A2A Cessna 172 now available

[flapsdown 45]

Curious to hear if anybody else is having random (and sometimes rampant), loss of the ability to interact with the virtual cockpit - the 2D 430 GPS was already having "focus" problems when I had it pulled to my secondary screen, but it appears that using one (or more) of the 2D A2A control dialogs can trigger the VC becoming "unclickable" - I was just about to start a thread on the 172 support forum last night when some other guy beat me to it, and then others chimed in, but I hadn't seen a report here...

[JimmiG 244]

there is an option to install in P3D

 

Yep. The first version of the installer didn't detect P3D correctly but they've re-uploaded it now with a fixed installer.

 

There are a few teething problems with this add-on, such as excessive taxi friction for some users, lack of p-factor, and a few other glitches with click spots, pop-up windows etc. that seem to only affect some users.

 

I guess they needed to get this out the door since it was taking so long. I still absolutely recommend this add-on, but it will take one or two patches to work 100%. I'd say it's about 85% done.

[Q_flyer 766]

I was doing a walk around inspection this morning and when I grabbed the right flap it had way to much slop in it.  Into the maintenance hangar she went and I found the right flap actuator was indeed worn out.  I replaced it and gave it a wiggle again and it's good as new.

 

Now how cool is that?

 

Very cool.  :smile:

 

I've had a flat battery in my GPS295 (I did the realistic thing, and continued without it), several fouled plugs, and I've already needed some new tyres, following a hard landing....  :blush:  :smile:

[Guest]

Got it! Just did my first flight. I liked the walk around and preflight part (although I had a lot of questions about it). I also liked my flight but I have to say it was easier than I expected... I sort of expected things to be er... more realistic and so harder but taxiing was dead easy and so was taking off, flying around and landing... Didn't feel too different from any other plane I've flown in FSX, to be honest. Maybe landing was a bit harder (although I kept on floating above the runway even at 45 kts while the manual said you should land with a speed of 62 which seems way too fast to me.) Maybe you have to fly a real airplane to really appreciate the realism? I noticed that when I took off I sky rocketed into the air and I had to trim a LOT immediately before the plane settled down. I was climbing > 1000 fpm and at a speed of 80 to 90 which is nowhere near what the performance charts show me. But maybe that was due to me being alone in the plane.

 

The approach was rather funny... Being used to the Legacy I was ready for approach at a certain distance but I found out that was WAY too early...!!! It took AGES before I reached the runway! You clearly have to approach differently with this plane (a LOT later).

 

Anyway, I like the plane, it looks good, the walk around and preflight parts are fun (for now) and the sounds are great but somehow I have the idea I am missing what's so real about the actual flying. Perhaps I should simply accept it flies like it does in real life but it feels just as easy as the default C172 to me... I was expecting a harder time flying with this plane. Maybe the hard part will come later on when things get old and go wrong. It was fun keeping an eye on all the gauges because with this plane a wrong temp can mean trouble, unlike other planes where nothing ever goes wrong.

[Q_flyer 766]

Curious to hear if anybody else is having random (and sometimes rampant), loss of the ability to interact with the virtual cockpit - the 2D 430 GPS was already having "focus" problems when I had it pulled to my secondary screen, but it appears that using one (or more) of the 2D A2A control dialogs can trigger the VC becoming "unclickable" - I was just about to start a thread on the 172 support forum last night when some other guy beat me to it, and then others chimed in, but I hadn't seen a report here...

 

Yes.   I had one incidence of all clickspots disappearing (did not appear to be view related).  I resolved it by bringing up the GPS as a 2D, and clicking it, after which all the VC clickspots were restored.

 

And yes, I have the issue at Orbx airfields were you need full throttle to begin taxi-ing and ground friction remains very very high.

 

Hope these are resolved soon - but it is still a heavily recommended insta-buy, for me.

[molleh 451]

As I said at the A2A forum, this is a Cessna 172. It's a trainer aircraft. It's not going to be like trying to hustle a P-47 into the air. Realism means accuracy to the real-life counterpart, and if that means simulating docile handling, that's what you get.

[Q_flyer 766]

Got it! Just did my first flight. I liked the walk around and preflight part (although I had a lot of questions about it). I also liked my flight but I have to say it was easier than I expected... I sort of expected things to be er... more realistic and so harder but taxiing was dead easy and so was taking off, flying around and landing... Didn't feel too different from any other plane I've flown in FSX, to be honest. Maybe landing was a bit harder (although I kept on floating above the runway even at 45 kts while the manual said you should land with a speed of 62 which seems way too fast to me.) Maybe you have to fly a real airplane to really appreciate the realism? I noticed that when I took off I sky rocketed into the air and I had to trim a LOT immediately before the plane settled down. I was climbing > 1000 fpm and at a speed of 80 to 90 which is nowhere near what the performance charts show me. But maybe that was due to me being alone in the plane.

 

The approach was rather funny... Being used to the Legacy I was ready for approach at a certain distance but I found out that was WAY too early...!!! It took AGES before I reached the runway! You clearly have to approach differently with this plane (a LOT later).

 

Anyway, I like the plane, it looks good, the walk around and preflight parts are fun (for now) and the sounds are great but somehow I have the idea I am missing what's so real about the actual flying. Perhaps I should simply accept it flies like it does in real life but it feels just as easy as the default C172 to me... I was expecting a harder time flying with this plane. Maybe the hard part will come later on when things get old and go wrong. It was fun keeping an eye on all the gauges because with this plane a wrong temp can mean trouble, unlike other planes where nothing ever goes wrong.

 

The thing is, a C172R is easy to fly in real life.   I think the realism aspects are more about the maintenance, proper operation (eg the start-up), and consequences, like damaging equipment due to poor operation. 

 

PS..... Sorry for the double post.

[Guest]

The thing is, a C172R is easy to fly in real life.   I think the realism aspects are more about the maintenance, proper operation (eg the start-up), and consequences, like damaging equipment due to poor operation. 

 

Yes, I am beginning to understand that. Molleh also posted that on the A2A forum (where I had a LOT of questions...). I think I was focusing on the wrong things, not really knowing yet what Accu-sim is about. BTW The sounds are also a big part of the realism, I realised in the meantime.

 

Well, the advantage of this is I don't have to worry too much before each flight LOL I don't really mind it's easy to fly! (I also noticed it's easy to trim the plane, which I love because that was always a problem for me in the Legacy.)

 

Anyway, this was my first experience with Accu-sim. Tomorrow I will pick my default plane and turn it into a used one and also load real weather and some passengers and take it from there.

 

BTW I really loved the default view in the VC: perfect position imho. I also loved the windows: a nice subtle reflection. It's the first time I don't feel the need to edit the windows of a plane to make them more transparent! It's perfect!

 

One more thing: are there any more pilots here who like to fly this plane without the yokes in view...? I suppose it isn't very realistic, but I like to hide them...

[JimmiG 244]

The thing is, a C172R is easy to fly in real life.   I think the realism aspects are more about the maintenance, proper operation (eg the start-up), and consequences, like damaging equipment due to poor operation. 

 

PS..... Sorry for the double post.

 

If anything, this add-on goes to show that the default C172 isn't as bad as people seem to think. Fundamentally, it and the supposedly much more realistic A2A C172 behave similarly. The A2A model obviously feels more fluid and refined, but the basic handling is similar.

 

I guess this is why they have been doing warbirds until now - that's where the physics part of AccuSim really gets to shine. Like you say, the A2A C172 is more about engine modelling and maintenance/proper care of the airplane.

[Kaboki 437]

Didn't feel too different from any other plane I've flown in FSX, to be honest.

 

Are you kidding me? This plane has soul, it has a feel I have never felt with any other addon plane(except the other A2A releases).

The vibrations when giving full throttle during runup is just awesome, the sounds, the engine feels like a real engine...the the omg. No no, you have to be kidding  Also I find it more challenging to land this one compared to the default, there is just now way you can compare this to the default plane.. No way.

 

And they are also working on even make it more realistic quote:

"We were not happy with the p-factor and torque were were seeing in the FM, so we turned it down considerably as it was more natural to have less torque and p-factor than something that wasn't right. We are working on bringing these systems into Accu-Sim. A much nicer and more accurate torque, p-factor, and some slipstream effects coming. This is also coordinated with some new physics for the ball in the turn & balance indicator."

[tcd223 1]

 

One more thing: are there any more pilots here who like to fly this plane without the yokes in view...? I suppose it isn't very realistic, but I like to hide them...

 

Having a saitek yoke on my desk, I hide the yoke on the pilot side and leave the passenger side VC yoke in place just to confirm it is moving in the same direction as my yoke is.

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=108&t=35692

 

They know about the FSX FM issues with Left Turning Tendencies, and they decided to remove it completely from the end product until they can come with a custom solution, far more realistic. Let's hope they succeed!

 

Good to know, I hope it gets patched in soon. It'll be fun to recreate flights around the airport in right traffic where you don't need aileron till you're ready to turn base.

[gman1986 14]

One more thing: are there any more pilots here who like to fly this plane without the yokes in view...? I suppose it isn't very realistic, but I like to hide them...

Yeah I like to do that on most aircraft with that option. Seems more in the way of the switches on the A2A 172 with my viewpoint.

[MarkSC 122]

Looks like they've posted a fix for the Saitek battery switch issue on the A2A forum (instructions for configuring with SPAD).

[tonywob 4,770]

 

 

One more thing: are there any more pilots here who like to fly this plane without the yokes in view...? I suppose it isn't very realistic, but I like to hide them...

 

It's practically the first thing I do in any plane, remove the yoke :-)

[unintelligible 4]

Are you kidding me? This plane has soul, it has a feel I have never felt with any other addon plane(except the other A2A releases).

 

Not to put words in Jeroen's mouth but I think by "feel" he was referring to the way the airplane physically handles in the air during normal operation. In that respect I agree, to me it doesn't feel significantly different than most FSX light aircraft. That "rock steady," "flies like it's on rails" feel is still there, to an extent.

 

I agree with you though on the "soul" part. The way the engine stumbles to life (and death ), the squeaks of plastic as the engine vibrates... it's the closest I've come to the real life visual and audible "feel" of flying one of these aircraft on a desktop sim. But the FDE has a ways to go.

 

On a related note I think the 172 in the Aerofly FS "sim" actually "feels" closer to a real 172 than anything I've flown in MSFS so far. I don't know if it flies book numbers, and the sim is extremely basic (you can't even tune a VOR), but the control harmony feels dead on.