That is because all the bugs were fixed after the F33 release. When it first came out it was a disaster. Myself and a few others in the community had to put together a bunch of flight model changes. Weeks later Carenado released a patch that fixed most of the errors. The community had to save the C185 and the C208 as well. Even today there are complaints about how the Seneca and Arrow fly.A good beta team would have found almost all of the issues with the F33 BEFORE its release. :(

hmm. that's true, but for me the seneca flies perfect. Only the arrow is tricky on landings and is tendenting to stall...and yes the C208B was a desaster when it was released...i have also the F33A, it's ok but to nervous at takeoffs and at low speed.they could look for some real world pilots who are flying cessnas and pipers or beechcrafts for their beta tester team.

I'm not a real world pilot. The only plane I've ever flown is a C172. I still know when a flight model is off.They need more experienced testers who have beta tested before and know a bit about the sim. There are a handful of us here on AVSIM who have volunteered numerous times...

Remember,This will be their 1st release with 3D Gauges,So it's bound to take more time and testing.I haven't bought a Carenado product yet,This may be the 1st.As the previous posters stated,I'd much rather have a fully tested bug free real to life flight model product than be fustrated trying to fly and enjoy something much less.

Isn't that the Baron will be the first model with 3d Gauges? From the screens it doesn't look like C340 has them.

I'm not a real world pilot. The only plane I've ever flown is a C172. I still know when a flight model is off.They need more experienced testers who have beta tested before and know a bit about the sim. There are a handful of us here on AVSIM who have volunteered numerous times...

I actually sent them an email a few days ago, they said they don't need anymore right now, but will ssave my details and to bump them before their next release - you should do the same.

I actually sent them an email a few days ago, they said they don't need anymore right now

They've said that to me every time I have tried...

I'm not a real world pilot. The only plane I've ever flown is a C172. I still know when a flight model is off.They need more experienced testers who have beta tested before and know a bit about the sim. There are a handful of us here on AVSIM who have volunteered numerous times...

"Kiwikat" (and others) - please believe me when I say I post this with sincere respect and have no desire to slight anyone.There is a huge difference in one's ability to beta test an airplane who has a fair amount of real world time on an aircraft vs. someone who has never, or only briefly flown a real machine. There is just no way around practical experience when it comes to working out the bugs on a simulated aircraft than with time on type. When Bernt and I modified the FDE's for the 185 (you'll see our name in the aircraft.cfg files for the bush version if you wish to check my story), I could tell Bernt what was not working right, but I didn't have the experience adjusting air files. Bernt did, but did not have RW experience on the 185. Even with all that, we weren't totally satisfied with the outcome. My feeling was that Carenado didn't have access to anyone with actual time on the 185, and that showed in the original release. To their credit, they allowed their files to be reworked by people who did have the experience. Most developers wouldn't even consider a rework, so one has to give credit where it's due, and Carenado obviously cares that their customers get the best possible product. Finding people with time on the actual machine they make isn't easy given the broad range of machines they produce.Even when I worked on the MilViz 310, there were a lot of what I thought were issues (i.e. incorrect behaviour) in the basic flight model, so I would ask Ken, the RW 310 pilot's whose plane was modeled only to find out that the actual aircraft behaves that way and no, it's not an issue. I have over 2,000 hours on aircraft ranging from Super Cubs to Otters and Aztecs, but none on the 310, and it showed. Even with a whack of RW pilots of machines from the Cessna 172 all the way up to 747 jockey's, without Ken's input this machine would not have been anywhere near as good as it was on release. So honestly, I'm not sure how anyone with no real flight time could accurately assess flight dynamics of an FSX aircraft, which can be (if done correctly) pretty realistic for the most part. Even when they do have a RW "type" pilot, it can be hard to nail down. In the case of the 208, they had a fellow who flies for Sensa on their 208's, and they still didn't get it right. I suspect that their original FDE expert is no longer with them as a fellow who does know how to adjust FDE's very expertly was able to nail it down in the end. I'm hoping that issue has been resolved for the 340, because when someone with real time (and a signficant amount of it) and and fellow who is an expert with the air files team up, amazing things can be done.As I said, this is in no way intended as a slight against Kiwikat or anyone else who wants to beta for a developer (in this case Carenado). If you don't have the experience, you don't have the feel for any airplane, never mind the actual type involved. There are a LOT of subtle things that make an airplane fly the way it does, and it takes a fair amount of experience to even pick up on what's not working right and how that might affect that part of the flight model, and how that will affect the rest of the flight model (i.e. if the aircraft should pitch up more with application of flaps, and you subsequently build that in, how is that going to affect your pitch stability in other flight regimes). I'm afraid that with non-pilot's (or too many of them) on the beta team, RW pilot's on the beta team will be spending most of their time saying, "no, this IS correct" rather than being able to move forward at a reasonable pace to getting the final FDE's tweaked as they need to be. Certainly Carenado is under considerable pressure to get things right, but also get things out fast, as can be seen by the many postings about, "Are we there yet" and having a lot of non-pilots on board will actually slow that process down, not speed it up.I hope folks here understand what I'm saying, and that if Carenado is not accepting your application to be on the beta team, it's not a slight on you. They are just trying to get things right as possible, as fast as possible. They are just being diplomatic and not wishing to hurt anyone's feelings.Thanks for reading.

+1 Beaver Driver. I applaud Carenado for wanting to make great models, and I applaud all of you that care enough to make them even better. Thanks to all involved in all these wonderful creations! I neither have RW time in anything besides a 172, nor can I do the software tweaking to fix stuff, so I'm completely reliant on this wild wild west partnership between modelers and tweakers.

Great post Beaver,Thanks very much for the insight.@severinos,I think Carenado announcement of 3D Gauges is at the very top of this thread

Great post Beaver,Thanks very much for the insight.@severinos,I think Carenado announcement of 3D Gauges is at the very top of this thread

Thanks Patrick. You're right, although on the screens they don't look like 3d ones. http://www.carenado.com/ecommerce/Incomings/C340/6.jpg I guess the screens don't show this new feature very well. Time for some new screenshots? Sev

"I guess the screens don't show this new feature very well. Time for some new screenshots? "Actually, there was a post in this thread by someone that said it was getting released this week (tomorrow being Tuesday as a tradition for Carenado) after they had emailed Carenado asking, so instead of new screen shots, I'd rather be flying it in my system as of tomorrow for sure :) My hopes are high for a release tomorrow, however i'm trying to stay grounded by working on other projects in my studio. I do have to admit I feel like a kid again and keep going to Carenado's website and hitting refresh several times a day now. :)Warm regards, Jeff

Let me add my 2¢. It has been 49 years since I was at the controls of an aircraft. That was a J-3. End of RW flying experience. Beta testing? Why yes, nearly 10 years for Bill Lyons and a few others here and there. My input on the FDE was minimal to non-existent. Not my field, In Bill's case, it was his field and I flew what he made. If I had to learn to fly it, I spent the time to learn to fly it. Life was good. Then came Carenado. I bought their Cessna 210 for FS2002. Was the flight model correct? I have no idea. I bought the plane and learned to fly it. Never did I think it was my right to criticize the flight model. That's not my area of expertise. Jumping forward to the Cessna 185, I bought it within the hour of its release and spent an evening learning to fly it. I had a great time. Next day or two I find out the FDE is less than optimal. That's odd. I had no problem with it BECAUSE I did not know what a 185 flew like in real life. I just took what I had and learned to use it, the same as every other aircraft I have ever loaded in every version of MSFS since '89. Then Glenn and Bernt got involved. Each iteration of the FDE was a new learning experience. Is the final result better? The experts involved say it is BUT you could never prove it by me. Just like going to the field and renting an aircraft, I fly what I have been given. The 208? I had not a problem with the initial release. Got in, turned it on, went flying. The modified FDE? I put it in, turned it on, went flying. Better? I have no idea. I'm not a 208 pilot. I don't think I have ever ridden in one. I have purchased every aircraft that Carenado have made since the C210 and I have NEVER, not once been disappointed. I might look in the cockpit and wish for something that isn't there, but I suspect going to the field and climbing into a rental would give me the same wishes. It's a moot point in any case. The flight models have always been what they were. I jump in and go flying. The aircraft that stay in the hangar don't stay there because of some imagined flaw, they stay there because I have a preference for high winged monoplanes. Would I like to beta test for Carenado? Nope. I've beta tested too many aircraft for too many years and I know what I can bring to the table. My eyes tell me that Carenado do not need me for that :)I'm sure by this time tomorrow there will be weeping and moaning here in the forum but you won't hear any from me, I'll be flying my new Carenado aircraft in the Pacific Northwest without a clue if they got the FDE "right" or not. I'm just a sim pilot.BTW, they have started laying out the page for the 340.

Let me add my 2¢. It has been 49 years since I was at the controls of an aircraft. That was a J-3. End of RW flying experience. Beta testing? Why yes, nearly 10 years for Bill Lyons and a few others here and there. My input on the FDE was minimal to non-existent. Not my field, In Bill's case, it was his field and I flew what he made. If I had to learn to fly it, I spent the time to learn to fly it. Life was good. Then came Carenado. I bought their Cessna 210 for FS2002. Was the flight model correct? I have no idea. I bought the plane and learned to fly it. Never did I think it was my right to criticize the flight model. That's not my area of expertise. Jumping forward to the Cessna 185, I bought it within the hour of its release and spent an evening learning to fly it. I had a great time. Next day or two I find out the FDE is less than optimal. That's odd. I had no problem with it BECAUSE I did not know what a 185 flew like in real life. I just took what I had and learned to use it, the same as every other aircraft I have ever loaded in every version of MSFS since '89. Then Glenn and Bernt got involved. Each iteration of the FDE was a new learning experience. Is the final result better? The experts involved say it is BUT you could never prove it by me. Just like going to the field and renting an aircraft, I fly what I have been given. The 208? I had not a problem with the initial release. Got in, turned it on, went flying. The modified FDE? I put it in, turned it on, went flying. Better? I have no idea. I'm not a 208 pilot. I don't think I have ever ridden in one. I have purchased every aircraft that Carenado have made since the C210 and I have NEVER, not once been disappointed. I might look in the cockpit and wish for something that isn't there, but I suspect going to the field and climbing into a rental would give me the same wishes. It's a moot point in any case. The flight models have always been what they were. I jump in and go flying. The aircraft that stay in the hangar don't stay there because of some imagined flaw, they stay there because I have a preference for high winged monoplanes. Would I like to beta test for Carenado? Nope. I've beta tested too many aircraft for too many years and I know what I can bring to the table. My eyes tell me that Carenado do not need me for that :)I'm sure by this time tomorrow there will be weeping and moaning here in the forum but you won't hear any from me, I'll be flying my new Carenado aircraft in the Pacific Northwest without a clue if they got the FDE "right" or not. I'm just a sim pilot.BTW, they have started laying out the page for the 340.

One of the best written posts I've seen in a long time Tom. Amen, and thank you for this :(

The few well-thought out posts before this one I am typing here, the posts with the insight, wisdom, practical expereince, and just plain common sense...well, they just plain disappoint me......I was hoping everybody could just continue posting negative comments regarding aircraft they have never flown, and in some instances I am guessing never seen outside of Airliners.net. But no, those with common sense have to sweep on in here and post well thought out responses backed by practical experience. How dare you.Now go, or I will be forced to taunt you a second time.

The few well-thought out posts before this one I am typing here, the posts with the insight, wisdom, practical expereince, and just plain common sense...well, they just plain disappoint me......I was hoping everybody could just continue posting negative comments regarding aircraft they have never flown, and in some instances I am guessing never seen outside of Airliners.net. But no, those with common sense have to sweep on in here and post well thought out responses backed by practical experience. How dare you.Now go, or I will be forced to taunt you a second time.

:( :(

The few well-thought out posts before this one I am typing here, the posts with the insight, wisdom, practical expereince, and just plain common sense...well, they just plain disappoint me......I was hoping everybody could just continue posting negative comments regarding aircraft they have never flown, and in some instances I am guessing never seen outside of Airliners.net. But no, those with common sense have to sweep on in here and post well thought out responses backed by practical experience. How dare you.Now go, or I will be forced to taunt you a second time.