BobOften when there is such an opposite in opinion the answer lies not in the aircraft but in the users system, controls, or something else going wrong.You mentioned trim? this was a problem in version 1. there was a small trim guage where you placed the trim in takeoff position first otherwise the aircraft behaved like a yoyo.When running right the feel from this aircraft is very realistic and she is a beauty to handfly :-)Peter

Regarding aircraft feel and handling in FS, we'll probably never get to the same conclusion. Simply too different hardware controls and settings around. I have only very few planes in my aircraft folder, but for those I spend a great deal of time to find individual settings for sensitivity, response curves, etc.Also hardware like e.g. the PFC Jetliner Yoke makes a world of difference.OTOH I remember a local King Air driver here also heavily complaining about the slow flight behaviour of the Aeroworx plane. That was a few month ago for V1.0, so he might have to look at it again.I find the taxi behaviour way off. The advice to fiddle around with condition and fuel lever for taxi is nice, but has not much to do with the Beta range reality. Aeroworx mentions beta range is not possible in FS, but Fanda/Majesticsoftware has done it for their Dash-8.IMO the Fanda/Majesticsoftware Dash-8 sits rock solid on the Turboprop simulation "throne" since quite some time and will probably stay there for quite a while.Mike

Well I spent some time this morning with this aircraft again and there are many things I like about it. I do feel that the taxi and the trim on approach are squirrely on my system. I guess what bothers me about that is every other aircraft I fly, feel perfect, with my yoke-rudder-control sens setup. I hate to start monkeying around with what has been some very realistic settings to adjust it for just one aircraft. I tried an approach this morning and one click up of trim at about 145 knots and I am climbing, one click down descending, and I got the same reaction with varying the elevator pitch, very, very slighty. I don't feel that this pitchiness is a control setup issue. I suppose I could play around with the Aircraft.cfg files and get it to work better, but that is whay I posted my negative reaction in the first place. I don't feel that this should be necessary on a plane that is touted as a great and realistic flight model. A month or so ago the Carenado C-182 RG was purchased by me. Up until that time I read rave reviews about the aircraft and how "perfect" it was. I fired it up, taxied out on the runway and took off to the worst engine looping sound I had ever heard in a payware aircraft. I also noticed that it took off like the Space Shuttle instead of a C-182, which I have flown in real life. Then in landing, the plane floated forever in a nose down, break the firewall on touchdown , attitude. Well I posted this on this forum, and immediatly I had people telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about, I should learn to fly, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft. etc... etc.. etc... Some people did agree that the full power engine sound was terrible. This developed into almost a flame war with a couple of people.The end result of all that was:1. Carenado admitted that they had put a STOL airfile in the product and came out with an update that fixed that plus some tweaks to the drag and lift. 2. They updated the sound file 3. Active Sky found that they had a problem with ASV causing a float when trying to land that would send you all the way down a 6,000 foot runway with the power off and full flaps.. The reason I am bringing this up, is that I think I am way past the , "your system must be screwed up" remarka, or "you don't know anything about flying aircraft", in regards to my impression of a new FS aircraft. On my system which is excellent for everything else I fly ( BTW the Carenado C-182 has become my favorite aircraft to fly after the issues were fixed), the B-200 appears very twitchy in taxi, despite playing with prop pitch, idle speed, brakes, rudder and everything at once on the taxiway. On approach and landing I find the pitch control to be way too squirrely..... That kind of mucks up my satisfaction level when I know after a long flight, I am in for a roller coaster ride to the runway. By the way, after I posted this I went to the Aeroworx web site and saw quite a few people complaining on a couple of different threads about the Pitch Trim on the B-200... Well I'll be..... :)

Bob,I had the same issues you are having and fixed them via the following:1) If you have FSUIPC registered version check Fix Control Accelleration.2) Also under control, assignments in the FS main menu move elevator trim repeat to half.This should fix the twitchy trim control.The taxi issue is just the airfile, on version 1 somebody released a new airfile that had better taxi results but I don't think that file works with version 2. I tried the sim1.dll file that Johaan Dees talks about but it ends up crashing my system so I must be very gentle on the taxi.Hope this helps,Sean

>Bob,>>I had the same issues you are having and fixed them via the>following:>>1) If you have FSUIPC registered version check Fix Control>Accelleration.>>2) Also under control, assignments in the FS main menu move>elevator trim repeat to half.>>This should fix the twitchy trim control.>>The taxi issue is just the airfile, on version 1 somebody>released a new airfile that had better taxi results but I>don't think that file works with version 2. I tried the>sim1.dll file that Johaan Dees talks about but it ends up>crashing my system so I must be very gentle on the taxi.>>Hope this helps,>>Sean I read that FSUIPC suggestion on their web site about the trim a few minutes ago and find that cure for this problem unacceptable. If the airfile is not working correctly, they should fix it or give you FSUIPC for free. I have dozens of payware aircraft and don't have that problem with any of them, so all of a sudden I need FSUIPC? I am told by a friend of mine that has the same aircraft that if Altitude is set on the AP, even without the AP engaged, it will cause wild trim changes. Now that is a programming bug, pain and simple. I agree , they also need to fix the taxi behavior which is pretty bad...

The trim half fix is something that everyone should do regardless of what aircraft they are flying, because the repeat on the trim - even on default aircraft - is insane.I'm afraid that I agree with Bob that the trim when on final (and only on final, I don't have any problems handflying this aircraft in the cruise) seems very "twitchy". One tap seems to make the aircraft's nose want to leap up or down. I don't find it uncontrollable, though, just a little touchy.I've not experienced the "autopilot trim change" bug on this aircraft and have flown it - a/p on and off - for several hours now.Ian P.

I just flew a flight with the ALT turned off on the APpanel on descent and landing and it seemed OK. I think that solves the approach and landing problem..

Yeah I like it when a mouse pilot who has never even sat in real plane complains about the airfile of his SR-71 and how it doesnt "feel right" at 80 thousand feet.

<>Yes, part of correct pilot procedure is to CONFIRM that all AP related functions are disengaged when their use is not intended.I experienced no twitchy trim issues whatsoever and neither, obviously, did Henning or any of he Beta testers, some of whom have TONS of B200 time...or they would have fixed it.I have long since given up trying to explain why some people have issues that others don't...but the fact is that such wierdness happens and the developers are...a little too often I think...blamed.BTW, I also had nearly none of the issues you experienced with the Caranedo 182 and suspect that they mistakenly posted an incorrect download file.Regards,Jim

<>Re: my earlier comment on how so many issues are machine-specific...even on identical rigs...let me just say that I have flown many..but not all...of the default aircraft and have NOT found that trim sensitivity...given the way I have everything set up...is nearly "insane." Pretty good really, in most cases..Of course, I sympathize with those who do not get realistic results.Everyone with B200 trim issues should learn what Bob learned and that is to disengage ALT on the AP panel when hand flying the aircraft.Regards,Jim

><is insane.>>>>Re: my earlier comment on how so many issues are>machine-specific...even on identical rigs...let me just say>that I have flown many..but not all...of the default aircraft>and have NOT found that trim sensitivity...given the way I>have everything set up...is nearly "insane." Pretty good>really, in most cases..>>Of course, I sympathize with those who do not get realistic>results.>>Everyone with B200 trim issues should learn what Bob learned>and that is to disengage ALT on the AP panel when hand flying>the aircraft.>>Regards,>Jim>I spent the entire morning and afternoon flying this aircraft around, doing touch and goes, ILS's, rough weather flying in T-storms, and once I got the trim issue resolved with the AP settings switched off, it flys like a dream....... I am really going to like flying this plane around :)

Heh-heh...another convert. ;-)Bob, I stayed away from the conversation because I really didn't have anything to add...you're entitled to your opinion, and I'd seen you on the Aeroworx forum looking for answers to your questions. There are three reasons why Aeroworx chose the B200:1) It's the biggest airplane you can fly as PIC without an ATP rating (anything over 12,500 pounds requres an ATP)2) It's got a three-axis autopilot (MSFS defaults notwithstanding, three-axis AP is the domain of the big boys)Those two things make it legal to fly this airplane single-handedly in the real world...and since most flight simming is by nature single-handed flying (hence FS2Crew), the B200 is the biggest plane you can realistically fly in MSFS, which puts it in a class more or less by itself. The third reason? Because it's a cool plane and they thought someone ought to do one for MSFS.Glad you got it worked out, Bob. Enjoy.Kurt "Yoda" KalbfleischAeroworx B200 Beta Tester

>Heh-heh...another convert. ;-)>>Bob, I stayed away from the conversation because I really>didn't have anything to add...you're entitled to your opinion,>and I'd seen you on the Aeroworx forum looking for answers to>your questions. >>There are three reasons why Aeroworx chose the B200:>>1) It's the biggest airplane you can fly as PIC without an ATP>rating (anything over 12,500 pounds requres an ATP)>>2) It's got a three-axis autopilot (MSFS defaults>notwithstanding, three-axis AP is the domain of the big boys)>>Those two things make it legal to fly this airplane>single-handedly in the real world...and since most flight>simming is by nature single-handed flying (hence FS2Crew), the>B200 is the biggest plane you can realistically fly in MSFS,>which puts it in a class more or less by itself. >>The third reason? Because it's a cool plane and they thought>someone ought to do one for MSFS.>>Glad you got it worked out, Bob. Enjoy.>>Kurt "Yoda" Kalbfleisch>Aeroworx B200 Beta TesterAmother pilot and I flew Multiplayer last night both using the B-200. What a great flight it was...

My 2 cents worth on the B200 v2.0.1 . I have had the V1 version since last June. Every time I flew it the fps went into the basement. I never liked the prop animation of the disk. I really like V2.0.1. Fps is back up to an acceptable level on my Pent 4 3.0 Ghz machine. Prop animation is up the quality level that the rest of the aircraft is now. I do have to turn down the sound acceleration on the sound card. Active Camera lets me look all around in the cabin in the

Great screenies, Bob!Kurt "Yoda" KalbfleischAeroworx B200 Beta Tester