For those of you with elevator issues, try configuring your controller using FSUIPC. I'm also a beta tester of sorts for the patches A2A is working on. I can't tell what solved it, but the combination of the patches and the calibration has solved the elevator issues on my Eclipse yoke. It sounds like A2A will be releasing the official patch very soon.

It's one of the reasons why the current trend of selecting beta testers from a select group of 'insiders' tends to be a really bad idea. You end up with a majority of your testers being the ones that are most likely to have perfect setups and 'most realistic' hardware, rather than people likely to have the more varied hardware and setups that may illustrate weirdness.

 

I beta test for a rather large contributor to the FS community and it's not the case with us. There are beta testers with hardware that is years old and still using simple off the shelf flight sticks, to those who have newer machines with the latest Thrustmaster HOTAS or Yoke setup.

For those of you with elevator issues, try configuring your controller using FSUIPC. I'm also a beta tester of sorts for the patches A2A is working on. I can't tell what solved it, but the combination of the patches and the calibration has solved the elevator issues on my Eclipse yoke. It sounds like A2A will be releasing the official patch very soon.

 

The fix for me was setting my Ch Eclipse Yoke's Elevator Axis with a slope of 2 in FSUIPC, worked a treat!

It's one of the reasons why the current trend of selecting beta testers from a select group of 'insiders' tends to be a really bad idea. You end up with a majority of your testers being the ones that are most likely to have perfect setups and 'most realistic' hardware, rather than people likely to have the more varied hardware and setups that may illustrate weirdness.

 

I beta test for a rather large contributor to the FS community and it's not the case with us. There are beta testers with hardware that is years old and still using simple off the shelf flight sticks, to those who have newer machines with the latest Thrustmaster HOTAS or Yoke setup.

 

The fix for me was setting my Ch Eclipse Yoke's Elevator Axis with a slope of 2 in FSUIPC, worked a treat!

I would also agree that the choice of controls, doesn't have to change the "sense" of control forces. I recently started flying R/C again, with those short little 2" long sticks, after a 20 year absence. I flew my RL plane, many other planes, and simulated ones, in the meantime. Just as before, you can still detect a ballooning effect with flaps (high wing), or too much climb, and the requirement of trim.......in those short two inch sticks. Not the exact same, as real life, but you sense the need to push the nose down. The R/C sticks are also using a centering spring to provide resistance. It works, just as it does with a desktop stick or yoke. When the nose doesn't drop as much as you like, you push more. The spring doesn't offer more resistance, yet my mind senses an additional force.

 

There are those that believe, full size sticks and yokes are required with full travel, to accurately simulate. I disagree. You just have to get use to the shorter & less travel, to avoid over control.

We have an update in the works that, from what we've seen in testing, will help those who find the elevator too sensitive.  

Here is a post that explains the new features:

http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=36285

 

Scott.

I have one concern with the flight model. On final approach with the aircraft trimmed and pretty much hands off I'm trying to use power to adjust rate of descent. When I'm above glide-slop, I reduce power and the aircraft should descent quicker, however it doesn't respond. A couple of times, it actually started to climb. My plan is to test a few other scenarios. In any situation where the aircraft is trimmed for a particular speed, power adjustments should affect VS while the aircraft tries to stay at its current speed. If that behavior isn't in place (it is with the default 172), then I would definitely have to say that the flight model is broken.

Thanks Scott - sounds awesome and great approach as those who like the current approach to Flight Modelling on the C172 can keep what they have, and those who aren't finding it quite right, can make the adjustments. :cool:

 

I have to say, there are some epic u-turns from some people in this thread, in the comments they are making about A2A this week, compared to last week....     ....... how the wind changeth...   :wink:

 

Personally I see the guys working hard, keeping us up to date, and looking to please all parties with the new update - can't really ask for more than that.

 

 

I have to say, there are some epic u-turns from some people in this thread, in the comments they are making about A2A this week, compared to last week....     ....... how the wind changeth...   :wink:

 

 

 

I'm curious for you to elaborate on that comment.   No wind change here.  I've been dissapointed in the problems with the Cessna 172, because it's a plane that I was looking forward to for a long time, and felt that they could have remedied some of these things beforehand.   I happen to share your frustration about some of the issues on this aircraft and always have--I just didn't agree with the way you went about it, as if you were the world's most important customer, demanding special, deluxe treatment, and that the issues people report are only important if you think they are.  If you have any doubt as to people's positions, go back and re-read this thread and remind yourself about what it was that people were saying to you.  You might just find that the only person making epic u-turns is the man looking back at you in the mirror, while that the opinion of "some people" that you refer to have been amazingly consistent throughout.  On second thought, nix my first sentence, and don't elaborate, it would be better if you would just take it for what it's worth.

I suppose this kind of angst is the lifeblood of forums, but it seems more like life being chipped away with bickering. 

C'mon chaps, play nice. :rolleyes:

I suppose this kind of angst is the lifeblood of forums, but it seems more like life being chipped away with bickering. 

C'mon chaps, play nice. :rolleyes:

 I gave you a plus, Ron, because I agree.  It's just that these ongoing "subtle" wisecracks that keep being made deserve to be answered.

Speaking of U turn...

 

 

She's just perfect.    Sorry, won't be many more posts in this thread from me - too busy going back to this bird! .....put almost 3 hours on the meter so far, and I think she's only been out 5 hours.... that's pretty impressive! :lol:

 

 

Mmmm, very disappoointed to be getting constant problems with clickspots completely disappearing.  :wacko:

 

 

Don't have any issues with disappearing clickspots with any other aircraft, so definitely a 'local' problem with the A2A C172....

 

Unfortunately because of all the functions, this is a heavily dependent mouse click plane, so losing all clickspots is a killer....... :(

 

 

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).....

 

(..) I hope so as it is an absolute showstopper for those of us getting it. :(

 

 

I hate to say it, but I certainly don't think it was ready for release based on my experience.   (...)    It's A2A and it pains me to say it, but this is one of the most showstopper bugs I've had on any new release.    Sure we get used to the usual 'list' with a Carenado release, but to be fair they don't tend to be absolute "back in the hangar" showstoppers, as this one is.

 

 

 

 

(...)

Very worrying that this cannot be reproduced at A2A HQ.... It's so strange that something so fundamentally game-stopping for such a large number of people just isn't happenning to any users on the A2A team.

One wonders how this can ever be fixed if you're just not seeing it. Pop over to my house and you'll see it 30 seconds after the plane loads, and right until I restart FSX.

 

 

(...)

 

For that reason, as much as I can see this will be a beautiful product, I personally wouldn't recommend people to be buying it      - yet.

 

In fact, although I am genuinely not one of the alarmist generation, and I hold A2A in the highest esteem of developers, I personally think that for this type of show stopping bug, the aircraft should be withdrawn from sale until it is resolved.

 

 

 

 

You go on as though the people who have a largely unusable plane, are just moaning whingers.  

Small little gripes, sure, people take them out of perspective  -  major issues such as no clickspots or even an aircraft that cannot get moving from a standstill on grass strips that have the very tiniest of inclines are major dealbreakers ............

 

 

 

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

 

We are seeing a cycle between the taking on board of the definitive bugs that some are seeing, and some great work to fix them (eg.... the clickspots, Scott and Lewis), followed by some complete denial of other issues. For example comments that some issues "apply to all aircraft in FSX" where that is definitely not the case...... and incorrect apportionment of blame on the 'stuck brakes' issue as a problem linked to Hardware (Michael at A2A is adamant this is a hardwre issue, despite me running some tests at the request of Lewis A2A and clearly reporting back that the exact issue occurs with no hardware toe brakes assigned, or even plugged in.

 

On that note, Lewis A2A:   You asked me yesterday to undertake those tests with the brakes and the hardware unplugged;  I did so and reported back a lengthy report on the A2A forum, which you've yet to acknowledge...... I will happily do any tests or give any help I can offer, as I ultimately love this product and want to see it in the right shape ......... but it's frustrating to spend time doing a test at the request of a developer, to then not have my results acknowledged or apparantly seen....  

 

If the results had been seen - Michael would not be posting tonight suggesting that the 'stuck brakes' problem is likely down to calibration and null zone settings for hardware.      I will say again, the brakes stick, and one cannot pull away from non-paved areas without using full power;   even when no hardware is assigned to brakes, nor even plugged in.

 

Elevator:   As J van E said earlier, I too am having to not set the trim to the "T/O" marker, in order to get a realistic climb experience. This isn't right.   I have flown 172SP models (albeit not the 'R') and these planes are basic trainers, they do not pitch up on take-off and threaten an immediate and aggresive bleeding of speed and stall     - they just don't!

 

Have you guys read and considered Alexander Metzger's comments about the A2A 172, and the CoG factors? ..... Alex is a legend in the FDE world to the same level that Rob Young is, so the opportunity to get his input should be taken.

 

Today, I find myself obviously very happy that the Clickspot problem has been resolved, but frustrated in equal measure at some (not unanimous) of the denial, and incorrect diagnoses going on on the A2A forum.         The T/O and landing regimes in the FDE just are not right yet ........  and the 'brakes stuck on' is a major issue (on a par with the clickspots) that cannot be played down or blamed on hardware    - especially where tests have shown it to occur where no hardware is used.

 

 

Over 24 hours later is immediate to you?   :wink:

 

Actually, I couldn't give a monkeys if my post gets ignored on their forum, or on any forum.... the point you've missed (while being more keen on having a cheap swipe), is that if the guys had read the findings I reported, after having been specifically asked to test them, it would have informed the guys that the problem is not hardware related at all ............. because it occurs where no hardware is even plugged in.

 I gave you a plus, Ron, because I agree.  It's just that these ongoing "subtle" wisecracks that keep being made deserve to be answered.

Thanks for the 'plus' I need the income. Remember, a wisecrack ignored isn't a wisecrack it's a.....something, something, something.

(I need to work on that one)

Thanks for the 'plus' I need the income. Remember, a wisecrack ignored isn't a wisecrack it's a.....something, something, something.

(I need to work on that one)

 

Please do keep working on it  , it sounds like with a little refinement, it has the makings of a world famous aphorism that will eventually find it's way into the signature block of future flight simmers for generations to come! :lol:

 

edit:  Thank you Ron, now you've got me going with it....

"A wisecrack ignored, is a wisecrack scorned"

"A wisecrack ignored a day, is a way to make it go away"

"A wisecrack refused, is a way to not be abused"

"In USA you make Wisecrack, in Soviet Russia, wisecrack make you..."

 

Cheers, and beers,

Mike, while I do have Opus I don't use it since I prefer FS Global Real Weather.  As long as I look straight forward I can manage if I'm very gentle on the yoke but once I look to the side (I have TrackIR) in a turn I usually lose all my bearings. Tried a night landing in pretty bad weather at Diamond Point (ORBX) last night and I went from stall warning to overspeed to stall warning allt the time in just a few seconds...  Felt like I was using the sim at 4x sim rate - that was intense!

 

 

Wow that is really odd???   I use track IR myself, I have had nothing like that happen so maybe this only affects some users?  

Well, I really don't know if I want anything updated but the turn coordinator.

 

After having taken my time to properly set and calibrate my control axis through FSUIPC, the A2A C172 is flying so great, manually and in AP, with any load such as just the pilot and no luggage, or the 4 pax plus 20 kg luggage, that I wouldn't say this was the same model I tested the day I bought and installed it.

 

The same applies to takeoff and landings.

 

The breakaway power problem is solved for my by cycling the parking brake. If this get's fixed in a better way, than that will be welcomed as well :-)

 

Anyway, any update from A2A will be welcomed, and if in the future we can have those prop effects done inside of accusim, then that will be PERFECT!!!!

My sentiments entirely j.c. :good: Except I've never had trouble with the brakes...Well, maybe a couple of times when there haven't been enough of 'em! (running out of runway! :blush: )