June 19, 201114 yr Is it just my imagintaion or do the T210M VC shots show an RXP 530 with a 430 below it? Somehow they do not look like default MS ones, at least to me...The 530 looks like the default MS GPS - though im not 100% sure about that, will be confirmed on release!
June 19, 201114 yr The 530 looks like the default MS GPS - though im not 100% sure about that, will be confirmed on release!Not really - the default GPS500 does not have a radio built in.. Bert
June 19, 201114 yr Not really - the default GPS500 does not have a radio built in..Yeah, that is a Garmin 530 and 430 in the picture on their site of the VC, and I would suspect it's from Reality XP given that folks for a long time have been asking Carenado to make it easier to add this GPS, I sure hope so, that would be a great setup for the T210 for those who own the Reality XP GPS.Martin
June 19, 201114 yr If this has the option for rxp 530/430 I'll buy it, otherwise I won't. Hope for the best I guess :)
June 20, 201114 yr Commercial Member Here are side by side comparison shots of the 210 centre panel (left) and the duke centre panel with 530/430 combo. Looks wise they are identical other than:- On the extreme top right of the 530 unit where the unit name is (red circle) there seems to be an ever so slight difference - some sort of icon/logo/label (?) on the 210 version not seen on the duke one.- The texture of the units seems a bit lighter (more weathered?) in the 210 shots - but this could just be lightingMy understanding is that the panel developer (as opposed to RXP themselves) would be responsible for the VC textures and 3D knobs so this could well explain the minor visual differences?Otherwise they are identical to the RXP units looks wise - buttons, white button decals, 3d knobs etc.Oh, and attached a shot of the default GPS500 just to show just how different the units are. Having said that there's that icon/logo/label before the unit name on the default one which seems to be what is on the T210 530 unit too?Subsequently I have noticed that Carenado included their own GPS430 in the B58 which is identical in looks to the RXP unit but clearly functionality is not the same. Perhaps that is what is going on here with the 530 unit? Konrad
June 20, 201114 yr Hope not I'm not buying anymore of there planes until they add rxp 3G masks to them. I'm am sick and tired of screwing around with Panel CFgs I've got the katana from aerospft and soon the f1 182 so I'll be busy with for a couple months. Bareback needs to do 3 things number 1 beta test longer and release a bugless (or close to) plane, add rxp integration like realair. And last but not least; work on there flight dynamics more. I know I sound picky but I can be with all the great products coming out soon
June 20, 201114 yr Hope not I'm not buying anymore of there planes until they add rxp 3G masks to them. I'm am sick and tired of screwing around with Panel CFgs I've got the katana from aerospft and soon the f1 182 so I'll be busy with for a couple months. Bareback needs to do 3 things number 1 beta test longer and release a bugless (or close to) plane, add rxp integration like realair. And last but not least; work on there flight dynamics more. I know I sound picky but I can be with all the great products coming out soonFlight dynamics on the 114 were already better as will be those for the 210. The 337 will set a new standard for Carenado flight dynamics.At least the bugs on Carenado planes can be fixed. The gapping holes in the Aerosoft Katana can't be fixed according to its designer. I like the Katana very much but these items are real showstoppers IMHO.
June 20, 201114 yr What holes?If you place the viewpoint into a realistic position, which means to the left (the middle of the seat) and way forward (also approximately the middle), there's suddenly a real big gap between the fuselage and the canopy at the back because the fuselage shape and the canopy shape don't match at all.And a further gap becomes visible along the bottom of the canopy/fuselage joint. Not nice as a few accidents happened IRL due to the canopy not been latched properly.It's a showstopper if you can see the scenery going by where there shouldn't be any visible, LOL
June 21, 201114 yr Flight dynamics on the 114 were already better as will be those for the 210. The 337 will set a new standard for Carenado flight dynamics.So does that mean you didn't do the 210's dynamics? Maybe I'll just wait for the 337 then. Your work on the 310 was exceptional. To have that in a Carenado product will be truly awesome! The 337 has always been one of my favorites so it will be something extra to look forward to. :( Tired of Streetlights everywhere? Try MSFS DarkStreets today!
June 21, 201114 yr Thanx for the kind feedback :)Altough I'm not designing the flight dynamics for the 210, I'm involved in testing the FDs and they are nice and a step foward.Nevertheless the 'leap' will occur with the 337 ;)
June 21, 201114 yr If you place the viewpoint into a realistic position, which means to the left (the middle of the seat) and way forward (also approximately the middle), there's suddenly a real big gap between the fuselage and the canopy at the back because the fuselage shape and the canopy shape don't match at all.And a further gap becomes visible along the bottom of the canopy/fuselage joint. Not nice as a few accidents happened IRL due to the canopy not been latched properly.It's a showstopper if you can see the scenery going by where there shouldn't be any visible, LOLWe work on Katana's and what we have determined is that those are actually "ventilation slots" . Oddly enough, when a pilot first discovers them, he/she seems to actually sweat MORE, not less. :( Can't imagine why... :rolleyes:Have to admit - both IRL and in FS, I'm not a big fan of the Katanas.
June 22, 201114 yr Thanx for the kind feedback :)Altough I'm not designing the flight dynamics for the 210, I'm involved in testing the FDs and they are nice and a step foward.Nevertheless the 'leap' will occur with the 337 ;)How big of a leap? A frog leap or a gigantic leap? :( By the way thanks for developing the B58 stall fix, what a great improvement!BB BillyBob David M. Edwards Dell Alienware Area 51-R5: Intel Core i9 7980XE (18-Core Central Processing Unit [C.P.U.]), 64 Gigabytes (GB) of Dual Channel HyperX DDR4 at 2,904MHZ, 2X Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080Ti (11GB GDDR5X, each) in Scalable Link Interface (S.L.I.) or parallel configuration, 1,500 Watt power supply, 3x Solid State Drives (S.S.D.), Track Infrared (I.R.) 5 head tracking head gear and receiver (Natural Point, Corvallis, OR. United States of America [U.S.A.]) and a Dell 4K Ultrasharp 32 inch monitor. Lockheed Martin Prepar 3D version 4.4 (P3Dv4.4), Addons And Updates GALORE! KPDX (Portland, OR), KHIO (Hillsboro, OR) United States of America, Planet Earth..
June 22, 201114 yr Thanx for the kind feedback :)Altough I'm not designing the flight dynamics for the 210, I'm involved in testing the FDs and they are nice and a step foward.Nevertheless the 'leap' will occur with the 337 ;)I noticed Carenado never did post your stall fix, is there a chance you could e-mail the cfg file to [email protected] and look forward to the C337 :( CheersMartin
June 22, 201114 yr How big of a leap? A frog leap or a gigantic leap? :( By the way thanks for developing the B58 stall fix, what a great improvement!BBYou are welcome :)lesp distance depends if or how many real 337 pilots I can get to answer my customized questionnaire...I noticed Carenado never did post your stall fix, is there a chance you could e-mail the cfg file to [email protected] and look forward to the C337 :( CheersMartinIt's available at sim-outhouse.com but I've just sent you the new air file. (no change to the cfg file)
Create an account or sign in to comment