Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
BamaKevin

A2A 172

Recommended Posts

I am looking into moving from Fsx to Prepar3d and am looking at what I may lose as far as aircraft. I have the Fsx version of the A2A 172 and noticed that they sale a P3D version. Can I use the Fsx version?

Share this post


Link to post

I am looking into moving from Fsx to Prepar3d and am looking at what I may lose as far as aircraft. I have the Fsx version of the A2A 172 and noticed that they sale a P3D version. Can I use the Fsx version?

 

No. You have to get the P3D version. Well worth it though.

 

I would contact them directly via PM. They may have a crossgrade special that is not advertised.

 

Sion

Share this post


Link to post

You'd be better off transferring the default 172 from FSX. It has a more realistic flight model, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post

If that was a question, I'm totally serious. I genuinely think the A2A 172 is atrocious, and I say that as a professional pilot of 1900 hours, ATPL, CPL(H), King Air type rating, close to 200 hours on 172's, and can land a real one to 3 inch accuracy laterally, and 10 feet fore/aft. Behaviour at slow speeds is totally wrong, especially in the flare with a crosswind, often stalls on takeoff when it shouldn't, way too much opposite aileron needed in turns, almost impossible to land mains first with full flaps, and don't like the flat screws on the panel and inadequate polygons in critical places either. Rip off price. Wish I could get a refund. Last A2A plane I will buy.

Share this post


Link to post

I personally like it compared to other fsx planes but i have not flown a c172 for a long time so i cant comment on its accuracy, i do agree with the aileron comment for sure

Share this post


Link to post

You'd be better off transferring the default 172 from FSX. It has a more realistic flight model, IMO.

 

 

I genuinely think the A2A 172 is atrocious, and I say that as a professional pilot of 1900 hours, ATPL.........

 

There is another (far better) option than "binning" the A2A C172, in favour of the MS default C172.

 

The other option (which I've done very successfuly) is to transplant the flight model from the RealAir C172 into the A2A 172.    I'll say up front that the RealAir 172 is a freeware FS9 aircraft - but it still has what a lot of people consider to be the best C172 handling characteristics, for FS.

 

You can download it here :-

 

http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?FileName=ras172_fs9.zip

 

Then.... discard all of the components, apart from the .air file, and the aircraft.cfg.

 

You then have two options ;-

 

Easy Option

 

Simply rename the RealAir C172's .air file, to the name of the A2A 172's .air file, and copy (& overwrite) it into the A2A 172's folder.

 

Advanced Option

 

Do the above + also copy and overwrite all of the flight model related parameters from the RealAir C172's aircraft.cfg, into the A2A C172's aircraft.cfg.    (this will be engine values, etc, etc, but not things like contact points - you must retain the A2A values for these.

 

A2A will of course not provide support for this hybrid.

 

But.... I do share your opinion that the A2A C172 is mostly pretty miserable to fly - too much focus on 'numbers' and not enough of qualitative 'feel' ?    The above modification has transformed the A2A C172 for me, with RealAir's characteristic nice hand flying feel.   It's now one of my favourite GA aircraft again.

Share this post


Link to post

Make sure you are running the latest update here.  Something must be amiss.

 

almost impossible to land mains first with full flaps

 

 

Take a look at this video, from one of our forum members who is a CFI.  He demonstrates some good fundamental landing tips here:

 

Scott.

Share this post


Link to post

If that was a question, I'm totally serious. I genuinely think the A2A 172 is atrocious, and I say that as a professional pilot of 1900 hours, ATPL, CPL(H), King Air type rating, close to 200 hours on 172's, and can land a real one to 3 inch accuracy laterally, and 10 feet fore/aft. Behaviour at slow speeds is totally wrong, especially in the flare with a crosswind, often stalls on takeoff when it shouldn't, way too much opposite aileron needed in turns, almost impossible to land mains first with full flaps, and don't like the flat screws on the panel and inadequate polygons in critical places either. Rip off price. Wish I could get a refund. Last A2A plane I will buy.

 

When a no-name late adopter with just a handful of posts disagrees with Dudley Henriques, the A2A team, every reviewer and all the established posters in this forum, you will excuse me if I doubt you. 

 

Now, can you show us this self-stated accuracy? Love to see some videos of you landing on a dime. For the purposes of this topic, lets' call it three consecutive landings  to an accuracy of 12 feet longitudinally and six inches laterally. Plenty of margin there for hyperbole.

Share this post


Link to post

When a no-name late adopter with just a handful of posts disagrees with Dudley Henriques, the A2A team, every reviewer and all the established posters in this forum, you will excuse me if I doubt you. 

 

Now, can you show us this self-stated accuracy? Love to see some videos of you landing on a dime. For the purposes of this topic, lets' call it three consecutive landings  to an accuracy of 12 feet longitudinally and six inches laterally. Plenty of margin there for hyperbole.

 

What an arrogant post.  The guy had an opinion.  He's entitled to it.   I doubt much whether he cares whether you doubt it or not.  But calling someone a "no name late adopter with just a handful of posts" is out of line IMHO.   Quality of posting is not measured by the number of posts, as far as I can see.

 

For the record, I love A2A products - they're in the top drawer.   But rhd75 isn't the first person to note that that the 172 flight dynamics feel a little odd and overly challenging.   You must have a big opinion of yourself to think that another user needs to create videos, purely to justify an opinion, to you.

 

[EDIT:   Just noticed that the above was your FIRST post ..... oh the irony!].

Share this post


Link to post

I can't comment on the accuracy or non-accuracy of the A2A 172, as I'm not a real-world pilot, but I have had and still  have a serious issue with the slow elevator trim wheel which moves "...like 'lasses in wintertime..." . I've tried the suggestions from the A2A support forum, but it hasn't helped, and as much as I like the A2A 172, flying it is just too much hassle, and I've spent a lot less time flying it than I thought I would. I've avoided their subsequent releases on the assumption that the trim works the same way. They say it works more realistically, but I've read comments by real-world pilots saying that trimming a real aircraft is easier than trimming in FSX, so from this PC pilot's point of view, they've made it worse rather than better.

 

I can land it mains-first with full flaps though. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

Rhd75 post did come across as arrogant but i dont think that honestly was the intention just passionate about his experience, i dont agree with most comments but i only have 500 hours and have not flown for years, i also understand scots stance sometimes issues are created purely by the way things are communicated

 

Wayne

Share this post


Link to post

During our week long display at Air Venture (Oshkosh) last year, it was very interesting watching all different people, ranging from casual flight simmers to high time pilots and instructors fly using different hardware.  Each person comes to the table with their own experiences and therefore, preferences.  Some people fly clenching the yoke with a fist, pulling it hard (almost taking the table with it) and others fly with their fingertips.

 

We added a slider in our 2d pop up, CONTROLS menu in the lower left, that dynamically adjusts the controller sensitivity.  This slider can be adjusted anywhere from 0 to 100, without compromising performance.  It is only the way the controller is interpreted.

 

Regarding the trim wheel sensitivity, here is a video Peter (Frooglesim) made that explains how to configure it for those using FSUIPC:

 

Scott.

Share this post


Link to post

Scot you guys are awesome for some time now i blamed the a2a 172 bank changes when it was actually dodgy rudder hardware moving left of centre by itself, scot just wondering what rudder you use, i am looking at ditching the faulty ch rudder and replacing with the standard saitek flight pro rudders, would like the saitek cessna rudders but the price is steep, have you tried them by chance

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


What an arrogant post. The guy had an opinion. He's entitled to it. I doubt much whether he cares whether you doubt it or not. But calling someone a "no name late adopter with just a handful of posts" is out of line IMHO. Quality of posting is not measured by the number of posts, as far as I can see.


For the record, I love A2A products - they're in the top drawer. But rhd75 isn't the first person to note that that the 172 flight dynamics feel a little odd and overly challenging.

 

Have to agree with Craig - disagree if you like, but leave off on the attack mode.  Make your case with facts, not name calling, and you're a lot more likely to have people listen to you and respect your opinion.  That said, the post he was responding to was also a bit over the top.  When I read things like "rip-off price", I rapidly start tuning out, especially when directed at a product which offers features no one else does.  If someone doesn't like something - fine - but that doesn't make it a "rip-off".

 

And also for the record, I only have about 100 hours in 172s (though none in a fuel-injected version like A2A models) but I too had some head-shakes when the initial version was released and I quickly set it aside.  As the various changes were made, things improved markedly.  The A2A 172 still isn't my favorite plane, but that's mostly because I'm not that big a fan of 172s - hence the 100 or so hours IRL - but the simulation is still first rate as it currently stands.  The 182, on the other hand, works for me on all levels!  It was the only plane that managed to pull me away from my beloved V2 Piston Duke (for a while, anyway :rolleyes: ) and that's saying something.

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post

scot just wondering what rudder you use

 

 

I think both the Saitek and CH pedals are good for the price, however, I use the Saitek Combat Pedals, due to their higher resistance and width.  I also have them bolted into the floor, so they are solid.  They have gotten a LOT of use, and so far, haven't had a single hiccup.

 

BTW, the Saitek elevator trim is a great product for $50.  I also prefer Saitek throttles due to much better resolution to CH, but for the yoke, I definitely prefer the CH Products.

 

Scott.

Share this post


Link to post

 close to 200 hours on 172's, and can land a real one to 3 inch accuracy laterally, and 10 feet fore/aft. 

I want to see that

Share this post


Link to post

I wish to back away from my original post slightly because last night I installed the latest update, flew it for a few hours and, to tell the truth, the 172 is much better than I remember it. The changes to the aileron sensitivity at slow speed, and whatever else has been done, have obviously made a difference. I also came to realise that things such as the strength of the centering spring in my yoke probably make a big difference to how I perceive the control forces required compared to those in the real aircraft. However, I still find the real aircraft much easier to fly accurately, and the fact that A2A keep changing how the thing flies, dramatically, and now for the fourth or fifth time, suggests to me that they don't really know what they're doing. Anyway, I obviously got carried away so I apologize. As for my claimed accuracy on the 172, I stand by that, and I may at some time post a video, possibly in about a month when I have time to make one.

Oh, and if this Dudley Henriques guy is such a piloting genius, how did he approve the original release of the 172 which truly was a joke in so many aspects? (No p-factor or torque, wheelies on landing until 5 knots, and a host of other unbelievable behaviours)

Edited for typos and spelling.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know why should I tell that to ATP rated pilot, but in real world one 172 can be different from another. Difference can start with veriety of models and end at how controls are rigged.

A2A made the best bet on with how thing should be with a reasonable tweaks.

 

If anyone want to demonstrate their superior abilities in 172 they are always welcome - I own one and I tech in one

Share this post


Link to post

Rhd75 are you trying to convince us or yourself that you are a gun pilot, i dont think anybody really cares that you can land a c172 with awesome accuracy lol, being a great pilot is more than being able to pull a 172 up on a dime so to speak,

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Oh, and if this Dudley Henriques guy is such a piloting genius, how did he approve the original release of the 172 which truly was a joke in so many aspects? (No p-factor or torque, wheelies on landing until 5 knots, and a host of other unbelievable behaviours)

 

Why the snark?  Go to A2A's forums, read some of what Mr. Henriques writes and judge for yourself.  Even better, offer your comments there so others can respond.  From my perspective, the man has the creds and knows his stuff.  While on their forums, you might also note the many other experienced RW pilots who hang out there and hold a very different view from yours.

 

Even in the initial release, the plane was not a "joke".  Yes, I agree there were issues, but they were worked out.  And "No p-factor or torque"?  Are you kidding?  One of the initial issues was too much and not properly correctable.  The main reason I stopped flying it initially was because you had to constantly correct with aileron during even shallow climbs, rather than being able to compensate with rudder.  They were on the right track in making torque and p-factor behave realistically (unlike most FSX prop planes) - they just needed to refine things.  I should also mention that they're probably the only ones who actually get piston engine dynamics done well, including mixture and proper leaning.

 

Leave off the pejoratives ("joke", "rip-off", "flying genius") and it'll be easier to carry on a serious discussion.  I've no quarrel with someone holding a differing opinion but as is, for those of us with considerable time with multiple A2A products (and many of us also RW pilots with 172 experience) you're coming off as someone grinding a rather dubious axe, making it hard to respect yours.

 

Just sayin',

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post

and the fact that A2A keep changing how the thing flies, dramatically, and now for the fourth or fifth time, suggests to me that they don't really know what they're doing

 

Yes, they're a bunch of ignorant goofs  :blink: Again a bit of a bold statement don't you think?

 

 

 

I wish to back away from my original post slightly because last night I installed the latest update, flew it for a few hours and, to tell the truth, the 172 is much better than I remember it. The changes to the aileron sensitivity at slow speed, and whatever else has been done, have obviously made a difference. I also came to realise that things such as the strength of the centering spring in my yoke probably make a big difference to how I perceive the control forces required compared to those in the real aircraft

 

Maybe you also don't really know what you are doing...

 

 

Oh, and if this Dudley Henriques guy is such a piloting genius, how did he approve the original release of the 172 which truly was a joke in so many aspects?

 

A joke? You really do not want to be respectful do you? Maybe you can enlighten the A2A team with your views  :rolleyes:

 

Nothing personal sir, but I don't like your tone.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...