Have only tried the 172 for a decent amount of time. My observations: default control sensitives are too high and you need a pretty agressive curve to make them react "normally". The feel of the 172 is very good to me (I'm no pilot) but have not tried spins or stalls yet. I think they did a great job of making it feel like it's actually flying through air. Does pitch seem too aggressive to anyone else?

Yes, they are all too sensitive and there is little to no difference at low speed, the A320 is much better in this aspect, low speed=no authority.

Far too squirrely. The actual flight dynamics are spot on. Better than DCS. The CONTROLS are overly sensitive.

I have a very hard time keeping centerline with 0 wind.

Yes I concur to the flight model is improved, and 172 feels right. The only thing little lag on the toe brakes. In real 172 I would send to the shop if brakes were that sluggish 🙂

I'm using TM Warthog, controls sensitivity feels about right except rudder which I reduced sensitivity a bit .

I have around 4 digit hours in variety  172s including owning one and instructing in most.

Will put in test more, but so far very good impressions!

OK brief mini-summary:

 

1) Power off stall. Airplane shouldn't roll to the left if stalled coordinated, but I can live with that - I have seen similar behavior in XP11

2) Slow flight - very close. More right rudder required to keep 172 coordinated. "Pitch for airspeed" works great, but I had a bit trouble with "powering for altitude". I guess spiraling slipstream could be tweaked, but not bad for default.

3) Steep turns - rate of turn  at 45 degrees bank seems a little bit faster than in real life, but again I can live with that

5)  Power off 180 seems right on money. Glides at 65 kts just like I expected. Can be used for emergency landing training easily ! 

What is adverse yaw like?  I'm not sure how much a 172 should have, but I'd expect a bit in the 152.

Hook

152 seems to be pretty good flight model wise, at least it is when you back the control axis sensitivities right off although I've not really chucked it about yet. Early days of course, but first impressions are that it's definitely a big improvement flight model-wise over anything else out ther.

It does a better job of conveying being in a light aircraft than most other sims, unless you perhaps include P3D/FSX A2A add-ons into the equation, since manage that too.

And of course the new sim looks really great, which doesn't hurt. Performance is good considering all the improvements which are going on.

Anyone else annoyed with the taxi physics? When I used to fly the 172Sp I always found the nosewheel to be pretty underwhelming. I usually just rode the brakes into turns because the wheel sucked. In MSFS2020 the 172SP turns like a top.

I've noticed the rate of turn increases dramatically as groundspeed increases. At 20knots the nosewheel can pretty much spin you around. This seems absolutely reverse to real life where, and someone will correct me, but the effectiveness of the nosewheel decreases as groundspeed increases.

I think it would really help if those posting about the C172 gave us some indication of how many C172 RL hours they have.

4 minutes ago, WestAir said:

 

Your physical controls make all the difference as well as the curves you set for them. The Logitech yoke i had to get rid of, as it just doesn't have the resolution making it much too jerky. The honeycomb works great. Logitech pedals need a curve so they are not soo sensitive on initial movements

13 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Anyone else annoyed with the taxi physics? When I used to fly the 172Sp I always found the nosewheel to be pretty underwhelming. I usually just rode the brakes into turns because the wheel sucked. In MSFS2020 the 172SP turns like a top.

I've noticed the rate of turn increases dramatically as groundspeed increases. At 20knots the nosewheel can pretty much spin you around. This seems absolutely reverse to real life where, and someone will correct me, but the effectiveness of the nosewheel decreases as groundspeed increases.

My guess is that they aren't modeling the need to use differential breaking on a 172 (or any other Cessna) because a lot of people don't have rudder pedals and it'd be one of those things that would be unusable for 95% of users. I'm personally alright with that. The way the A2A 172 was unturnable without rudder pedals with toe brakes was annoying because I use a twist stick on my HOTAS.

Edited August 18, 20205 yr by bonchie

5 minutes ago, decker89 said:

Your physical controls make all the difference as well as the curves you set for them. The Logitech yoke i had to get rid of, as it just doesn't have the resolution making it much too jerky. The honeycomb works great. Logitech pedals need a curve so they are not soo sensitive on initial movements

So basically sim only works well with a 250$ controller great job 

11 minutes ago, W2DR said:

I think it would really help if those posting about the C172 gave us some indication of how many C172 RL hours they have.

0

10 minutes ago, W2DR said:

I think it would really help if those posting about the C172 gave us some indication of how many C172 RL hours they have.

😒 Between 250 and 300 in the 172SP, 172M, 172N.

4 minutes ago, Richard Sennett said:

So basically sim only works well with a 250$ controller great job 

Would you rather they make it flyable for a mouse?