I've flown a 182 in real life, and, it is not nearly as twitchy as the default control settings are in MSFS.

+1 to LRBS and the others for the original post, as I am continually searching for settings that can allow me to fly the sim C172/182 at least close to the real-world Cessna 182 I have experience with. I can tell I need to really lower the Sensitivity setting. At one time someone posted on here that Sensitivity does nothing, so I really have never taken a deep dive into it as to what values like -20 or -30 or -50 do in the sim.

@flyingscampi do not let people that shoot you down comparing control feel in various sims. What does it matter if it is a mil sim or a civilian sim? Control feel is control feel. It should be as close to accurate/correct as possible. We have military Huey's and civilian Huey's, but I'm gonna bet their cyclics and collectives are about the same, model-to-model.

I just wish we could save profiles as to Sensitivity/Dead Zone etc. settings PER AIRCRAFT. Can we?

1 hour ago, Mace said:

I've flown a 182 in real life, and, it is not nearly as twitchy as the default control settings are in MSFS.

+1 to LRBS and the others for the original post, as I am continually searching for settings that can allow me to fly the sim C172/182 at least close to the real-world Cessna 182 I have experience with. I can tell I need to really lower the Sensitivity setting. At one time someone posted on here that Sensitivity does nothing, so I really have never taken a deep dive into it as to what values like -20 or -30 or -50 do in the sim.

@flyingscampi do not let people that shoot you down comparing control feel in various sims. What does it matter if it is a mil sim or a civilian sim? Control feel is control feel. It should be as close to accurate/correct as possible. We have military Huey's and civilian Huey's, but I'm gonna bet their cyclics and collectives are about the same, model-to-model.

I just wish we could save profiles as to Sensitivity/Dead Zone etc. settings PER AIRCRAFT. Can we?

Yeah Rhett, I also learned to fly on 152s and 172s and the sim versions are way twitchier than they are in the real world (they are both pretty docile in real life other than the 172 is a fair bit heavier on the controls). I can't really say much about airliners as I rarely fly them in the sim and never flown one in real life (other than a full motion 737-500 simulator)

I found that designing my own rudder axis (in the case of the thrustmaster joytstick) using hall effect transistors and magnets, gave much better sensitivity, and also increased the physical axis range of travel, thus increasing control resolution. This also allowed for the use of gentler S curves to help reduce twitchiness.

4 hours ago, LRBS said:

Very interesting take, but it doesn't align with either my experience or the broader discussion within the flight simulation community.

There are numerous reports from both experienced simmers and real-world pilots describing overly twitchy control responses and exaggerated aircraft reactions in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024. One of the most common comparisons is with X-Plane 12 and DCS, where many users report being able to fly comfortably with essentially linear control curves, while MSFS 2024 often requires substantial negative sensitivity (S-curve) adjustments simply to achieve a comparable level of controllability.

Describing this as merely a "speed of light" or generic mathematical limitation misses the point. If it were simply an unavoidable mathematical problem, we would expect every modern simulator to exhibit the same behavior. That is not what many users report.

The statement that "it's the same exact thing in every sim" is contradicted by a significant number of user experiences. In both X-Plane 12 and DCS, I can leave my controls essentially linear and the aircraft exhibits realistic inertia, damping, and proportional control response throughout the entire control travel. Small inputs remain progressive, larger inputs remain predictable, and maneuvers such as stall recovery, trimming, and high-angle-of-attack flight feel natural without requiring excessive sensitivity compensation.

In contrast, MSFS 2024's sensitivity implementation often forces users to introduce large negative S-curves to tame the response around center. While this makes the aircraft easier to control initially, it also produces an increasingly nonlinear response toward the extremes of travel. That is fundamentally different from having a truly linear control law combined with realistic aerodynamic damping and inertia.

The fact that so many users independently arrive at similar sensitivity adjustments—and frequently compare the handling unfavorably with other simulators—strongly suggests that this is not simply a universal mathematical limitation, but rather a consequence of how MSFS 2024 currently maps controller inputs and models the resulting aircraft response.

IMHO you’re conflating / muddling up issues with MSFS’ general physics modeling, developer physics modeling and the sims control mappings.

There are addons in MSFS where I don’t feel the need to adjust Sensitivity/Deadzone, and many where I do. Especially in pitch and ground steering.

The FSR500 Is GTG as is, the Aero Dynamics T-38 needs adjustments.

And the BBS T-38 needs a different set of adjustments even tho it’s the same aircraft

Why is that, IF this is an Asobo problem as you assert…?

Same with all the other sims I fly. For e.g., DCS warbirds and helos in particular are well known for the need to apply significant control adjustments.

The DCS F-16 needs a “negative” curve applied to it even begin to get close to how the IRL 0.25” control stick moves, even though my Warthog HOTAS is nearly a 1:1 analogue to the IRL stick.

The DCS Kiowa Warrior is GtG as is, but the Gazelle requires big curves and saturation changes. Yet both addons come from the very same developer(!)

There’s two Hi Fidelity helos in XP to use as e.g’s: the JRX Bell 407 is docile and pleasant with no adjustments needed whereas the Ubben/Khamsin SA315 is practically uncontrollable without the largest adjustments I’ve ever made to an addon in any sim. And yet once the SA 315 is dialed in it is quite possibly my most favorite helo of all time

I mean, heck, all one really has to do is look at the literal physical difference in rather large & long throw IRL controls vs the typical small & short throw desktop joystick to see where these “sim” problems arise.

So while I can agree that the various sims handle these things in different ways, given the significant differences in addons within MSFS, as well as the sometimes drastic adjustments required in other sims, I believe the evidence clearly shows the issues you’re describing lie far more at the feet of the addon developers than it does with Asobo.

And p.s., this isn’t me white knighting for Asobo, because of the major sims I feel MSFS’ physics are still a bit behind the others.

Edited Wednesday at 11:03 PM2 days by UrgentSiesta

Actually, that's a good point about individual flight models/aircraft. Some, like the M500 you mention, seem to fly well out of the box with little or no control sensitivity adjustments needed.

I probably should not speak much on this topic though, until I replace my aged jumpy CH yoke and Saitek pedals. I have a Virpil stick and anything stick-controlled is really a joy to fly. Whereas anything yoke-controlled can be a diceroll when small adjustments are needed.

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

IMHO you’re conflating / muddling up issues with MSFS’ general physics modeling, developer physics modeling and the sims control mappings.

There are addons in MSFS where I don’t feel the need to adjust Sensitivity/Deadzone, and many where I do. Especially in pitch and ground steering.

The FSR500 Is GTG as is, the Aero Dynamics T-38 needs adjustments.

And the BBS T-38 needs a different set of adjustments even tho it’s the same aircraft

Why is that, IF this is an Asobo problem as you assert…?

Same with all the other sims I fly. For e.g., DCS warbirds and helos in particular are well known for the need to apply significant control adjustments.

The DCS F-16 needs a “negative” curve applied to it even begin to get close to how the IRL 0.25” control stick moves, even though my Warthog HOTAS is nearly a 1:1 analogue to the IRL stick.

The DCS Kiowa Warrior is GtG as is, but the Gazelle requires big curves and saturation changes. Yet both addons come from the very same developer(!)

There’s two Hi Fidelity helos in XP to use as e.g’s: the JRX Bell 407 is docile and pleasant with no adjustments needed whereas the Ubben/Khamsin SA315 is practically uncontrollable without the largest adjustments I’ve ever made to an addon in any sim. And yet once the SA 315 is dialed in it is quite possibly my most favorite helo of all time

I mean, heck, all one really has to do is look at the literal physical difference in rather large & long throw IRL controls vs the typical small & short throw desktop joystick to see where these “sim” problems arise.

So while I can agree that the various sims handle these things in different ways, given the significant differences in addons within MSFS, as well as the sometimes drastic adjustments required in other sims, I believe the evidence clearly shows the issues you’re describing lie far more at the feet of the addon developers than it does with Asobo.

And p.s., this isn’t me white knighting for Asobo, because of the major sims I feel MSFS’ physics are still a bit behind the others.

While I agree that some developers have found ways to mitigate or mask ASOBO's shortcomings, the underlying issue still exists.

Without even comparing MSFS to other simulators, it's worth remembering that MSFS 2020 included a very useful REACTIVITY slider. That option was initially carried over to MSFS 2024, and it significantly helped reduce the need for large negative sensitivity S-curves by producing a much more linear and predictable control response.

Unfortunately, ASOBO chose to remove that feature, leaving users with a far less effective solution.

Instead of restoring the Reactivity slider or addressing the underlying implementation, the current recommendation is to reduce axis sensitivity to values such as -90% or even -95% (MENTIONED ON THEIR FORUM). In my view, this is the wrong approach. Those extreme sensitivity reductions rely on increasingly aggressive nonlinear S-curves, making the controls progressively less proportional as they approach full deflection, rather than preserving a consistent, linear relationship between pilot input and aircraft response.

Whether we choose to acknowledge the issue or not, the root of the problem lies in ASOBO's bad design decisions. Like many other obvious instances. This is simply another example where a more robust implementation would have provided a better experience for both developers and end users.

The thing is, people rarely use the full deflection and are willing to sacrifice little used extreme movements for a less "twitchy" center. IRl, extremes are seldom used as well, unless your in a military plane. Maybe as you pitch up to flare you start to use extreme deflection.

I personally often find the rudder input way to sensitive and the S curve a very unsatisfactory solution. .

I agree a linear option would solve this problem and I wish it was available.

55 minutes ago, mikegrr said:

The thing is, people rarely use the full deflection and are willing to sacrifice little used extreme movements for a less "twitchy" center. IRl, extremes are seldom used as well, unless your in a military plane. Maybe as you pitch up to flare you start to use extreme deflection.

I personally often find the rudder input way to sensitive and the S curve a very unsatisfactory solution. .

I agree a linear option would solve this problem and I wish it was available.

To be honest, I don't recall ever having to use full flight control deflection in real-world operations, whether flying military or civilian aircraft. I have, however, seen it occur occasionally in Level D simulators during engine-out scenarios or when operating at the maximum demonstrated crosswind limits. In fact, that's one of the issues I've been raising.

Even under those demanding conditions, you generally should not be reaching full control deflection. Aircraft certification standards include a built-in safety margin—typically on the order of 10–20%—to ensure there is still reserve control authority available.

This brings me back to what I believe is one of the shortcomings of Asobo's flight dynamics implementation. The exaggerated S-shaped control response curves produce unrealistic control behavior, particularly as control travel approaches its limits. In my view, they either have not prioritized addressing this issue or have been unable to refine it to a more realistic standard.

Ironically, MSFS previously included the Reactivity slider, which helped mitigate this behavior by providing a more predictable and natural control response. Its removal has only made the underlying issue more apparent.