Carenado PA -28RT-201 Arrow IV for FS9

[edetroit 933]

Just had an email from Carenado. "Yes, we will. Don

[graemeb 14]

Good news!

[John F 2,396]

That's good to hear!John

[red1 0]

That's good to hear!John

Great news! I knew Carenado wouldn't forget about us

[psolk 3,037]

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

[rpjkw11 0]

Yes, in an e-mail, Carenado confirmed the same. That's really good newsBob

[sluggy 3]

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

[edetroit 933]

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

[PittsS2B 33]

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

[graemeb 14]

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."

[psolk 3,037]

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!!

[kerosene31 348]

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.

[psolk 3,037]

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

[rpjkw11 0]

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

[PittsS2B 33]

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.