SAS443

Poor blend of metar-winds and meteoblue weather model-winds more likely? Yes there can be a significant difference in wind direction/magnitude between tower reported wind and at 1000ft AGL, but in your case - since it happened on both approaches - I'd say that is an MSFS glitch. As a basic rule of thumb (simplicity of atmospheric model in northern hemisphere) is that the difference between winds at top of friction layer (ca 2000ft AGL) and ground wind is 30 degree veer to the right and 100% increase in speed Ground: 300/10 2000ft: 330/20 But again, this is a basic model, the real world is obviously many times complex and outcomes will not match the model on many occasions.

F drive is my dedicated MSFS drive, it's not the default suggested location during install phase, fyi.

Any G1000 aircraft will have it in the TMR/REF sub page on the PFD. The analog C172 has the good ol' Davtron gauge which also has elapsed time capability. It's located left of the ASI

SAE is a system classification, denoting viskosity (higher classification means thicker oil) Your example of "20W-50" is a type of multigrade oil where W stands for Winter I believe. All manufacturers have their different flavors on this. l use Aeroshell W80 on our lycomings irl and that is supposedly equal to SAE 40.

Yeah no kidding. This is the most true to life sky palette in any sim at the moment. Took the MD11 out for a quick spin yesterday Marvelous atmosphere.

So from the link Murmur posted we find this. "Improving dark cockpits is high on our todo list, but we also don’t want to tweak the light levels in the cockpit over and over and over, thrashing third party developers each time we do it. My expectation is that when we recalibrate cockpit lighting, minor aircraft updates will be needed, but third parties who have chosen to “fix” cockpit brightness themselves (by adding extra light or hacking materials) may have to undo their hacks. I’ll try to provide clear guidance and early builds when we get to this point, but lighting is still “in development”. There are 30 pages(!) in the cockpit exposure thread. Some of the "keep it as is, this is how it looks like in a real plane!!"-replies in that thread look very amusing in retrospect, considering what is bolded above. Hope you enjoy the taste of crow, you know who you are. Happy that LR is finally addressing this weakness.

Great choice. A few years ago I logged hours with my old CFI in the AT-16 Harvard (same plane, but manufactured in Canada) doing aerobatics , and it was a very pleasant experience. Would definitely buy it from A2A.

I think I can afford to lose some points. Especially if it's only in your eyes. 🤡 Now go fetch that sparklingly rainbow experience the C172 delivers (that apparently the PA28 can't)

That might just be what the doctor should order. to be honest. Hopefully his quick rise to aviation internet-fame is enough to make him re-consider wild approaches like this.

You think that is a controversial statement? Two of the worlds most common basic trainers (PA28 Warrior vs C172), with similar engines and weights should not feel similar to the pilot? Oh my...I'm pretty sure switching car from Kia to Peugeot can be more "confusing" than PA28 to C172. Read this opinion, ("I did all my training in low wing planes --Archers, and Cherokees.. I now fly a 172SP quite a bit and the transition was a non event") or this opinion ("Both fly basically the same, although the warrior is slightly more stable") or this opinion ("I have several hundred hours in each, and as far as I'm concerned, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.") or this opinion ("I'd take the C172 any day over the Warrior and I've flown and instructed in both plenty. Why? They're basically the same thing except the C172 has soul.") - whatever that means.... or this opinion ("I dont care anymore which aircraft I fly - the Cherokee and the 172 are so very very similar, but the choice on the day should be dictated by the requirements of the flight, and the availability on the field") But somehow to you my statement is completely illogical and I sort of made it up on the go? If you want difference. try idling the DA40TDI/NG at 50ft. That's a plane that will sink, agressive flap angle and a constant speed prop that gives you nothing but drag at near zero load. Totally different than your Warrior or Skyhawk over the fence Yes, I do not share 737NG views on how the noseheavy default C172 is as you come over the numbers reducing power. My opinion is it requires very little pressure initially to keep it stable (especially since he never touches down below 53 knots, elevator is still effective) compared to the actual flare where you sometimes have the yoke in your guts and a speed reading of at least 10KTS slower. (tease, just for Blingthinger) This concludes my engagement in this matter. It's a treat - as always.

Unfortunately for @blingthinger, this is not what 737NG is doing in his videos. He flies conventional GA approach/landing. 1) Flat pitch (as opposed to setting landing attitude) 2) Power to idle (yes, for both techniques) 3) increases pitch by flaring (as opposed to simply maintain attitude that was set in step one) But you can observe he lands the LR c172 hot, around 53 kts in the XP/MSFS comparison clip due to not applying enough backpressure. VSO fully loaded is 40 kts as reference. Now, I am totally certain he knows how to land a simple Cessna - probably more proficient than me. That is not really the point. The point is, what 737NG is actually doing, is the conventional hold it off technique. And that one - as @snglecoil pointed out - shouldn't really induce the seat falls thru the floor sensation Blingthinger speaks so fondly about from his Cessna ride and what it seem he uses to assess how a real GA should behave/feel.

matches my experience as well, regarding the default cessnas in both sims. I even commented on the float characteristics of the C172S and was met with utter surprise by one of the resident FM-experts in this thread. "But it shouldn't do that! It doesnt happen like that in X-plane at all, or that one time I flew my friends Cessna"

Wow, that is actually correct! Wonder when they fixed it. 🙂 Havent flown default 172 for a good while (march, april maybe?)

Handling characteristics in all phases of flight is obviously vital in a flight simulator. 🙂 From a C172 pilot POV, a big "well that's not right" is when XP12 rather aggressively slams the nosewheel of the airplane onto the tarmac while the landing itself is quite gently. (pitch attitude of 7 degrees at around 44 kts, that is perfectly fine). This is with Simcoders REP C172 (default C172 no longer does this!) Regardless what X-plane is simulating here, "physics/friction/inertia"do not plant the nose like this on the runway unless you land hard or let go of backpressure. I have almost zero VS (and full aft pressure which is not visible) . Everything leading up to that slamdunk of the nose is however marvelous, and the feeling of holding her off the ground is very accurate. Sidenote: I do recall that MSFS default C172 has a similar erroneous behavior (at least used to, going through my old YT-videos). Sidenote 2: Soft field landings (protecting the nosewheel) are fine.

You are not alone 🙂 several pilots believes it's too pronounced. Included a prolific streamer. But what does that guy know anyway... 🤡

Which variant of C172 did you get checked out on? Are you aware that early C172 models and the latest C172S have different max flap settings, the latter is limited to F30, as opposed to F40 on the early models. But again, the 172S model does not sink like a brick on a normal approach, it's quite a gentle nose drop, I have more videos (unpublished) if you don't believe it.

Are you speaking from experience as Pilot in command or passenger? Because frankly, this is how the PA28 behaves as well (add slightly more float due to more pronounced ground effect)

This is with both front seats occupied. Fuel at roughly 55%-60% capacity. It does not sink like a brick as you retard power (pardon the portrait mode, my pax is of TikTok-generation. That's how they shoot) https://youtube.com/shorts/tjPhc3eGsJw?feature=share3 C172S 180hp variant

Well, our 172S usually settles a good 250meters down the runway if you cut power over the threshold at Vapp (so rather easy to hit the aiming point markers if set-up properly). So I'm expecting a sim to have some of that floaty float stuff, actually. 737NG pilot has virtually the same RPMs as I do on a real approach (around 1.500). But plane behaves very differently.

Yes. Well put. And hopefully we'll see improvements down the road.

Interesting. @flying_carpet and @MrBitstFlyer you seem to have very opposing views on this matter. Because both me and @MrBitstFlyer actually agrees that Xplane is not depicting what a real pilot would experience. And what we see is a (huge) compromise. Even @Murmur believes that the dark cockpits can be rectified by local tonemapping. Facepalm back at you, I suppose. You're like Don Quixote, charging at windmills. Have you ever flown an airplane and have at least an idea what we want fixed?

Sir, half the posts in this thread are people telling Efis that Xplane has it right, that our eyes are "cameras" and it is normal to have these dark cockpits. Glad you at least believe that's not the case. You are indirectly agreeing with both me and Efis. But the fundamental difference is that you are content with this compromise, while me and Efis is asking for improvements in the tonemapping.

Why are you flying into the sun. We aren't even talking about that phenomenon. In Q8pilot shot, he is flying in daytime, BKN skies. Despite that, the panel is extremely dark. It's incorrect.

To further illustrate what @efis007 is trying to explain to everybody. Consider this photo from the DA40. I tried to mimic the lighting levels (not focus) on the panel my eyes experienced when glancing just above the cowling. Obviously not 100% perfect but close enough for its purpose. Now, In XP12 this view would be rather dark, as illustrated from Q8pilot's stream of the RSG DA40 I have to tell you, this particular ambiance feels very sureal to me as a DA40 pilot, it doesn't scream immersion. DA40 has a canopy which almost acts like a greenhouse, light easily find its way into the cockpit even when it's cloudy. XP12 is generally superb at creating believable lighting conditions and colors, but its big weakness imho, is when sitting in the cockpit looking out. Sometimes it just doesn't feel right at all.

Hmm... didn't their 146 in P3D also suck really hard in the AP speed on pitch-regime on release? It busted targets from left to right, before it was finally fixed with a patch. But it took a few weeks IIRC. Edit: sure it did! https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/590414-just-flight-146-professional/?do=findComment&comment=4424371