Some test results on rudder response in FS2020

[ImpendingJoker]

Default MSFS is already leaps and bounds more of a proper simulation than default FSX and P3D ever were.

I'm curious. In what ways?

Allow me to chime in. While no one is doubting what FSX has BECOME, it did not start out that way. It was so bad that a lot of people went backwards to FS9 because the flight model, in some ways, was a bit better than FSX default. Secondly, the default texturing in FSX is nothing short of horrendous. Thirdly, something that even the much vaunted ActiveSky and REX were never able to do was to put true volumetric clouds into FSX, or even the first versions of P3D(since essentially they were the same thing as FSX). Fourthly, A2A airplanes aside, the default flight models are leaps and bounds better than the FSX default, that said, there are many freeware updates to some of the planes that make them even better(though still not A2A), and freeware mod for the A320 by Fly By Wire, arguably puts in on par with PMDG, for free. Fifthly, the terrain mesh by default is many times better than that of default FSX. How much money have you spent in FSX/P3D for meshes to make the mountains look more jagged and to put hills where hills should be instead of weirdly flat open areas? Sixthly, earth contouring runways. This is a no brainer, and one of the few things that MS Flight did right 11 years ago. Runways are not flat, they have distinct elevation changes in them that are very easy to see when viewed in person. This add greatly to the immersion of the sim. Seventhly, the default visuals are nothing short of stunning. Wind visualized in the grass and windsocks, birds flying around, rainbows when the weather is correct for it, the ability to go on "safari" and see large animals moving around in herds, finding your own house in the simulator(some have said theirs are not there, however, I can follow the real roads from my home airport directly to my house where it actually has our gazebo in the backyard so I tend to think they don't know how to navigate to their houses by air(the world looks very different from above)).

My gf, who is reading this over my shoulder as I type, is laughing and asking if we're going to get to tenthly, so I will leave this as just a simple list of things that are way better than FSX and P3Dv1-3.

[Hobart Escin]

Default MSFS is already leaps and bounds more of a proper simulation than default FSX and P3D ever were.

I'm curious. In what ways?

Allow me to chime in. While no one is doubting what FSX has BECOME, it did not start out that way. It was so bad that a lot of people went backwards to FS9 because the flight model, in some ways, was a bit better than FSX default. Secondly, the default texturing in FSX is nothing short of horrendous. Thirdly, something that even the much vaunted ActiveSky and REX were never able to do was to put true volumetric clouds into FSX, or even the first versions of P3D(since essentially they were the same thing as FSX). Fourthly, A2A airplanes aside, the default flight models are leaps and bounds better than the FSX default, that said, there are many freeware updates to some of the planes that make them even better(though still not A2A), and freeware mod for the A320 by Fly By Wire, arguably puts in on par with PMDG, for free. Fifthly, the terrain mesh by default is many times better than that of default FSX. How much money have you spent in FSX/P3D for meshes to make the mountains look more jagged and to put hills where hills should be instead of weirdly flat open areas? Sixthly, earth contouring runways. This is a no brainer, and one of the few things that MS Flight did right 11 years ago. Runways are not flat, they have distinct elevation changes in them that are very easy to see when viewed in person. This add greatly to the immersion of the sim. Seventhly, the default visuals are nothing short of stunning. Wind visualized in the grass and windsocks, birds flying around, rainbows when the weather is correct for it, the ability to go on "safari" and see large animals moving around in herds, finding your own house in the simulator(some have said theirs are not there, however, I can follow the real roads from my home airport directly to my house where it actually has our gazebo in the backyard so I tend to think they don't know how to navigate to their houses by air(the world looks very different from above)).

My gf, who is reading this over my shoulder as I type, is laughing and asking if we're going to get to tenthly, so I will leave this as just a simple list of things that are way better than FSX and P3Dv1-3.

Heck, comes down to what appeals to each individual, but I definitely get where you're coming from. If only the flight dynamics could've been developed in step with all the scenery advances. And for gosh sakes Paul, take your GF out someplace nice tonight instead of her having to make fun of you on here, poor woman.

[MarcE]

I think we need to look at the sims more in terms of what they can do, not what MSFS doesn't have that P3D has. I think by now everyone knows which addons don't work anymore, Active Sky etc.. I don't want to compare it with FSX. This sim is 15 years old. 15!!!

But what does MSFS actually have? First of all the most obvious thing is the streamed world which is basically a replication of what we see outside. There are still several things to improve but this is done quickly. Almost every week you can find new areas being improved. Also the sim has a completely default real weather and atmospheric simulation, also implemented from real world data and calculated by the terrain. This means that while I fly in perfect weather I may see dark clouds and rain at the horizon. No sim has done that before. As everything else it's buggy, sometimes more, sometimes less but it is available as a part of the default simulator. As a conclusion one could say the whole sim world is a realtime representation of our real world. And it's constantly getting better. Why should we care about software terms like "beta" when we have an ongoing development for the next 10 (or 9) years at a speed that has never been met before?

This world has seen a HUGE amount of extremely well done freeware addons, there are thousands of airports and aerodromes available and every day dozens get added. Sights, cities, mountains. A huge amount.

Also part of this world is a beautiful lighting system, correct shadows, sun glare, correct firmament.

We have relatively good default navdata, there are SIDs and STARs available, the data is kept up to date. No missing runways, no NDBs that have been removed in 2008 (which may be a pity when flying old aircraft but is actually correct today)

Regarding aircraft we have a large amount of default planes, some work better than others. Many of these aircraft have been modded and improved, many new aircraft have been created on the base of these default planes, all for free. The flight dynamics calculation uses a system that allows correct air flow over the wings and around the fuselage. I say "allows" because we know it's not working fully correctly yet. But they work on it with a high priority. I also find it fair to keep in mind that the team has started as complete newbies to aviation who had no idea how that magic works that keeps us in the sky. They made a LOT of fundamental mistakes. But they have learned a lot, they listened to the community, listened to the "simmers" and got professional advice. Late, but they did.


All that above is part of what I refer to as "simulation". Many people ask for replay features, ground ops, cargo loading, walking people, trains, real world traffic jams, birds pooping on the wind shield and god knows what else. I leave it to everyone to decide themselves whether that's a "simulation" or "arcade". I think it's both and none.

We also have a dynamic main map in the menu to choose an origin and a destination if we wish. On this map we get an idea of the current cloud coverage, of the wind and afaik they plan to put more info onto this map. We have an easy to access ingame logbook for those who want to look up their previous flights. For those who care there are challenges and pre-defined "bush trips" which are actually planned routes through some interesting parts of the world. Hundreds more to download. The logbook that appears as a game-over screen after the flight will be removed in SU5 btw (at least that's what their development update says).

We have working icing!!! It used to be extremely exaggerated but has been reduced a lot and they will improve its appearance and behaviour further.

For the first time (since SU4) we have a correctly modelled turboprop engine which is in ongoing development.

We have an excessive view system that basically offers the possibilty to set 20 (?) personal cockpit views per aircraft and many external views that can be assigned to the keyboard or to joystick buttons completely freely.

And last but not least we have got incredible performance. No constant battles against 100 different .dll crashes, I have never had such a stable and well behaved sim.


Of course there are still many problems, but honestly I don't see anything that would let me doubt that they want to build a simulator and not a game. It will be possible to use it as as click'n'fly sightseeing game, but why not?? There is no reason why people shouldn't be able to place their Toprudder UL above Sidney Harbour and fly around with an XBox controller. This is possible in P3D too. Regarding the simulation features there is actually nothing that P3D has and that is missing in MSFS. It looks different and it is to be used a bit different but it IS a different sim. this is NOT FS11 or P3Dv6. Its MSFS2020. And as it's a new sim developers will have to develop new approaches to bring realistic addons to the platform. Accusim has been developed from scratch and maybe it has do be done again. But Scott and team (and other companies) are great developers and I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to do it. If you have watched Robert Randazzo's tutorial videos of the DC-6: I don't think it looks worse or less a simulation than the P3D version. Rather the opposite. =) And I am pretty sure that the future A2A addons will outclass the P3D models too.

[DHenriques_]

I think we need to look at the sims more in terms of what they can do, not what MSFS doesn't have that P3D has. I think by now everyone knows which addons don't work anymore, Active Sky etc.. I don't want to compare it with FSX. This sim is 15 years old. 15!!!

But what does MSFS actually have? First of all the most obvious thing is the streamed world which is basically a replication of what we see outside. There are still several things to improve but this is done quickly. Almost every week you can find new areas being improved. Also the sim has a completely default real weather and atmospheric simulation, also implemented from real world data and calculated by the terrain. This means that while I fly in perfect weather I may see dark clouds and rain at the horizon. No sim has done that before. As everything else it's buggy, sometimes more, sometimes less but it is available as a part of the default simulator. As a conclusion one could say the whole sim world is a realtime representation of our real world. And it's constantly getting better. Why should we care about software terms like "beta" when we have an ongoing development for the next 10 (or 9) years at a speed that has never been met before?

This world has seen a HUGE amount of extremely well done freeware addons, there are thousands of airports and aerodromes available and every day dozens get added. Sights, cities, mountains. A huge amount.

Also part of this world is a beautiful lighting system, correct shadows, sun glare, correct firmament.

We have relatively good default navdata, there are SIDs and STARs available, the data is kept up to date. No missing runways, no NDBs that have been removed in 2008 (which may be a pity when flying old aircraft but is actually correct today)

Regarding aircraft we have a large amount of default planes, some work better than others. Many of these aircraft have been modded and improved, many new aircraft have been created on the base of these default planes, all for free. The flight dynamics calculation uses a system that allows correct air flow over the wings and around the fuselage. I say "allows" because we know it's not working fully correctly yet. But they work on it with a high priority. I also find it fair to keep in mind that the team has started as complete newbies to aviation who had no idea how that magic works that keeps us in the sky. They made a LOT of fundamental mistakes. But they have learned a lot, they listened to the community, listened to the "simmers" and got professional advice. Late, but they did.


All that above is part of what I refer to as "simulation". Many people ask for replay features, ground ops, cargo loading, walking people, trains, real world traffic jams, birds pooping on the wind shield and god knows what else. I leave it to everyone to decide themselves whether that's a "simulation" or "arcade". I think it's both and none.

We also have a dynamic main map in the menu to choose an origin and a destination if we wish. On this map we get an idea of the current cloud coverage, of the wind and afaik they plan to put more info onto this map. We have an easy to access ingame logbook for those who want to look up their previous flights. For those who care there are challenges and pre-defined "bush trips" which are actually planned routes through some interesting parts of the world. Hundreds more to download. The logbook that appears as a game-over screen after the flight will be removed in SU5 btw (at least that's what their development update says).

We have working icing!!! It used to be extremely exaggerated but has been reduced a lot and they will improve its appearance and behaviour further.

For the first time (since SU4) we have a correctly modelled turboprop engine which is in ongoing development.

We have an excessive view system that basically offers the possibilty to set 20 (?) personal cockpit views per aircraft and many external views that can be assigned to the keyboard or to joystick buttons completely freely.

And last but not least we have got incredible performance. No constant battles against 100 different .dll crashes, I have never had such a stable and well behaved sim.


Of course there are still many problems, but honestly I don't see anything that would let me doubt that they want to build a simulator and not a game. It will be possible to use it as as click'n'fly sightseeing game, but why not?? There is no reason why people shouldn't be able to place their Toprudder UL above Sidney Harbour and fly around with an XBox controller. This is possible in P3D too. Regarding the simulation features there is actually nothing that P3D has and that is missing in MSFS. It looks different and it is to be used a bit different but it IS a different sim. this is NOT FS11 or P3Dv6. Its MSFS2020. And as it's a new sim developers will have to develop new approaches to bring realistic addons to the platform. Accusim has been developed from scratch and maybe it has do be done again. But Scott and team (and other companies) are great developers and I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to do it. If you have watched Robert Randazzo's tutorial videos of the DC-6: I don't think it looks worse or less a simulation than the P3D version. Rather the opposite. =) And I am pretty sure that the future A2A addons will outclass the P3D models too.

Excellent post.
Dudley Henriques

[cristi.neagu]

To me, the biggest issue I have with FS2020 is the direction into which it is heading, something which is determined by Microsoft, i think.

Yes, there are all sorts of bugs. But that's only to be expected. As said above, these things are normal, it's a huge bit of software (the executable alone is 300mb!), and the developers are still working on it, so the reasonable expectation is that bugs will get fixed. But the thing that really concerns me is this quite restrictive attitude Microsoft has towards third party developers. What we've seen from the past is that third party developers have kept this hobby alive long after Microsoft abandoned it. They did it with their talents, skills, determination, because the simulator allowed them just enough freedom to do what they set out to do. And that's why we have very accurate flight models in a sim with a relatively basic flight model. We have great looking scenery in a sim with very poor looking scenery. We have very good live weather modelling in a sim which lost that ability a long time ago. And instead of embracing that community of developers, and embracing their creativity, looks to me like Microsoft has set a relatively restricted framework in place and is now saying "play by my rules, or you don't get to play at all". I don't think this is a very healthy thing for the community, but only time will tell what this means in practice.

And I am also concerned by how the expert advice Asobo is getting is translated into code. As others have pointed out, DCS had not that many issues with the flight model, they got it mostly right. But looks like there are some very basic things that Asobo got very wrong. I personally think that this is because Asobo themselves do not have any background in flight modelling, and they ultimately had to rely on the old FSX flight model and expand upon it. I think this is unfortunate, giving how we all hoped that FS2020 would right the wrongs of the past. And to me the issue of the flight model wouldn't be all that important to me if it weren't for the point I made above. Microsoft wants everyone to be locked into the default model and they don't want third party developers bypassing the default model. But then they go ahead and give you a flight model which, while greatly improved over the FSX one in several areas, has some big issues that have never been present. So the model they give you is not right, and they don't want you making your own. This is why I think that the flight model should be the number 1 priority for Asobo, above everything else.

And I know i'll get the standard response of "but developer X replaced the default flight model with product Y". Yes. True. Doesn't change the fact that Microsobo doesn't want you to do it. And I'll also get the "but look how much of an improvement it is". Yes, it is a great improvement over FSX. But we cannot ignore the fact that some issues have been introduced that are quite serious, and even game breaking for some. If the flight model doesn't stall very well, that's not that big of an issue, since not a lot of people will even ever get into a stall. But we all do take-offs and landings. And we all have to lower slats at some point on jets.

I remain hopeful that things will change and these fundamental issues will be fixed. I also choose to believe that third party developers will find a way, as they always have. But as time passes, that future becomes more and more uncertain.

[lonewulf47]

Default MSFS is already leaps and bounds more of a proper simulation than default FSX and P3D ever were.

I'm curious. In what ways?

If we exclude the comparison between MSFS and P3D as a landscape simulator, I wonder the same?

/Thomas

I heartily agree. A wonderful landscape simulator using excellent graphics with major deficiencies in the air navigation setup (aka IFR), if not to say major flaws. Trouble is that there are conceptual errors in that setup that are almost impossible to cure after so much time "in the field"...

[DHenriques_]

To me, the biggest issue I have with FS2020 is the direction into which it is heading, something which is determined by Microsoft, i think.

Yes, there are all sorts of bugs. But that's only to be expected. As said above, these things are normal, it's a huge bit of software (the executable alone is 300mb!), and the developers are still working on it, so the reasonable expectation is that bugs will get fixed. But the thing that really concerns me is this quite restrictive attitude Microsoft has towards third party developers. What we've seen from the past is that third party developers have kept this hobby alive long after Microsoft abandoned it. They did it with their talents, skills, determination, because the simulator allowed them just enough freedom to do what they set out to do. And that's why we have very accurate flight models in a sim with a relatively basic flight model. We have great looking scenery in a sim with very poor looking scenery. We have very good live weather modelling in a sim which lost that ability a long time ago. And instead of embracing that community of developers, and embracing their creativity, looks to me like Microsoft has set a relatively restricted framework in place and is now saying "play by my rules, or you don't get to play at all". I don't think this is a very healthy thing for the community, but only time will tell what this means in practice.

And I am also concerned by how the expert advice Asobo is getting is translated into code. As others have pointed out, DCS had not that many issues with the flight model, they got it mostly right. But looks like there are some very basic things that Asobo got very wrong. I personally think that this is because Asobo themselves do not have any background in flight modelling, and they ultimately had to rely on the old FSX flight model and expand upon it. I think this is unfortunate, giving how we all hoped that FS2020 would right the wrongs of the past. And to me the issue of the flight model wouldn't be all that important to me if it weren't for the point I made above. Microsoft wants everyone to be locked into the default model and they don't want third party developers bypassing the default model. But then they go ahead and give you a flight model which, while greatly improved over the FSX one in several areas, has some big issues that have never been present. So the model they give you is not right, and they don't want you making your own. This is why I think that the flight model should be the number 1 priority for Asobo, above everything else.

And I know i'll get the standard response of "but developer X replaced the default flight model with product Y". Yes. True. Doesn't change the fact that Microsobo doesn't want you to do it. And I'll also get the "but look how much of an improvement it is". Yes, it is a great improvement over FSX. But we cannot ignore the fact that some issues have been introduced that are quite serious, and even game breaking for some. If the flight model doesn't stall very well, that's not that big of an issue, since not a lot of people will even ever get into a stall. But we all do take-offs and landings. And we all have to lower slats at some point on jets.

I remain hopeful that things will change and these fundamental issues will be fixed. I also choose to believe that third party developers will find a way, as they always have. But as time passes, that future becomes more and more uncertain.

I strongly believe that right now Asobo is in the poor position of both needing better help in the aerodynamics and navigation areas while at the same time not all that happy about asking for it with Microsoft watching how the sim is being accepted by the community.
I realize this might be a rather strong position but to me anyway it's not to be discounted.
As this thing plays out it will be Microsoft that calls the shots and Microsoft is not known for sitting on their collective butts and watching a program with their name on it in huge letters go down the tubes.
One aspect of all this that could be a game changer would be if......and that's a BIG if......Lockheed Martin or even X-Plane decide on a HUGE increase in scenic quality and suddenly become even stronger game players in the marketing equation. If that happens I would expect Microsoft to suddenly become much more active than they are now and THAT might very well put the high end add on developer in a much better position.
The bottom line I believe lies with Microsoft and not necessarily Asobo. It will be Microsoft that decides the ultimate success or failure of FS2020.
Dudley Henriques

[cristi.neagu]

I strongly believe that right now Asobo is in the poor position of both needing better help in the aerodynamics and navigation areas while at the same time not all that happy about asking for it with Microsoft watching how the sim is being accepted by the community.
I realize this might be a rather strong position but to me anyway it's not to be discounted.
As this thing plays out it will be Microsoft that calls the shots and Microsoft is not known for sitting on their collective butts and watching a program with their name on it in huge letters go down the tubes.
One aspect of all this that could be a game changer would be if......and that's a BIG if......Lockheed Martin or even X-Plane decide on a HUGE increase in scenic quality and suddenly become even stronger game players in the marketing equation. If that happens I would expect Microsoft to suddenly become much more active than they are now and THAT might very well put the high end add on developer in a much better position.
The bottom line I believe lies with Microsoft and not necessarily Asobo. It will be Microsoft that decides the ultimate success or failure of FS2020.
Dudley Henriques

I fully agree. Unfortunately, i don't think Lockheed has much interest in increasing scenery quality due to who their target market is (unless that market starts shifting towards FS2020, which i doubt, at least for now). And Laminar doesn't have the business model or the resources needed to shift to a cloud based approach like FS2020, which is needed given how much storage is needed to have scenery of that quality. But maybe i'm wrong about this. But I do agree that if any of them start challenging FS2020 on scenery quality, which is one of the biggest things FS2020 has going for it, Microsoft will have to respond, and that would be beneficial for the community.

And yes, I do agree about Asobo's position. I don't think they have as much control as they would like, but they also happen to be the frontmen who have to endure all the rotten eggs and tomatoes being thrown at them. A very unfortunate position for them.

[MkIV Hvd]

- Sens = 80%
+Sens = 80%
Dead Zone = 4%
Neutral = 0%
Ext Dead Zone = 4%
Reactivity = 15%

These settings are creating a visual result of resistance to dynamic pressure and vastly reducing the sudden changes in direction due to slight rudder application while on the ground.
I hope this information is helpful.
Dudley Henriques

Personally, I find it awesome that every thread about A2A/MSFS (I think there are about 40 or so now… ) quickly heads down the general overthinking path about the same MSFS beefs…and nobody really knows anything about where it’s going in the future. The future of home flight simming is brighter than it ever has been, so I’ve just settled in to enjoy the ride…wherever that may lead…

Now, having said that and heading back to the OP…

I tried those settings and they are completely unusable with my Saitek/Logitech pedals. The profile, as expected, appears almost vertical. I tried it with the Spitfire and did not make to the runway before I reset back to the settings I’d been using.

If the -Sens/+Sens numbers had been negative rather than positive (ie; -Sens = -80% / +Sens= -80%), that would likely work better for me, although I’m at -40% for both at the moment. If the numbers you’ve listed above are actually positive, your rudder pedals must be radically different in operation than mine…

Cheers,
Rob

[DHenriques_]

- Sens = 80%
+Sens = 80%
Dead Zone = 4%
Neutral = 0%
Ext Dead Zone = 4%
Reactivity = 15%

These settings are creating a visual result of resistance to dynamic pressure and vastly reducing the sudden changes in direction due to slight rudder application while on the ground.
I hope this information is helpful.
Dudley Henriques

Personally, I find it awesome that every thread about A2A/MSFS (I think there are about 40 or so now… ) quickly heads down the general overthinking path about the same MSFS beefs…and nobody really knows anything about where it’s going in the future. The future of home flight simming is brighter than it ever has been, so I’ve just settled in to enjoy the ride…wherever that may lead…

Now, having said that and heading back to the OP…

I tried those settings and they are completely unusable with my Saitek/Logitech pedals. The profile, as expected, appears almost vertical. I tried it with the Spitfire and did not make to the runway before I reset back to the settings I’d been using.

If the -Sens/+Sens numbers had been negative rather than positive (ie; -Sens = -80% / +Sens= -80%), that would likely work better for me, although I’m at -40% for both at the moment. If the numbers you’ve listed above are actually positive, your rudder pedals must be radically different in operation than mine…

Cheers,
Rob

They are negative. My mistake when I posted them. Sorry.

DH

[wrkempson]

i just now tried the revised sensitivity settings. The take off and landing runs on the runway were much, much more manageable. Previously, I was experiencing violent and uncontrollable lurching to one side and the other. Thank you, Dudley.

I have also removed all key stroke settings from my keyboard to any and all control surfaces. In the category "Flight Control Surfaces" I now have not a single keyboard input. Evidently, according to one article, multiple input devices for a single action can cause stray inputs at unexpected and inopportune times. Eliminating keyboard control inputs took away severe and violent rolls to the left. This may help someone else.

Can someone who is knowledgeable list what I should be seeing/experiencing as a part of the substandard MSFS flight model? I have been going back and forth between the MSFS C172 and the FSX SE C172 (A2A and Default) and see some differences, but nothing I would label lethal. What are the signs of the degraded flight characteristics? I am not arguing for anything here, I just want to know.

Wayne

[MarcE]

Wayne,

If I understand your question correctly then the big problem is the situation that they switch from the taxi behaviour to flight behaviour at some speed during the takeoff run. The rudder authority suddenly decreases extremely abd the nose veers violently into the wind. And then in flight there is absolutely no adverse yaw. So you basically use the rudder to steer, then keep it on the runway with minimum input until rhe airplane at some point suddenly turns its nose. Depending on the rudder settings this is hardly controllable.

[DHenriques_]

- Sens = -80%
+Sens = -80%
Dead Zone = 4%
Neutral = 0%
Ext Dead Zone = 4%
Reactivity = 15%

These settings are creating a visual result of resistance to dynamic pressure and vastly reducing the sudden changes in direction due to slight rudder application while on the ground.
I hope this information is helpful.
Dudley Henriques

Personally, I find it awesome that every thread about A2A/MSFS (I think there are about 40 or so now… ) quickly heads down the general overthinking path about the same MSFS beefs…and nobody really knows anything about where it’s going in the future. The future of home flight simming is brighter than it ever has been, so I’ve just settled in to enjoy the ride…wherever that may lead…

Now, having said that and heading back to the OP…

I tried those settings and they are completely unusable with my Saitek/Logitech pedals. The profile, as expected, appears almost vertical. I tried it with the Spitfire and did not make to the runway before I reset back to the settings I’d been using.

If the -Sens/+Sens numbers had been negative rather than positive (ie; -Sens = -80% / +Sens= -80%), that would likely work better for me, although I’m at -40% for both at the moment. If the numbers you’ve listed above are actually positive, your rudder pedals must be radically different in operation than mine…

Cheers,
Rob

Yes they are indeed negative. I missed that when I posted. Thank you.
DH

[wrkempson]

Thanks, MarcE. Your description exactly describes something I had been experiencing. I guess I just did not think of it as part of the fight model per se, but I should have. Nonetheless, Dudley's settings have cured the problem for me.

Wayne

[MarcE]

Thanks, MarcE. Your description exactly describes something I had been experiencing. I guess I just did not think of it as part of the fight model per se, but I should have. Nonetheless, Dudley's settings have cured the problem for me.

Wayne

I‘ll try his settings too, I have the MFG Crosswind pedals but they don‘t work differently either so it should help too.