I recently had a discussion here about "odd behaviour" of several planes, including the 172 1981 model which still is about the only one that I can enjoy in my FGFS. People mentioned the torque effects, and I got it about under control, but despite that it's still the only decently behaving plane in my setup. I thought I had a messed up setup, which
I'm not claiming to be a real pilot: I'm not. I can accept this kind of behaviour for the c172 since I've never even been in one. If pilots say this is the way it behaves, I accept it.
What I don't want to keep doing is asking myself this question: "wow, is this really so? Or is this one of those planes whose model is still being worked on?".
As for the panels: I've been using Fly since day 1, even bought Fly2! later. Maybe the fdm's aren't the best, at least panels work like they should work. Also AP's work like
I agree about the panels. I don't mind having 3D cockpits, just give me working instruments.
they should work; if there is someone who claims flight NWA052 is done purely by hand from Frankfurt to destination this person lies. A 737 cud be a nice one to do some trips with in FG, but a working AP would be even nicer. As long as that isn't the case, I'd suggest to move the bird into the "experimental dir".
Now, I'm perfectly happy with the c172. It's great flying and learning. I just whish there were more good aircrafts like this one. But this is a free project, and people have a life.
So, again repeating my suggestion, I think it would be great to somehow mark the aircrafts which are not yet ready somehow. One day they will be ready and we will all be able to enjoy them.
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
