Carenado C152 for FS2004 is out!

[Guest iflyc77]

http://www.carenado.com/ecommerce/buscador...?id_producto=58 Cool!!!!!!=D

[graemeb 14]

Great visual model as usual, but I don't like the view from the 2d cockpit - no runway visible at all! I have taken the liberty of modifying the panel.cfg and aircraft.cfg files:In panel.cfg, add these lines:[VIEWS]VIEW_FORWARD_ZOOM=1,0VIEW_FORWARD_DIR=8.0, 0.0, 0.0In aircraft.cfg, replace the "eyepoint" values as follows:[Views]eyepoint=-2.95,-0.75,1.05I have only had a quick flight, but the flight model seems a little flakey on my system. Lots of jerks and bumps.... :-(Maybe not the best from Carenado, or perhaps a hasty convert from the FSX version?

[Hypo 1]

In the real c152 you also dont get a good view

[Guest JeanLuc_]

a very nice aircraft!

[Guest belga1]

Hi,

In the real c152 you also dont get a good view

Yes indeed .. I see only red "X" in a white square :)Cheers.

[Smokin256 0]

Hypo wrote;

"In the real c152 you also dont get a good view"

I find this an interesting comment. I have to wonder, "dont get a good view" ......of what? And when compared to what? Granted, I am not a real life pilot. To my knowledge I have never been in a C-152. So I don't want to argue with someone who may have many hours in a C-152. But coming as I do from a background in WWII combat flight sims. And having spent many hours in the Flight 1 C-152 I can't imagine anyone saying the over the nose view from a C-152 is anything but excellent.Cheers.................Smokin256

[MarvK 0]

I think in the conversion, they forgot to add the (VIEWS) section in the panel cfg. I started with the settings that Graeme posted above and it's quite convincing now. (thank you) I also agree that it is "twitchy". I've been tweeking the (flight_tuning) section and came up with these 3 settings. Still need to test some more, but here's where I started;elevator_effectiveness = 0.6 //0.8pitch_stability = 1.2 //1.0elevator_trim_effectiveness = 1.4 //1.5

[Aerodynamic 0]

I thought I remember reading that Carenado was exclusively making aircraft for FSX going forward? This will indeed be a treat for the FS9ers still out there. I wasn't expecting this!-Scott

[I132 0]

They are also doing the 172 for fs9. :)Never had a problem seeing out of a 152. Although I am 6'-3". ;)Now leg room, that is another story all together. Scott

[Guest iflyc77]

Ya, I am 6'3" as well with 100 hours or so in C152s.The view is fine, trying to stretch out on a long flight is impossible. Especially with someone in the right seat!

[graemeb 14]

Thanks Marv,I will try those settings tonight. I had a longer flight yesterday, and it was not very satisfying - lots of jerky behaviour as if wind gusts were buffeting the plane. All my other Carenado planes fly very "smoothly" so I am not sure what is causing this on the 152.At least I can see where I am going now! :-)

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Graeme,You might also want to adjust the MOI values in the aircraft.cfg a bit--higher MOI values tend to help smooth out the flight controls although more control force might be needed to move the aircraft about the pitch, roll or yaw axis depending on which value you adjust. I haven't flown a 152, but I have flown several Light Sport aircraft all in the 6-800 lb. range, and they get buffeted in the wind pretty easily. A 152 is substantially heavier so I could only guess how a real one might feel. In fact I've always been curious if a 152 is subject to as much adverse yaw as many of the LSA's I've flown.Regards,John

[PittsS2B 33]

Just picked this up - thanks for supporting FS9, Carenado! I have around 700 hours in 150's and 152's, and the visibility over the real cowling is actually very good - nothing like what the Carenado bird depicts in the 2-D pit, which feels like someone took the seats out. 3-D view, on the other hand, is fine. The real airplane is not a good choice for turbulent air - not very stable in the bumps, although I flew mine in IFR conditions on occasion. Easy to learn, but requires a certain amount of finesse to fly smoothly.John G.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I wanted to add to my earlier post. Just downloaded the C152 tonight, as usual I am very pleased with Carenado and felt a bit obligated to buy the 152 given I was one who first expressed sadness when Carenado decided to drop support for FS2004. I don't buy much payware but Carenado has always been a no brainer for me--their texture detailing, virtual cockpit, and model detail is always excellent at a zero performance hit on my relic P3/800.What I wanted to also mention is I too found the flight model just a bit twitchy, so I tried updating the MOI values with no other changes. I am quite pleased with the result. I simply added 1000 to each of the three values.;Moments of Inertiaempty_weight_pitch_MOI = 1xxxempty_weight_roll_MOI = 1xxxempty_weight_yaw_MOI = 1xxx(Note "xxx" represents the original numbers which I am not displaying out of respect for protecting anything proprietary that might be part of the aircraft.cfg)As always YMMV, but I hope this helps.Regards,John

[Smokin256 0]

Well, thanks for the clarification on the view situation. It just seemed odd to me. Looking at Pilots sitting in 152s and looking at pictures of them it seemed to me that the view from the Flight 1 C-152 v/c was exactly what I would have expected.It's interesting that JohnCi mentions adverse yaw. This is something that has always bothered me about the Flight 1 C-152 flight model. There is none at all on initial aileron application. But then a significant amount once steady state corning. This seems backwards to me. have any of the real life pilots in the group flown the Flight 1 C-152 and would care to comment on this? Do I have it wrong?Cheers...............Smokin256