Doubling the simulation speed throws everything off, and it doesn't feel real at all. That is the kind of stuff I had to do in G2 to get it to "3D". I dont' want to have to tweak the program to get it to behave correctly. I can't believe this is the first I've heard of these problems with AFP. From what I heard before buying it, it was simply amazing with no flaws to speak of.

I just added weight to the the stock Cap which had 26 oz/sq ft wing loading and almost doubled the weight to give it 43oz/sq ft. Now, in real life, this plane wouldn't 3D for crap and would snap at even the slightest addition of elev. Not if AFP, it executes all maneuvers with rock solid stability. The only major difference is the increase in inertia the plane has, and the decreased pullout of maneuvers. The general feel when landing a plane if off, and the ground handling is rediculous.

Its pretty obvious the programmers didn't make a physics engine that was so versatile that 3D flight just happens naturally. It was "hard-wired" into the simulation, which restricts its realism envelope.

At this point, I actually think G2 is better at simulating general flight, except during stalled wing maneuvers(3D). I guess everyone was so captivated that they could actually do an elevator, wall, harrier, etc. in AFP, they overlooked everything else.

Even though I will have fun with AFP, I'm very disapointed in the so-called "great physics engine". If reflex didn't force me to use my $400 transmitter all the time, I might consider it.