This is the only remaining issue I have with this aircraft, and when it's resolved, it'll be the best GA single ever released for FS.  

 

Maybe they should set up their own forum section, just for you, and to cater to your needs and wants?  I mean, they got it.  They know that you, Q400_Flyer, are one p.o'd customer, with one particular problem, and that you demand it be fixed immediately.  They got it.

Hi, there was an early mention with regards to the Saitek Panels and the flaps not working with them. What about autopilot and radios, gear etc,. can anyone comment on what does work or what does-not work ?

 

EDIT: I forgot to mention I am using P3D

 

Thanks much

Bob

Hey,

 

Ok just re-calibrated all axis on my pedals in FSX, and confirmed that all settings are as suggested in the A2A forum.

 

I went to Orbx OG39 (Longview Ranch);-

 

On first loading the aircraft, getting it rolling was fine; taking about 40% power to start smoothly rolling which is very realistic from my experience.

As soon as I braked at all, then stopped, when I came to pull off it took 100% power + 3 seconds to begin rolling (at a snails pace), although speed does slowly build up.

Toggling the parking brake on then back off (and then not touching the brakes) returned normal ability to get rolling, without needing 100% power + 3 secs.

But as soon as the brakes are used, the 'stuck' issue will exhibit again when trying to pull off.

 

I then unassigned the toe brakes and parking brake in FSX Controls menu and pulled the USB plug out from the PC..... I repeated the above and exactly the same issues applied, when using keys for the brakes and parking brake.

 

So the issue is very real, even after the recommended hardware settings and calibration.

Thank you for rechecking after recalibrating, I'm sorry it had no effect. I hope the team can get to the bottom of it soon.

 

Unfortunately I haven't sprung for Longview Ranch or I'd do a few tests there myself, but I fear that it would be of no use since it would not be even close to an apples to apples test.

 

However, I do have Vashon (2S1) which is a grass strip. I'll try a flight out of there and report back on the friction with the hardware calibration "solution" tonight and see if I find any interesting results.

Maybe they should set up their own forum section, just for you, and to cater to your needs and wants?  I mean, they got it.  They know that you, Q400_Flyer, are one p.o'd customer, with one particular problem, and that you demand it be fixed immediately.  They got it.

 

What a load of Bull.........   Nothing more constructive I can say.  

 

I said I was posting the video so that others could determine whether or not they have the same issue or not.    And I said I appreciated their work.  And I said I loved the product.

 

You - as is often the case - are doing nothing but flaming    ....... borderline trolling.

 

You and Molleh have massive personal issues with me........ you waggle it about every opportunity you get... :wink:

 

Put it away man ........ you're just embarrassing yourself.

 

We are all entitled to discuss products, good and bad about them.......  who the heck are the likes of you and Molleh to decide who can post and cannot post stuff as part of any debate?..........

 

I will back out of this thread for good....... purely for the sake of it not continuing as a ladies handbag slapping competition between you, me and Molleh........ 

 

 

 

Well guys....... I've literally never been away from the A2A forum for the last two days, and here's my observation;

Q400_Flyer, it might do you some good to take a few hours break from the A2A forum and this thread, gives you a break from being frustrated, and the support folks a chance to catch up and consume the flood of release feedback and questions and problem reports.

 

I say this with good respect for you from your past posts which demonstrate a very enthusiastic and helpful FSX fanatic (like myself), and as someone with similar enthusiasm and urgency to get stuff fixed, at work I sometimes let my expectations and enthusiasm exceed the ability of those responsible to respond or provide a fix. Sometimes this helps push people to fix things faster, but sometimes it just leaves me frustrated, a break and a bit of patience usually helps.

nevermind.  What Willard said above :lol:

 

Looks like a plane that will be quite good after they get some fairly signifigant post-release issues sorted out.  Should've been a cleaner release, yeah, and little excuse for it, but the next best thing they can do is hustle to put out the fires.  Seems like they are doing just that, and being pretty patient, polite, and accomodating to a variety of customers with a variety of ways of expressing themselves, from the meek and lowly commoners on one end to the pompous and entitled flight sim royalty on the other.

 

I understand that sometimes there is need to be a persistent thorn in the side to developers to get them to acknowledge a problem.  Sometimes too, we have a self-affirming need to convince our fellow flight simmers, some of whom can be very prone to cult-like fanpersonism, that maybe they shouldn't be handing out accolades reflexively and prematurely.  I've certainly done my fair share, and I'm sure will do so in the future.  However, once a problem has been acknowledged multiple times, dozens of people are complaining about it, and they've made it clear it has risen to the priority heap, then a gentleman will know when to stow it, and let the developers do their thing.  That's why some people are responding in the way they are, Q.  There is a time for tantrums, and a time to be cool, and you have to know the difference.

Hmmm, I thought the 'state' of the aircraft was supposed to be per-tail number, I'm seeing my 'used' state being replicated on all of the tail numbers I have, which is not good :(

Hmmm, I thought the 'state' of the aircraft was supposed to be per-tail number, I'm seeing my 'used' state being replicated on all of the tail numbers I have, which is not good :(

 

Earlier up thread, or in another one, I asked about that too, but they didn't say anything about it.  It would be cool to have one aircraft be pristine, and one a piece of junk...not just for the C172, but for many other Accu aircraft also.

Sadly I've not been able to enjoy this aircraft as I can't get it to move, even on paved runway.

 

BUT, I'm glad to see A2A are acknowledging these issues and I can understand those frustrated with the initial release -- in all honestly it probably should have been tested a little longer before release - hopefully that's the lesson learned.

 

Is this the correct URL to go to for any patch/update for the 172?  http://www.a2asimulations.com/product_updates.html

 

Thanks, and looking forward to an update.

LOL I think A2A opened a Pandora's box by releasing this 172 :lol:    Unlike the P-51, so many people have actual time in a 172.  A lot of those people say the FDE is spot on, others say it sucks, you can't win lol.   I know the P-51's FDE is accurate because a very high time P-51 CFI who test it says it is realistic.  Maybe A2A should only get their 172 FDE advice from high time CFIs or see if Cessna can spare an aero engineer to test it. 

 

Considering this same 172 model is in the Redbird training simulator, I think it is probably at least extremely close to the real thing.  Unfortunately with FSX infinite different hardware setups, different addon/utility installations and so on, not to mention the infinite opinions from 172 pilots, it would be very difficult for everyone to be satisfied with it. 

 

Nonetheless, I know A2A likes a challenge, this Pandora's 172 certainly qualifies.  Anytime new technology is introduced to FSX there will always be a lot of unforeseen bugs to overcome, no matter how much beta testing you do.  These bugs will get fixed.

 

Cheers

TJ

Earlier up thread, or in another one, I asked about that too, but they didn't say anything about it. It would be cool to have one aircraft be pristine, and one a piece of junk...not just for the C172, but for many other Accu aircraft also.

Somewhere on the A2A forum, I believe someone posted that the ability to save the state for different aircraft was in the works and it wouldn't just be limited to accusim aircraft. Can't remember which thread it was in though.

 

 

Edit: after looking around, I can't find the post I was referring to.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

 

Hi, there was an early mention with regards to the Saitek Panels and the flaps not working with them. What about autopilot and radios, gear etc,. can anyone comment on what does work or what does-not work ?

 

All Saitek equipment work, just use the SPAD drivers and follow the guide on the A2A forum and your set..

In my opinion, the friction bug is something I believe they can easily fix, they just want to investigate what's causing the problem, because the fix would probably make the C172 have the same awful Friction Code that other FSX aircraft have, requiring much more than 1000rpm to keep the taxi speed.

 

I would love to have the aircraft exactly as I left it the previous flight, also each different Registration should be completely independent from the other ones.

Just to change the subject a little , I really enjoy flying planes where if you do things wrong or as it wears out you can cause failures engine fires etc

Ie have to actually keep an eye on temperatures etc Can anyone recommend the a2a spit or mustang for this ? Also if anyone has both which do you prefer ? Cheers and keep smiling all

 

 

Can anyone recommend the a2a spit or mustang for this ? Also if anyone has both which do you prefer ? Cheers and keep smiling all

 

Yes I higly reccomend them, but my favorite of the 2 is the P51 Civ Mustang.