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!

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.

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!

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.

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!

Excited!

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!!!)

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

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?

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.

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!

Since you are a graphic designer, presumably you use Photoshop and other DTP stuff, in which case there is a simple fix, get the texture, open it up in PS, select the screw head with the eliptical marquee selection tool, transform it a bit with rotate, save the file, bob's yer uncle. For the really obsessive types, use the Repousse panel in the CS5 version of PS to emboss the screw head so that the shadows change when you rotate it LOL Al

I thought bstolle did the 210... no?

No

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

Since you are a graphic designer, presumably you use Photoshop and other DTP stuff, in which case there is a simple fix, get the texture, open it up in PS, select the screw head with the eliptical marquee selection tool, transform it a bit with rotate, save the file, bob's yer uncle. For the really obsessive types, use the Repousse panel in the CS5 version of PS to emboss the screw head so that the shadows change when you rotate it LOL Al

Mail that to Carenado, please.

Real Air and PMDG raised the stakes a good few years ago when FS2004 was first around. Other developers are still catching up. Carenado make lovely looking aeroplanes. Would I use them to demonstrate how aircraft fly to a student? No. The two aircraft I use to demonstrate basic manoeuvres to aspiring pilots are the Just Flight Flying Club PA-28 and the Real Air SF-260. Why? Because with a yoke and rudder pedals these aircraft fly close to the real thing within the confines of a fixed base simulator. Lots of flight sim enthusiasts have either BEEN pilots or intend to learn to fly. FSX and FS2004 are excellent aids in teaching the basics of flight (VFR and IFR) to new students. They help people to understand how an aircraft works and they also save the student money because they have first tried and understood a manoeuvre on the sim and with our help as instructors they can then replicate this in a real aircraft therefore saving actual flight time. It's also safer. Why? Because rather than faffing around trying to explain the basics we can both LOOK OUT FOR OTHER AIRCRAFT (UK airspace is very crowded) and then run through manoeuvres already discussed and demonstrated on a simulator. In the UK it costs a lot more to learn to fly than in the U.S. Anything that helps keep the cost down is a winner in my book. I understand that many people just want good looking aeroplanes and don't give a damn about whether it flies like the real thing. Many others expect something more for their money. It is possible given time and expert input.

No

Oh, have you done any personal mods to it that you'd care to share lol?