Doesn't seem like they modified the ground coefficient for realistic taxiing in FSX. Still takes an enormous amount of power to get the airplane to taxi like FS2004. Anyone know if there's a new Sim1.dll for FSX yet? I tried installing the one for FS2004, but FSX won't start with it.

Apparently some Beta testers brought this issue up, but the devs had their own reasons not to change it.

How lame is that... If they intend on making the statement 'As Real As It Gets', they should live up to it. Taxiing is far from that.

>How lame is that... If they intend on making the statement>'As Real As It Gets', they should live up to it. Taxiing is>far from that.Okay, let's get away from as real as it gets, and say that exact throttle settings don't give the perfect results for getting the plane rolling. But, why don't I have a problem getting the plane rolling, or taxiing? It's because I DO what it takes. If I takes a bit more throttle, then what the ****. It's not different that applying a bit extra for an up-hill runway. I don't even think about it. I just do it!If you think that every thing will be exact, or should be exact, to say as "real as it gets", then forget it. Real as it gets, doesn't mean exactly real ----does it?L.Adamson

I like it the way it is. Seems better now than before. Perhaps not taxiing so much but any take off roll now seems much more realistic. You do not get that instant burst of speed, especially in the biggies. I tried the C-130 the other day and it gave quite a neat feeling on the roll.duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

Lsst time was up in a Cessna 172, we needed 2,300rpm to move the aircraft from its parking spot. The time before, just more than tickover. I even made a note in my logbook about it. Do I need to explain why?So how does that fit with the criticism? Answer: It doesn't, its just another comment from someone who has probably never ever seen the inside of a real cockpit much less actually flown a plane and think the sim represents the way it should be. Leave it to the experts.FSX is a reasonable approximation of mass and inertia. Could it be better? Yes, but as the developers made a decision to leave the settings where they were I am happy to accept that these compromises are in order to better represent the flight characteristics in flight. Whcih are much better in FSX than they were in FS9.This is Flight sim, not taxi sim. I know where I want the emphasis, and as any real pilot will tell you, the taxi response is well within real-world experiences.Allcott

Allcot, so true..... now you are making me think of how much RPM it took when that T-Tail Arrow I flew had it's tires frozen to the tarmac ;)duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

It's not what it takes to move the airplane, it's what it takes to keep it moving. An aircraft should taxi on little to no additional thrust after applying break-away. In fact, some like the 727 & 757 have to ride the brakes depending on weight during taxiing which is my exact experience in full-flight sims. Not saying everything needs to be exacting, but at least give us a realistic coefficient of ground friction. You shouldn't be using 45% N1 to maintain a taxi speed.

>Lsst time was up in a Cessna 172, we needed 2,300rpm to move>the aircraft from its parking spot.>Something very wrong with your C172 (underinflated tires?) or perhaps terrain is not flat enough. I can start my (real) C172 moving with barely 1400-1500 RPM and will maintain forward motion with 900-1100 rpm. Definitely the rolling friction in FS9 (don't have FSX yet) doesn't correspond to my real-life flight experince regardless if it is a Piper or a Cessna. The sim1.dll works well for me in FS9 making ground movement more believable.Michael J.

PMDG brought it to the attention of ACES but they did not fix it for various reasons

>It's not what it takes to move the airplane, it's what it>takes to keep it moving. An aircraft should taxi on little to>no additional thrust after applying break-away. In fact, some>like the 727 & 757 have to ride the brakes depending on weight>during taxiing which is my exact experience in full-flight>sims. Not saying everything needs to be exacting, but at least>give us a realistic coefficient of ground friction. You>shouldn't be using 45% N1 to maintain a taxi speed.It depends on the aircaft. I've no direct experience in large airliners, but as an aircraft mechanic for a corporate operator, I'm well aquainted with the taxi characteristics of small and mid-range jet aircraft.A fully-loaded Lear 55 or Citation can require up to 70% N1 to breakaway, and 40% N1 (or more) to taxi at a reasonable speed... especially going up a modest incline. (Few airports or taxiways are perfectly level). If you were to pull the throttles back to idle, these aircraft would gradually would roll to a stop.They are a bit more "lively" (and require less power) when empty or with light fuel loads.To me, in general, ground handling seems much improved in FSX. Not so much in regards to rolling friction, but when turning on the ground, the turning characteristics of the aircraft I've tried seem much smoother.Jim Barrett

Oh, I definitely agree with the turning. It is much more realistic now. I guess I'm just concerned about the rolling friction aspect. It's grossly incorrect. I'd equate it to taxiing through grass with the wheels sinking into the dirt. I just hope someone comes out with the mod for the Sim1.dll again. I agree, it makes things much more realistic in terms of rolling friction. I guess the break-away thrust is largly dependant upon apron slope, the weight, and if it's asphalt or concrete (wheels can sink into asphalt on a hot day).

Strange ...

>A fully-loaded Lear 55 or Citation can require up to 70% N1 to>breakaway, and 40% N1 (or more) to taxi at a reasonable>speed...Don't know about the Citation but for fully loaded 747 the first number (breakaway) is around 40% and obviously much less to keep moving (a tad above idle is needed to keep moving). This info comes directly from a Virgin Atlantic 747 captain. By the way PMDG acknowledges that the rolling friction in FS is wrong but there is little they can do about it (go to their forum to read details).Michael J.

>these compromises are in order to better represent the flight>characteristics in flight.I did not catch this commment when I first read it. Sorry but this is bunch of hogwash. In real world there is no connection between flight characteristics and ground friction. Absolutely none. If there is any connection in FS it doesn't speak well about the general architecture of this software. There is a reasonable explanation given by the PMDG folks on their forum why MSFS left the rolling friction untouched in FSX but it clearly has nothing to do with concern for giving us "better flight characteristics".On the subject of your 2300 rpm - again, this number is so outrageous for a C172 that unless your tail was frozen to the ground or someone let air out of your tires or you forgot to undo tiedown ropes or there was 10 deg slope - I would not by flying this aircraft on suspicion of some significant engine problem. But somewhow I have a feel you forgot to tell us the whole truth ...Michael J.