I have over 500 hours flying GA aircraft, including over 100 hours in the 150/152 series. I also have an engineering background and know how to test things methodically.
I do agree that the default control sensitivity is too high. I changed the pitch and roll sensitivity of my Honeycomb yoke to -40, and the rudder sensitivity of my Thrustmaster TPR pedals time -30 which helped tame a tendency towards “twitchiness”.
I strongly disagree that the flight model is “all wrong”. On my first flight with the 152, I spent almost 2 hours doing all the standard maneuvers a student pilot would have to demonstrate on a private pilot check ride, or that an experienced pilot would practice before a biennial flight review. I know exactly how a real 152 flies in these scenarios.
I did standard takeoffs, and short and soft field takeoffs. Climbs at Vx (best angle) and Vy (best rate), looking for the pitch angle and speeds that resulted.
In flight, I did 360 degree standard rate turns left and right, and 720 degree steep turns left and right.
I did a full stall series. Power off stalls with flaps up and down, power on stalls with flaps up and down. Slow flight at MCA (minimum controllable airspeed), with full flaps and full power, including turns left and right (which have to be done primarily with rudder in that configuration).
In level flight, at a constant power setting, I tested the aerodynamic effects of extending and retracting flaps.
I did multiple touch and go landings, including standard, short field and soft field approaches.
I set up a crosswind in the weather dialog and did several crosswind landings, including the “kicking out the crab” technique and the “forward slip” technique.
I found the performance of the flight model to be surprisingly accurate in almost every regard. Much better than I expected for a default aircraft. My main complaint is that the aircraft descends too steeply if pulling power back to idle from level flight with “hands off” the yoke, and the operation of the mixture control is not realistic at all in any piston engine aircraft in MSFS at the moment.
I did the same series of tests in the 172, and had similar good results, with the exception that the aircraft seems underpowered in climb for the represented 172 model. It acts more like an older high-time 172 with an 0-320 engine, than a newer model with an 0-360.