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

Yes the 182 is just superb, id love a twin say a c340 or the like from these guys

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.

Yes i have the trim wheel it is great makes a big difference, cheers

 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

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.

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

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,

 

 

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

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.

Oh, and if this Dudley Henriques guy is such a piloting genius, ...

 

Google can be your friend! And maybe save you from having egg on your face?

 

 

http://www.migman.com/pax/Henriques/Henriques.php

 

 

Could you point me (us?) in the direction of your accomplishments in aviation?

Who cares not me