Apparently new users have to have posts approved?

 

Hmmm, never had too get my posts approved, didn't need to show any proof of purchase. Just got support without any inconveniences.

Don't have the 172 just yet, just doing my normal window shopping. :rolleyes: However, I wouldn't be surprised if this VC Clickspot bug some of you are talking about is because you have your head positioned too far back via Ezdok/Opus. Just a guess, but if you look straight down are you right up against the back of the seat or even slightly behind it? If so you might just see what happens if you move your head forward just a bit. That's something I would try if it were me, anyway. edit=also just noticed a simultaneous thread on 777, and tab's suggestion was the same for them

No it's not that. There's a few different planes this happens on now. My friend had the same issue on F1 KA- and I was there to watch it. No part of the model was obscuring the view. We had to restart FSX to fix it.

 

 

I've registered at the A2A forums and (attempted anyway) my first support post. Apparently new users have to have posts approved?

 

As have I, and every problem I have mentioned here, is a cross-post from items already brought to A2A's attention - and yes they are moderating initial posts, but all of mine have gone through, and I am sure they will work deligently on all bonafide issues...

No it's not that. There's a few different planes this happens on now. My friend had the same issue on F1 KA- and I was there to watch it. No part of the model was obscuring the view. We had to restart FSX to fix it.

 

Same here, no Track IR type tech involved in my setup...

A few comments, on the torque, left drift tendencies, etc.

 

 

I read a bit here, and some on the A2A forums, about the left drift, or lack of. FWIW, I don't have this plane, yet. First off, I don't have a real problem in the way, that basic FSX portrays the drift to the left. Some models do it quite convincingly. I just expect to be using right rudder for the takeoff roll & initial climb. Then the drift should phase out, as speed picks up. FSX will sometimes do a quick right swing, when initially applying throttle, but I can put up with that (to a degree).....as it quickly disappears.

 

 

Somewhere, I read that default FSX phases out the torque effects around stall speed. That's fine with me. Torque is roll, and you'll feel it pushing down the left wheel. But unlike X-Plane which has often gotten the torque roll WRONG......you shouldn't feel an urge to use aileron against a perceivable left roll, once leaving the ground. In a Cessna 172, it just doesn't happen. It's all right rudder.

 

 

To give an example of required right rudder..... I was once flying a Cessna 172 (180HP) from the right seat, for three touch & goes for currency. On the second takeoff, my mind seemed to think I was flying left seat, and I pulled back the throttle, as I would the yoke in the left hand to rotate. With engine power at idle, the plane swung quickly to the right, as I was already applying right rudder to stay on the centerline. It happened so fast, that I dang near ran over the right side runway lights. What it shows, is that we're definitely using a fair amount of right rudder......even on those little Cessna 172s. For comparison, my Van's RV6 with the same 180 HP engine, took quite a bit more right rudder, with a heavier feel. It would push the left wheel down like crazy on a touch & go, with high power/low airspeed, but it didn't want to roll left with takeoff airspeed, either.

 

 

So.....as to modeling this plane.....just require right rudder for takeoff & initial climb. The fixed rudder tab, and engine cant to the right, takes care of the rest. We don't need to feel like we're trying to trim for left roll. Even with one person aboard, the unbalanced effect isn't very strong.

 

 

One more thing, and I've said it many times before. It's the riding on rails thing. More than not, these planes don't need to be bobbing, or continuously moving in three dimensions while in flight. During those early morning flying hours, with good weather, a small plane like this, will feel like it's hardly moving. It's actually much smoother, than riding in a car, or on a train, even with welded rails. There is almost no sense of movement at all. Even at several hundred miles an hour, or much more......even though the 172 won't get close to the speeds.

This is a major bug that some of us are getting (I am getting it real bad;  I too lose all VC clickspots within seconds of being in the VC on the ground).....

 

But to be honest, more people who are experiencing it need to go and sign up on the A2A forum like I did and make some noise about it.... Although A2A have reassured us they are looking at it, I am not convinced anough people are reporting it there       - so that they get to see the scale of the problem.

 

I am confident the guys will fix this      - I hope so as it is an absolute showstopper for those of us getting it. :(

 

I have had a few planes that click spots failed at various zooms. Have you tried moving eyepoint/head forward or back and adjust zoom to see if problem goes away? It might be a combination of those. eyepoint and zoom.

 

C.

 

 

I have had a few planes that click spots failed at various zooms. Have you tried moving eyepoint/head forward or back and adjust zoom to see if problem goes away? It might be a combination of those. eyepoint and zoom.

 

I gave that some thought as well, and even wondered if perhaps having set the WideAspect display entry to True in the FSX config might have been a factor, but none of that seems to have been for me...

I gave that some thought as well, and even wondered if perhaps having set the WideAspect display entry to True in the FSX config might have been a factor, but none of that seems to have been for me...

 

Well I just downloaded because I live for danger!

 

Going to go install... I have RXP and TrackIR with EZCA aaaannnnndddddd ORBX. Uh oh.... LOL

 

I am installing and I assume everyone installed the core update? I am downloading it now and about to install that as well. I also assume this is the latest.

 

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=108&t=32774

 

 

C.

Is this the 180HP 172SP or the R with the 160HP engine? We already have an F1 172R.

 

Almost all the aircraft in my FBO are 180HP SPs.

I just wanted to post an update here.  

 

This mysterious loss of clickable spots in the VC is not something that we can reproduce, which makes finding the issue very hard.  However, one of our people came across a post on the PMDG website explaining how they were plagued by this issue for several days, but found a fix.  We are working our tails off around the clock to find this out now, and have also put a message out to PMDG to see if they had the same issue.  Regardless, this issue will be found and fixed.,  Our entire team is working on this.

 

Manny,

 

The 172R and 172S have the same engine, but different prop.  172R owners can also put the same flatter prop found on the S, essentially giving them an S.  We allows this prop change in the maintenance hangar.

 

Scott.

I just wanted to post an update here.  

 

This mysterious loss of clickable spots in the VC is not something that we can reproduce, which makes finding the issue very hard.  However, one of our people came across a post on the PMDG website explaining how they were plagued by this issue for several days, but found a fix.  We are working our tails off around the clock to find this out now, and have also put a message out to PMDG to see if the were plagued by the same issue.  Regardless, this issue will be found and fixed.,  Our entire team is working on this.

 

Scott.

 

 

Though I am a new AccuSim customer (well minus AccuFeel), A2A's reputation never left me in doubt that this, or any other issue would be addressed, and as a software developer myself, I know the pain of this kind of bug - thanks for keep your customers in the loop...

 

 

The 172R and 172S have the same engine,

 

Is this a 180HP or 160HP?

 

Thanks for the response!

Is this a 180HP or 160HP?

 

Thanks for the response!

It depends on the prop.

 

The R prop will give you 160hp while the flatter S prop will give you 180hp.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

The R prop will give you 160hp while the flatter S prop will give you 180hp.

 

Thank you.

 

Very interesting. I thought it was the engine that made the difference. Hmmm...

 

172R 1996 Lycoming IO-360L2A/160hp    Fuel injection, gross weight 2450 pounds

 

172S 1998 Lycoming IO-360L2A/180hp    Gross weight 2550 pounds

Yes as you can see, it's the same engine but the power output is different because of the prop.

Thank you.

Very interesting. I thought it was the engine that made the difference. Hmmm...

 

172R 1996 Lycoming IO-360L2A/160hp    Fuel injection, gross weight 2450 pounds

 

172S 1998 Lycoming IO-360L2A/180hp    Gross weight 2550 pounds

172R -- limited to 2400 RPM. as part of the de-rating from 180 HP, at 2700 RPM