I’m not a pilot IRL so what do I know. The dude in the video I linked to claims to be a pilot with experience of flying Cessna twins, so I assume he knows what he is talking about.
Either way, by following the technique I described I have no problems slowing the plane down, and as a bonus I don’t have to listen to the warning horn that triggers if you pull the throttle too much back with gears up 
This is absolutely normal behavior - Twin Cessnas (amongst others) are notorious for not being able to slow down on descent. The trick is managing your energy and being way ahead of the plane. A steep descent before configuration isn’t going to work. Chopping and dropping isn’t advisable due to the risk of shock cooling.
There is a rather infamous Twin Cessna driver out there (who shall remain unnamed by me) that has several videos in which he has trouble slowing down due to being given late descents by ATC, or simply not being ahead of the airplane. Sometimes it’s so bad he can’t get slow enough to configure. His normal ride has aftermarket speedbrakes that help, but his oft-used solution is to do a quick level-off or even a short climb on a one mile final to drop the speed enough to quickly configure.
Also, I wouldn’t do this (due to aforementioned shock cooling). But if you do, and you’re trimmed properly, the aircraft should naturally pitch down to maintain (or re-establish) the airspeed for which it’s trimmed. Holding it level for several seconds after power reduction will bleed off the airspeed and if you then re-trim for a slower airspeed, you’ll be closer to your energy goal. This sim absolutely does this.
I haven’t seen the video you linked to yet (will watch it later), but the problem here is not in the procedure, but in the plane itself or sim.
I don’t know. I’ve never flown a Twin Cessna so I can’t tell for sure, but a Seneca will drop like a rock if chop the power. Same with a GA-7 and BE-76 (if I remember correctly). In the sim in the 414, doing like 170kt I reduced the power by around 50% and the speed barely dropped. And very slowly. Going max rpm doesn’t seem to make any difference in drag either. In real life you definitely feel it.
That is a very good and important point I forgot to mention: this technique requires planning your decent well ahead. I can imagine having a difficult time if ATC gives late instructions (I generally don’t use ATC for IFR flights in the sim because it sucks more often than not).
Again, I’m not a pilot IRL so I don’t really know what I’m talking about. But the technique definitely works and, I think, is a welcome change/challenge from simply chopping and dropping.
Does anyone know what the 3.4.5 changes are? The changelog on the Flysimware website ends with 3.4.4.
I wondered that too, Flysimware’s readme hasn’t been updated.
mmm,
after last update, on xbox, the A button of the cotroller does not increase the throttle anymore……happens only in the cockpit view…….when in external view the A button works as intended……….
I can confirm. Throttle isn’t working anymore after the update.
I think both you and CharlieFox could be right.
The unrealistic behavior might be in the lack of modeling prop drag (new flight model parameters), not accounting for the prop drag being speed dependent. Rather seems like a constant force, independent of speed.
The Milviz C310 is a bit of the same.
Doesn’t want to decelerate at cruise speed, but drops like a stone at thrust reduction on landing speed. (albeit flaps also increase drag on landing)
Yup it’s the dreaded Xbox controller “white dot” issue. I reported on the dev’s Discord channel, the bug has been confirmed, and is now under investigation ( the good news is that they think they know what’s causing it ) for a fix.
Very quick response to my report from the development team.
I think we have to be a little careful here. Personally I’d rather have a good, realistic feeling flight model than a physics based simulation of propellor drag - which could easily disrupt or detract from the experience of flying this plane, No I’m not an IRL pilot but what I don’t want is a situation where it’s practically impossible to set up properly stabilised landing approach, which could easily be a side effect from an over emphasis on simulating prop physics. I reckon trading off and tuning these sorts of phenomena can be very difficult to balance and get right. Personally I like the feeling of this flight model and wouldn’t want to see it changed… but that is just my own personal opinion…
If it’s simulated correctly, or perhaps accurately, this should still be possible.
No, the point is realism. Of course it shouldn’t make the flight model more unrealistic, to the contrary. Let’s not engage in straw man arguments.
I don’t think Asobo has introduced the new parameters (propellor physics, fluid dynamics, adverse yaw etc.) to have less realism, to the contrary.
If you want a dumbed down flight model that is easy to land, you can always switch on the assistants.
So yesterday I wasted 1h and 30 of flight. Didn’t know anything about this bug, but when landing I had this tedious white dot and the throttle didn’t work.
I am very satisfied with this aircraft and I respect everyone’s opinion
maybe i understood or maybe not what the white dot is being on xbox s but i use a hotas one and there are no problems
however, I recently noticed that the speed indicator, when it decreases, for example between 100 and 80 knots, is not reactive and goes jerky
good flight to all
I don’t want to get into an argument - just saying that in practice putting ‘more realism’ into a simulator isn’t trivial and affects a lot of things - it doesn’t necessarily lead to an improvement - in this case to the overall FM- so a lot care is needed. In fact it’s essential because it could actually make a lot of things worse. It’s a trade-off usually.
Did I actually say anything about wanting a “dumbed down flight model” ? I don’t think I did but perhaps I was mistaken. Have it your own way.
Sorry, but I don’t get what you are trying to say.
How can more realism be a bad thing ever? In a simulator? (there will always be the assistants for those who don’t have rudder pedals or generally prefer to drive bricks on wheels through the air.)
Or are you saying, plane developers can’t be trusted, and if you give them more and better variables to finetune the realism of the FM, they will screw it up and make the plane perform worse?
I think they’re saying if you pull on one string too hard, you may unpick something that was working before.
While that’s true, it doesn’t have to be that way, and the assumption that it will be is a rather fatalistic way of looking at things.
Essentially that way of thinking is “Don’t improve anything, I’m happy with the way things are broken right now.”