What’s the consensus? I know the airliners are broken but what about GA in general? Minus turboprop engine modeling.
The planes all feel a bit sticky on acceleration on the ground, and conversely seem a bit slippery during low power descents. Like maybe the prop drag isn’t quite all there. But the flaps are effective in the tail draggers. “Outside of the box” flight modeling seems…well…not great. The initial stall and rolloff in the light singles is pretty good, but post stall behavior is not the greatest.
3 Likes
It’s okay’ish. Ground behaviour is a bit weird and stickish. prop drag seems off. A C208 is really hard to slow even, even with full flaps. It’s hard to say what is going on exactly.
Auto pilot also feels a bit wonky, haven’t really properly tested that though.
1 Like
It’s the area that needs the most attention IMO. Like @BeachAV8R and @TheAlmightySnark noted the planes handle strangely some times. For me the most apparent was how quickly they accelerate in a decent and how twitchy the controls feel, especially the rudder. It’s possible to cobra the cessnas. I have not tried the airliners, just the TBM, 152, 172, and Cub.
No data and purely based on feel, it kind of reminds me of the old simple FM of the FC3 planes in DCS. You could argue that you won’t notice the wonkiness with gentle control inputs or curves, or not flying like a guy in his mid life crisis purchase, but it became apparent to me it needed work rather quickly. We can’t really fault them given the vast number of default planes available with wildly different flying traits.
The FM really stands out against the games graphics and technological achievements. The reason I’m not too worried about it’s current state is that I’m fairly confident (hopeful?) they left the code open for 3rd parties to create much more realistic FMs for modules.
4 Likes