Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

edetroit

Carenado PA -28RT-201 Arrow IV for FS9

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

That's good to hear!John
Great news! I knew Carenado wouldn't forget about us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great news! I knew Carenado wouldn't forget about us
Awesome news!!! Hope we get the new separate light controls as well...Thanks Ed,-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might sound nasty, but it could be said that FSXI's cancelling was the best thing that could have happened for us FS2004 holdouts. If Flight 1 and Level-D reconsider their FSX-only policy, just about all of the major payware vendors will be continuing to support FS2004.Of course, sympathies to all the x-Aces members. I hope they all landed on their feet.Cheers, SLuggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is ready, go get her!I will as as soon as I get back from Paris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting out the well-used (over-used?) credit card right now! Thanks, Carenado!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just purchased and installed this - it is a very nice model from Carenado as usual. However, for the first time from this developer, it has a VC only cockpit - no 2d panel at all. :( I was a bit disappointed with this, as it was not clearly stated on the web page.I sent off an email to Carenado, but their response was "The VC is very well done, so we think the aircraft is 100% flyable from it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just purchased and installed this - it is a very nice model from Carenado as usual. However, for the first time from this developer, it has a VC only cockpit - no 2d panel at all. :( I was a bit disappointed with this, as it was not clearly stated on the web page.I sent off an email to Carenado, but their response was "The VC is very well done, so we think the aircraft is 100% flyable from it."
Just took her for a quick circuit and very impressed. She is beautiful.Thank you Carenado!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very disappointing about the lack of 2d cockpit. Some of us still prefer an old school 2d cockpit over a VC, no matter how well it is done. I tried flying virtual cockpits, and it just never worked for me. Give me nice, extra smooth RXP gauges in 2d and I'm happy. I'll have to pass on this one. Shame, I was looking forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's very disappointing about the lack of 2d cockpit. Some of us still prefer an old school 2d cockpit over a VC, no matter how well it is done. I tried flying virtual cockpits, and it just never worked for me. Give me nice, extra smooth RXP gauges in 2d and I'm happy. I'll have to pass on this one. Shame, I was looking forward to it.
I guess I just don't get it. :( I know it is personal preference so there is no right or wrong but if the VC is just as clear as any 2D panel what stops you from just staring straight ahead and using the VC like a 2D panel? I think you guys are really selling yourselves short on this one, there is no reason this bird can not be flown exclusively from the VC and I would wager a bet that if there was a 2D you would have a very tough time differentiating it from the VC... Again, I know it is personal preference but I still can't grasp why you would want to stare at a flat 2D .bmp when you can sit in a realistic 3D environment and actually look around a plane as if you were really sitting in it. :( I could understand it years ago when the graphics between 2D and 3D were so far apart but just don't get it anymore... Give me Crystal clear gauges in a VC that allows me to turn my head and adjust where I am looking and I am happy...But then again I am as stubborn as anyone so I can understand not wanting to change :)To each their own and obviously your choice if you guys decide to pass on this but I think this is a bigger issue now than it ever has been in the past. Many of us have been saying for years the 2D panel was a thing of the past and I think a lot of developers are starting to agree. I thought RealAir were all VC, now Carenado, as well as quite a few others who might very well follow suit and move to VC only and those who restrict themselves to 2D panels might very well be faced with a choice to either adapt to today's technology or just use what you have from now on because developers are just not focused on a flat 2D .BMP in the 3D world FS tries to create...Just my .02, but I don't think you guys should be so quick to rule out VC flying moving forward, especially when it is this well done... But hey, to each their own and if that is your choice more power to you, I am not here to change your mind just question your thinking, attack you, make you feel like you have done the worst thing in the world and make the entire world agree with me :( Hey, isn't that what the forums are for....Cheers guys,-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a 2D fan, also, but on rare occasions, mostly flying biplanes, I'll use a VC. I've noticed over time that VCs have really improved and I'll bet that's the case for the new Arrow. So, with that in mind, I'm going to give her a shot.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I still prefer 2D panels for airliners, with the recent advances in 3D 'pits for GA aircraft I now fly them almost exclusively from the VC. I was actually relieved that Carenado didn't provide a 2D pit with the Arrow (which I bought yesterday; very nice), because their last two releases (152 & 172) featured 2D panels that were essentially unusable due to the lack of forward visibility. VC gauges are now smooth enough and the bitmap graphics are clear enough that hard IFR in one of these planes isn't the vertigo-inducing experience it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the plane yesterday. For some reason, during taxi, take off, or landing, the Arrow is bouncing around. This is especially the case when applying the brake. This happens at every airport. I tried reinstall, etc. Nothing works. Does anyone else have this issue?It's as if the contact points in the aircraft.cfg are messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I just don't get it. :( I know it is personal preference so there is no right or wrong but if the VC is just as clear as any 2D panel what stops you from just staring straight ahead and using the VC like a 2D panel?
Performance is the key. I mean for small aircraft with simple avionics it is not a factor, but start throwing in weather radar, gps and a bunch of other gauges, and turning off a VC can give you a performance boost that is not insignificant. For this aircraft, it probably wouldn't matter, but overall that's the reason. I also prefer 2d panels with popups. Scrolling around a VC on a 19" monitor is not the best option for me. Too much scrolling and zooming. If I had multi-monitors and trackIR, I would probably get into it more, but now, 2d works best for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I had a lovely time in Paris...love that city!.....then I come back to this bul*****!Ok Paul you and I have just fallen out. "Many of us have been saying for years the 2D panel was a thing of the past and I think a lot of developers are starting to agree. "Those many you talk of are NOT simmers I respect. (most fly FSX now...I am surprised you don't)VC lovers may be happy to trap themselves in a corner where they have to put up with the cockpit config the modeller supplies...and the lack of accuracy, realism and definition.I am NOT!. I love my many DC-10,B742....etc etc panel confings. I love the freedom/options that 2D panels provide.FS9 offers the option of 2D or VC panels. FSX does not. Only one of the many advantages of FS9 over FSX and one of the reasons I will never be an FSX user. (nothing to do with frames!)I find my photoreal 2D panels far more immersive than the cartoon VC's......don't get me wrong....I love cartoons....just NOT in my sim!If I want more realism it would be a homebuild cockpit! Carenado did not supply a 2D panel.....well they should have. Nevermind at least we have the lovely model. Admittedly I am happy to use a VC for GA aircraft but VC's have limitations (configs)I have not made a full 2D GA panel yet but now I will. For those people missing the 2D panel I will find and photograph a T tail and let's just see how immersive a 2D panel can be. ( I will make it available for those who want it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ed,If you can make a decent 2d panel, I will PAY you for it!!I had a crack at modifying the Carenado Piper Dakota panel, as it seemed a close match to the VC. I added the relevant Arrow gauges, but as you can see the ADI and HSI do not match the moulded panel shape very well. However, it is a usable stop-gap.My main problem is the bouncing nose gear on take off and landing/braking. There is definitely something wrong with the contact point data....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Ed,If you can make a decent 2d panel, I will PAY you for it!!I had a crack at modifying the Carenado Piper Dakota panel, as it seemed a close match to the VC. I added the relevant Arrow gauges, but as you can see the ADI and HSI do not match the moulded panel shape very well. However, it is a usable stop-gap.My main problem is the bouncing nose gear on take off and landing/braking. There is definitely something wrong with the contact point data....
Good effort Graeme! I will make a 2D panel the likes that will never have been seen before...it will have a moving prop for starters! (with no drop in frames)p.s I have bought the T tail but not loaded it in the sim yet.....I will after breakfast and see what I can do about the bouncing/contact points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An anti bounce cfg edit...don't forget to backup!

[contact_points]static_pitch = -0.5static_cg_height = 3.6max_number_of_points = 9point.0=1, 5.00, 0.0, -3.75, 3200, 0, 0.57, 33, 0.20, 2.0, 0.8, 3.5, 3.5, 0, 130.0, 130.0point.1=1, -3.88, -4.5, -3.88, 3200, 1, 0.69,  0.00, 0.3, 2.5, 0.8, 5.0, 5.0, 2, 130.0, 130.0point.2=1, -3.88, 4.5, -3.88, 3200, 2, 0.69,  0.00, 0.3, 2.5, 0.8, 5.0, 5.0, 3, 130.0, 130.0point.3 = 2, -2.95, -18, 0.62, 1600, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0point.4 = 2, -3.10, 18, 0.62, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0point.5 = 2, -18.80, 0, -1.0, 3200, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0point.6 = 2, 5.5, 0, -1.5, 3200, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0point.7 = 2, -19.5, 0, 4.7, 3200, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0point.8 = 2, -3.0, 0, -1.8, 3200, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0gear_system_type=0[brakes]parking_brake = 1			  //Parking brake availabletoe_brakes_scale = 0.5		//Brake scalarauto_brakes = 0differential_braking_scale = 0.9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that fix worked a treat, Ed; thank you! Nice smooth braking action now. Carenado should have you on retainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that fix worked a treat, Ed; thank you! Nice smooth braking action now. Carenado should have you on retainer.
Geez Ed, didn't mean to get on your Sh*t side... :( Although I really don't get the VC thing and the conversation around them has been going on for years my post was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, hence the whole thing about putting people down, attacking them etc... People really can agree to disagree... And I will put up with a lot in these forums but how dare you say I should be flying FSX, no one deserves that.... :( Hope everyone enjoys the latest release regardless, it is a beautiful piece of modeling and the first time I have used a Carenado model with the separate light control so I am very pleased.-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paul, you are back in my good books because "but how dare you say I should be flying FSX, no one deserves that.... " was da** funny! :( The model agreed is delicous!Instrument lighting connected to landing lights is not good.....Carenado should have learnt how to separate the two by now.The VC is NOT completely clickable...the course and heading setting knobs on the HSI are not clickable .....and should be......a hurried release perhaps....but all could be fixed.Bring on the Seneca I say! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You da man, Ed! I've been messin' with those stupid contact points all morning, had the bounce partially dampened but the nosewheel was about a foot in the air in slew mode and the bounce was still pretty pronounced at or near gross weight. Your edit works great without any quirks, thanks.

...the course and heading setting knobs on the HSI are not clickable...
They are actually, but the click spots are small and difficult to find. Click on the HSI to open the 2D rendition of the gauge and the click spots are much easier to use.Arrow_IV_02.jpgWhat is this "separate light control" feature everyone's talking about? You mean the dome lights separated from the instrument lights? I can't see the point of the instrument lights linked to the landing lights either, the 206 had a post lighting effect that was also linked to the landing lights. Don't recall ever seeing this feature on a full scale aircraft :( .Other than that it's a beautiful model and I love the "feel" in the joystick. Wish it had a little more balls though, may have to look into a "Turbo Arrow" conversion.Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites