Carenado enters the glass market

[ryanbatcund 2,306]

...Should be interesting.... http://www.carenado.com/CarSite/Portal/index.php

[fakeflyer737 218]

Wonder if we can use that with the Realixy GPS's?

[AdvancedFollower 213]

Wow, they just released the Skymaster days ago, and now they have another aircraft in the pipeline? How can they push out aircraft at this rate? I think it's a pretty small development team..

[Guest]

Wow, they just released the Skymaster days ago, and now they have another aircraft in the pipeline? How can they push out aircraft at this rate? I think it's a pretty small development team..

Maybe that's why a lot of their releases are simply beta's? And they leave it to the community to fix things? At least that was how it was with the 4 planes I bought from them. I stopped buying Carenade releases because of that.

[SQUAWKIDENT 3]

Wow, they just released the Skymaster days ago, and now they have another aircraft in the pipeline? How can they push out aircraft at this rate? I think it's a pretty small development team..

It's simple. I think they spend all their time making eye-candy and use the same flight dynamics file for every aircraft they release. I stopped buying their products for that reason. If I want to look at pretty pictures of aeroplanes I'll visit airliners.net. And that's free.

[Arklight1 22]

Actually some of the flight dynamics are being done be a well known avsim community member now. The flight dynamics on the C337 are quite good (he did those). The same gentleman is also doing some of the future add-ons in the pipeline for Carenado.

[Tierborn 15]

It's simple. I think they spend all their time making eye-candy and use the same flight dynamics file for every aircraft they release. I stopped buying their products for that reason. If I want to look at pretty pictures of aeroplanes I'll visit airliners.net. And that's free.

Carenado advertises that they have RW pilots validating their models and so does PMDG..... If anyone questions the PMDG model 50 people call him idiot but no one defends Carenado .. why?

[SQUAWKIDENT 3]

Actually some of the flight dynamics are being done be a well known avsim community member now. The flight dynamics on the C337 are quite good (he did those). The same gentleman is also doing some of the future add-ons in the pipeline for Carenado.

Well I hope he has actually flown the real aircraft. Otherwise it's pointless. I find it difficult to believe the stuff written in many FSX aircraft reviews because at some point there is inevitably the disclaimer "I'm not a real world pilot so don't know if the flight dynamics are accurate". Err?! If you're going to publish reviews at least make sure the reviewer is qualified to comment on the abilty of the software to replicate the actual aircraft performance within the confines of FSX? Companies like Real Air Simulations and PMDG have shown it IS possible to make a realistic aircraft simulations for FSX. It just takes a little more time and the input of an EXPERIENCED and QUALIFIED pilot. If a website is going to publish a review of an aircraft simulation I think the least they can do is choose someone with real world experience of flying the aeroplane being reviewed. And if that's not possible get people with a current PPL/CPL/ATPL to review them. Many people want realism not just pretty pictures, and to date I haven't flown ONE Carenado simulation which has even approached the performance of the real-world aircraft (specifically the PA28 and Seneca - I fly the real ones as an instructor). I find FSX useful for teaching some aspects of flying to new students. It saves them money and me time. So when a publisher claims their product is "tested by real-world pilots" I used to take more notice. Now I only keep a couple of FSX aircraft on our school PC and have deleted the rest as they do not perform anything like the "real thing". OK I'll get off my soapbox now Adam

[Rockliffe 573]

IWhen I first got into simming, Carenado was like the ultimate GA aircraft to me. One of the planes I really looked forward to buying was the HD C340, but you know, I don't know what it is, but I never fly the darn thing. It has all the eye candy, but it just doesn't do it for some reason. I can only put it down to the 'feel' of the plane. I prefer flying the Seneca far more, IMO it actually feels like a proper plane. When I got hold of the Bird Dog I realised what people were saying about flght dynamics and handling. Suddenly it all fell into shape. The Aerosoft Katana is another prime example of an aircraft that actually feels like it has some soul and purpose. Of course it goes without saying that the PMDG NGX is the ultimate example of a plane that not only has the eye candy but actually feels like it has some soul. I hate to say it, as I have quite a few Carenado planes in my hanger, but I'm afraid I will probably be unlikely to buy any more Carenado planes in future, unless of course they have some soul.

[ryanbatcund 2,306]

I hate to say it, as I have quite a few Carenado planes in my hanger, but I'm afraid I will probably be unlikely to buy any more Carenado planes in future, unless of course they have some soul.

I own a lot of the older Carenado models (and they suck), but when their T210M came out I decided to Carenado another try. I'm glad I did! They're fde's and models are getting better and better. I'm looking forward to their JetProp DLX

[Rockliffe 573]

I own a lot of the older Carenado models (and they suck), but when their T210M came out I decided to Carenado another try. I'm glad I did! They're fde's and models are getting better and better. I'm looking forward to their JetProp DLX

Interesting Ryan. Well, I always like to think of myself as as a guy with an open mind... Having said what I have, I must admit, I do like their Grand Caravan...

[ginoc1 4]

Ya know what? I don't post much but i gotta say...it irks me to see all the hate about carenado and here's why. Their planes ARE gorgeous...and yes they HAVE looked mostly the same (VC and guage-wise) in the past. And yes some of the FDE's weren't spot on. BUT...here's the thing. They have REALLY stepped up their game recently...in a world when companies that I was RELIGOUS to like FSD and Dreamfleet have POOF gone away (DF literally and FSD figuratively)...leaving RealAir, A2A and PMDG as the only REAL viable options (ok there ARE a few others but you ALL KNOW what i mean) WHY on earth would anyone criticize the drive, momentum, and sheer will to produce products for FSX when MOST of them wouldn't know the difference between a real yoke in their hand at 8000 feet and a frikkin badminton racquet lmao. Guess I'm bored but geeez show me more than TWO producers of HQ aircraft for fsx right now - especially ones that keep stretching themselves. Whatever...I'm done ranting. Gonna go play poker online...at least the morons there don't hide lmao.

[fakeflyer737 218]

He's right, they DEFENTLY changed there tune, a lot. RXP Intergration, HD VC's, 3D Guages, better FDE's and better sound set's, I think they are really going to level the playing field against Real Air, F1 etc etc when they release this C90.

[Vmc 0]

I have never played with a desktop simulator that acts like the real thing. But then I've never been in a simulator that flies like the real thing either. As a point of reference, here is a real type rated pilot reviewing a $15,000,000+ simulator for the 787. Even on a simulator this expensive he has to remind the readers that his view on how the aircraft handles is based on what the simulator says and not the real thing. That's because no simulator flies like the real thing.http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/26/346652/video.html btw, I like Carenados. I hope they don't get discouraged by the flight simmers who want realistic performance from a $35 add on.

[Jacoba 30]

I have always looked upon the claim by nearly every single developer, that their products were tested by RW pilots as a bit suspect anyways. Actually... I think it depends on the airplane. Some are completely believable such as the GA stuff Carenado makes, many GA pilots including A/C owners I know are very interested in PC based SIMS. But once it starts to climb into the realm of airliners, 747's and MD-11, I tend to just say okay... maybe... maybe... Now this don't negate the facts that developers like PMDG makes some outstanding products. And I'm not saying PMDG don't have pilots on staff. Infact if any one would have a qualified heavy driver on staff I'm sure it would be PMDG. But seriously folks, just how many 757/767, 747 or MD-11 drivers really slog a long haul trip from LHR to SFO and back only to fire up Microsoft FS when they get home? The senior grey haired Captains that I am close friends with all own fishing boats... and as soon as the flight bag hits the floor they are out the door headed to some body of water. Another restores 60's and 70's Corvettes, he has 9 of them. I'm not saying these developers don't have someone with credentials on staff, but I simply find the claims by all the add on developers a bit suspect. Most airline drivers I know cringe if you ask them to take a day trip in your Cessna... they, like most who do something for a living simply turn it all off when home, they have other interests and very few have outside aviation interests, usually its an old Cub or something uniques like a float plane. Even less care for PC based SIMS. Remember, these are the same guys and gals that fuss about required annual FAA SIM training. Can't imagine many of them are THAT obsessed enough with FS to take part in development. I'm sure there are a scant few, but hardly enough to cover all the claims by all the developers who state they have some bus driver on staff testing their wares... JMHO...

[fakeflyer737 218]

The entire debate over "real-world" flight dynamics is irrelevant in my mind, here's why. Most of the sim pilots on this forum I would think are "arm chair" pilots, they have ZERO time on any plane let a lone time on type. There are however many guys on here that hold a rw license in one or maybe several aircraft. The point is this; you'll NEVER be able to get the feel of an airplane in a PC sim, you dont have the "holy hell" factor for one, number two you dont have the consequences of making a dumb descision, let a lone the actually foces acting on your body during flight, all of that combined with that fact that most of use are using a joystick or some plastic yoke that doesn't give us any sense of load factor, trim or weight then what is there to complain about?We (sim pilots) are limited to what we see and hear; we want planes that look, good sound and feel good, and to a certain degree a plane that performanes on the numbers (v speeds, rate of turn, TAS, fuel burn ect). I have a RW PPL in a 172, nothing on a multi or anything special really but when I talk about FDE's from a developer I want a few things. I want it to be pretty easy to fly, I don't want to have to actually REALLY REALLY try hard to do a coordinated turn, I want it to have a level of stabliblity that alows me to trim in all axises and maintain equal flight. I do not care if the plane "feels" like the real thing, I'm never going to fly the real thing so who cares, but I want it to be pretty simple to fly.PMDG released there NGX a month or so ago and I bought it, it was tested by RW 73 pliots, now when I fly it I have no clue how accurate the flight dynamics are, but I do know that several NG drivers have said that if you pull the power off in a turn while banking then she needs a hell of a lot of nopse up attitude to maintain level flight, so simple; you lose power; the nose drops. When I do this in the sim I have to add a lot of nose up pitch, but it isn't twitchy and it "feels" ok ( i hate using that word). My point is this, I dont care how it feels, I mean there really is now feel at all unless you're accounting for your controller, we are moviong a picture inside of another picture to gives us the illusion that something is moving, but its not. Just make me an airplane that is pretty easy to fly, and include the odd flaw if the real plane has it, that's all.Just my thoughts, into the sandbox I go!

[Arklight1 22]

Well I hope he has actually flown the real aircraft. Otherwise it's pointless. I find it difficult to believe the stuff written in many FSX aircraft reviews because at some point there is inevitably the disclaimer "I'm not a real world pilot so don't know if the flight dynamics are accurate". Err?! If you're going to publish reviews at least make sure the reviewer is qualified to comment on the abilty of the software to replicate the actual aircraft performance within the confines of FSX? Companies like Real Air Simulations and PMDG have shown it IS possible to make a realistic aircraft simulations for FSX. It just takes a little more time and the input of an EXPERIENCED and QUALIFIED pilot. If a website is going to publish a review of an aircraft simulation I think the least they can do is choose someone with real world experience of flying the aeroplane being reviewed. And if that's not possible get people with a current PPL/CPL/ATPL to review them. Many people want realism not just pretty pictures, and to date I haven't flown ONE Carenado simulation which has even approached the performance of the real-world aircraft (specifically the PA28 and Seneca - I fly the real ones as an instructor). I find FSX useful for teaching some aspects of flying to new students. It saves them money and me time. So when a publisher claims their product is "tested by real-world pilots" I used to take more notice. Now I only keep a couple of FSX aircraft on our school PC and have deleted the rest as they do not perform anything like the "real thing". OK I'll get off my soapbox now Adam

Little bit of a double standard though isn't there? Customers expect near perfect flight dynamics and add-ons be tested by people with actual time in type, while they themselves have never flown that particular aircraft. In reality, most people have no idea how an actual aircraft performs so their comparison to an add-on's flight dynamics are pretty moot. People want accurate flight dyamics and add-ons tested by RW pilots, but the moment "tested by RW pilots" is mentioned, they hop all over the developer. lol Having said that, sure, it's great when a add-on's FDE is developed by a person that also has actual time in type. However, expecting that is a little non-sensical. I play flight simulators because I enjoy aircraft. I understand full well that NO add-on will ever really feel like flying a real aircraft. I have only flown a few real-world aircraft and have less than probably 100 hours total, but I have no expectations with regards to FS add-ons other than that the FDE is "believable". If an add-on's landing speed is off by a few knots, or the takeoff distance is a little shorter or longer tha it's real world counterpart, I in all honesty could care less. I just want an aircraft to look and sound the part with a reasonable FDE.

[kiwikat 25]

I've got to echo the sentiments that Carenado is really improving. The T210 flight model is somewhat of a let down but the 337 is much better. Bernt Stolle is just what Carenado needed. The 337 is one of the best addons I've bought this year. I can't wait for the A36 Bonanza. Hopefully Mr. Stolle is doing that one too!

[Guest bstolle]

I can't wait for the A36 Bonanza. Hopefully Mr. Stolle is doing that one too!

Yep. Even got the rather strange quirk into the flight model that the minimum speed at fwd c.g. and mid weight is higher than the stall speed at max weight!At fwd c.g. the real A36 is so nose heavy that you can't stall her. Hence the minimum speed at lower weight is higher than the stall speed at higher weight.Despite the comforting heavy and stable feel she loops easily and even nice hammerheads are possible.The aerobatic capability is important for me in this case because the A36 is very similar to the F33 which is certified in the acrobatic category at low weight. While not 'certified' the A36 is capable of these maneuvers and the FDE should reflect this IMHO.

[kiwikat 25]

Yep. Even got the rather strange quirk into the flight model that the minimum speed at fwd c.g. and mid weight is higher than the stall speed at max weight!At fwd c.g. the real A36 is so nose heavy that you can't stall her. Hence the minimum speed at lower weight is higher than the stall speed at higher weight.Despite the comforting heavy and stable feel she loops easily and even nice hammerheads are possible.The aerobatic capability is important for me in this case because the A36 is very similar to the F33 which is certified in the acrobatoc category at low weight. While not 'certified' the A36 is capable of these maneuvers and the FDE should reflect this IMHO.

Now I'm excited! That is awesome news!

[Tracon 4]

Excited!

[Guest]

Maybe it's because I am a graphic designer, but did anyone else notice that all screws are positioned exactly the same...? Apart from two above the airspeed gauge (which are both positioned the same again, but slightly different). To me this spoils the immersion... does that make me an idiot? Haha! I have to say btw I have fond memories of the A36: it was the best GA I had in FS9 (Dreamfleet, with a free (!!!) RXP GNS!!!)

[n4gix 1,438]

Jeroen, that is why I wrote a tiny little script that will randomly rotate the screw heads prior to baking the textures in Max...

[ryanbatcund 2,306]

I've got to echo the sentiments that Carenado is really improving. The T210 flight model is somewhat of a let down but the 337 is much better. Bernt Stolle is just what Carenado needed. The 337 is one of the best addons I've bought this year.

I thought bstolle did the 210... no? Anyway I found it to be more realistic "feeling" than previous such as Seneca, Arrow, F33 etc I say to people who whine about people like me wanting quality FDE in a $35 addon - other devs can do it (PMDG, RealAir, Milviz) why is Carenado any different?

[AdvancedFollower 213]

Customers expect near perfect flight dynamics and add-ons be tested by people with actual time in type, while they themselves have never flown that particular aircraft. In reality, most people have no idea how an actual aircraft performs so their comparison to an add-on's flight dynamics are pretty moot.

I guess that's precisely the reason why it's important that the flight model is endorsed by real pilots. If you have no real-world flying experience, you have to take someone else's word that the flight model is accurate. If you do have real-world time in the type, it only takes a minute or two to confirm that the flight model is in the same ballpark. So those endorsements are actually more important to people with no flying experience.