Hi all, Jeremy please post the "numbers", not the line. It seems right, but to be sure I'd have to see the numbers in X and Y columns.About uploading the airfile and cfg, I don't think I can do it. It's copyrighted material. Me or anyone else, excluding Carenado, of course. If they want me to upload them somewhere, or send them, whatever, they have my email, or PM me here, I don't care. But I need their authorization. So I'm sorry guys if I can't be of more help here, but I did all I could do.Kreg did you get my mail? If so, what do you think of the new FDE? I'd like to read your thoughts about it (everyone would, I believe).Cheers

Well Federico, after checking and rechecking, all the numbers match with your fix, but the left most X is 0, with 0 Y. If I need to change that or whatever, would I have to remove it? I was looking for a way to do so but couldn't. Inversely the plane flies on the numbers now, so I'd say it's okey-dokey! Thanks a lot! :(

Hi all, Jeremy please post the "numbers", not the line. It seems right, but to be sure I'd have to see the numbers in X and Y columns.About uploading the airfile and cfg, I don't think I can do it. It's copyrighted material. Me or anyone else, excluding Carenado, of course. If they want me to upload them somewhere, or send them, whatever, they have my email, or PM me here, I don't care. But I need their authorization. So I'm sorry guys if I can't be of more help here, but I did all I could do.Kreg did you get my mail? If so, what do you think of the new FDE? I'd like to read your thoughts about it (everyone would, I believe).Cheers

Hey Fede,I did receive it! I have been too busy to check, but it is on my list of things to do tonight after work!Kreg

Very good Kreg, thanks ;)Jeremy, mine ends in Y=0.1, and X=0.00022, but that's the density at 60000 feet, I don't think you can reach it with a Grand Caravan LOLCheers

60000 lol no that would be something to see!Thanks so much to every single person who contributed to this thread. You all are great!

I'd like to add another THANK YOU to everyone who has adjusted the FDE for this model. It now works as good as it looks. :(

Um... this is worrisome.There's a clarification of one point here - he doesn't mean (though he seemed to say so at first) that the work here is based on the default airfile, rather that the original was. It's probably best to read the whole thread for context.My takeaway: it's great that everybody here is doing the hard work needed to fix performance but you have to wonder how the 1.0 version got out the door.

Um... this is worrisome.There's a clarification of one point here - he doesn't mean (though he seemed to say so at first) that the work here is based on the default airfile, rather that the original was. It's probably best to read the whole thread for context.My takeaway: it's great that everybody here is doing the hard work needed to fix performance but you have to wonder how the 1.0 version got out the door.

Can't read it without membership...

Um... this is worrisome.

Why? It is a private members forum, not a public one.

Again a huge thank you. I am pretty impressed with the new air file settings and the aircraft.cfg file adjustments.Neat, very neat guys.Funny how some who said the caravan was 100% correct at date of release, now suddenly want the tweaks..I still manintain my view, of if it seems to fly well, it does not mean it is correct.. HUGE difference between feeling right and being right.

Can't read it without membership...

Just requires registration - it's a good community.Quick summary - the post is by Alexander Metzger, one of the best flight dynamics designers, who reports that he offered to work on the flight dynamics for Carenado and they turned him down, citing cost. He suggests that the flight dynamics in the Caravan as released are a slightly modified version of the default Caravan's.While it seems that there might be some ill will between Metzger and Carenado, judging by this post, he has a long history involving many professional relationshps and a lot of good work, so to me, his comments are worth taking seriously. Might be that Carenado's commitment to accurate performance isn't what it might be, and that the "certified by RW pilots" claim doesn't stand up.My takeaway, anyway. YMMV...

Why? It is a private members forum, not a public one.

I ought to clarify - I meant that the content of the post was worrisome to the extent that it reflects on Carenado's quality control, not that there's anything wrong with his having posted. Sorry for the confusion.

Quick summary - the post is by Alexander Metzger, one of the best flight dynamics designers, who reports that he offered to work on the flight dynamics for Carenado and they turned him down, citing cost. He suggests that the flight dynamics in the Caravan as released are a slightly modified version of the default Caravan's.

I have to say, offering to do work for Carenado for pay, being turned down, then flinging dirt in their direction after product release does not sound very professional to me. Doesn't really matter how good he is ...

Is anyone surprised the FDE needs work? We all know Carenado are masters at model and virtual cockpit design but somewhat lacking in sounds and fde. That's fine we have the addition of the community to help tweak as this topic is doing. Right now the C208 is my favorite prop after the tweaks.

Is anyone surprised the FDE needs work? We all know Carenado are masters at model and virtual cockpit design but somewhat lacking in sounds and fde. That's fine we have the addition of the community to help tweak as this topic is doing. Right now the C208 is my favorite prop after the tweaks.

No, not surprised. A bit disappointed, but mainly in myself. After the Bonanza experience, I'd promised myself I was going to sit this one out 'til it got settled, then reacted to the initial reports and in spite of myself bought on the first day. So now I find myself following along with the tweaks again... though in fairness I have to say that the initial flight dynamics here were much better than on the Bonanza. And as others have said, I'm learning a lot as I follow the tweaking process. In general I don't much like the "finish it yourself" approach, but I guess that's turning out to be the house style and if I try to keep my expectations realistic, I'll be fine... :(

I have to say, offering to do work for Carenado for pay, being turned down, then flinging dirt in their direction after product release does not sound very professional to me. Doesn't really matter how good he is ...

That's a fair point.

Jeremy, mine ends in Y=0.1, and X=0.00022, but that's the density at 60000 feet, I don't think you can reach it with a Grand Caravan LOL

Well after making all the .air & .cfg changes you guys have worked out and has been working really well for me, I decided to go for a "Certified Ceiling" fun flight. Directly from the Cessna.com's Grand Caravan sales page it's listed as 25,000 feet. I was scratching my head a bit at that but went for it anyway. :) I took off with only pilot weight, full fuel and no baggage or passengers. It took a while but she finally made it to 25,000' and once up there was flying pretty much on the level. I couldn't make the accent in one stage. Up to 15,000 from take off and then in 1000' steps up to 25K. I cruised at that altitude all day until it was time to decend for fuel. An interesting item popped up during decent that I haven't had a chance to double check with another flight yet. Normally I've only been able to top out at around 136 IAS even after the new .air & .cfg changes. On this flight when I leveled off at 12,000' the IAS was sitting at 150 and stayed there until I started the final decent to land. By using a step down to cruise altitude as you would in an aircraft like a B-17, it gave me a few extra IAS that stayed with the aircraft and didn't bleed off. I haven't had a chance to double check that with a follow-up flight yet, but that sure is what it looked like happened. FAC