions?Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

>> One post eh? Where you been? >> the flight model is really off IMO.>>I have no time in a 172 >> You know what they call a statement like this don't you? How>can you comment at all on flight dynamics? This does not fly>by the way, it simulates flight according to manuals, that is>all. Even IF it did somehow fly it would not be the exact same>as a Cessna you might have flown in simply because each>aircraft behaves slightly different. >> If you don't think it's good then why purchase without>waiting for the one post wonders to give us their valued>opinions?First of all Randy, you quoted comments that I was quoting, from the previous post by PROGRMR where the guy mentions that he thought the flight model was off and he had no time in a 172. If you spent as much time reading as you do spouting off and trying to be a condescending a$$hole, you would have seen that for yourself. As for being a "one post wonder", I guess this will be my last one, if jerks like you are all that's here to respond. Get a life...and try to remember that posting here is for all, not just for self proclaimed cool folks like you.