Thanx Ron, it's all in the signature :(

I gave up reading signatures a long time ago. :) They're mostly a list of 'look what I've got'sGreat job on the Chippie btw. Now all it needs is a decent VC and he'd have no trouble selling it! :(

May I please receive a copy of this also?Thank you very much.

Thanx Ron, it's all in the signature :(

Hi Bernt, LOL - that helps - seems like there is nothing but good feedback with your work on FDE's... I'm in - I'll try Carenado again - providing you have the plane listed in your sig... Works for me... Have a good Holiday...:) OBTW: Are you doing the MilViz Baron ?Regards,Scott

Please may I have a copy of the gauge.Russ

OBTW: Are you doing the MilViz Baron ?

Don't know yet as the only 'source' for the Baron we had is not available anymore.Without a real pilot, current on the 55 or 58, who could perform actual tests or provide vital info it doesn't make much sense to me because I can't deliver a super high quality FDE like in case of the 310.

Hi Bernt, Hmm - would you like me to ask around on the real world side of the house ? I may be able to find you a Baron pilot that uses FS. You can just ping me offline if it's easier...Regards,Scott

That would be great of course. He doesn't need to be a flightsim user at all!I've prepared a very detailed questionnaire and if he/she/they can answer at least 25% of the questions a very good Baron would be already possible.Best regardsBernt To avoid hijacking this thread it would be great if we would continue via PM

Any chance I could also request a copy of this gauge? Sounds like the fix to me!

Any chance I could also request a copy of this gauge? Sounds like the fix to me!

I appreciate a copy as well, please. Thanks very much!

I appreciate a copy as well, please. Thanks very much!

Sent....Also, if any of you are interested. I believe Bernt Stolle is gonna start some research on the 208, so he can rebuild the engine modeling for an optional tweak/patch for this great Carenado bird.I read somewhere that he is actively looking for someone with 208 time to give him some feedback. So if any of you guys know someone, let Bernt know.JB

I'm afraid very little could be done to improve the Caravan engine model just by tweaking the .air or .cfg files, as it's FSX turboprop model itself which has the limitations. The only way I see it feasible is to work on the gauges, making them show the real data instead of FS's raw.Tom

The default FSX turboprop model isn't bad at all. Just check the new Carenado JetPROP DL which does have a realistic PT6 simulation.Having gauges show different values than FSX raw data is exactly the problem with quite a few turbo prop add-ons.I need Carenado to get rid of the wrong readings before I can put a realistic PT6 into the 208 and they told me that they will send me correct reading gauges soon.Once that happened you can expect a correctly performing 208 :(

It's

The default FSX turboprop model isn't bad at all. Just check the new Carenado JetPROP DL which does have a realistic PT6 simulation.Having gauges show different values than FSX raw data is exactly the problem with quite a few turbo prop add-ons.I need Carenado to get rid of the wrong readings before I can put a realistic PT6 into the 208 and they told me that they will send me correct reading gauges soon.Once that happened you can expect a correctly performing 208 :(

And what do you mean by wrong readings? Carenado's main engine gauges -torque, RPM, Ng, etc show default FS data - I mean, direct data from .air and cfg files, which is not correct for the particular case of the Caravan.Examples: - real low ground mixture gives 50-52 stable Ng %, instead of FS's typical 62, and I see no way at all to change this from the .air tables. I would be very happy if you can obtain that without tweaking the gauge itself. The same for FFlow, which should raise to 90/120 pph immediately after moving the fuel level to low at engine start. And there are many more...Tom

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by taguilo

1. Carenado's main engine gauges -torque, RPM, Ng, etc show default FS data - I mean, direct data from .air and cfg files2. I would be very happy if you can obtain that without tweaking the gauge3. FFlow, which should raise to 90/120 pph immediately after moving the fuel level to low at engine start

1. wrong2. how would you know the difference and what sense would it make?3. if you are concerned about the fuel flow during engine start you might be surprised that even the multi million dollar 'real' 767 simulator doesn't simulate the engine start sequence correctly.Keeping expectations for a 40$ add-on realistic makes life easier and more enjoyable :wink:I'm talking about realistic operation in important areas e.g. reverse, flight idle, max torque, flat rated performance, realistic torque/drag figures at idle during flight (without the need for an invisible speedbrake or no drag at all like other add-ons) etc...

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by bstolle

1. wrong2. how would you know the difference and what sense would it make?3. if you are concerned about the fuel flow during engine start you might be surprised that even the multi million dollar 'real' 767 simulator doesn't simulate the engine start sequence correctly.Keeping expectations for a 40$ add-on realistic makes life easier and more enjoyable :wink:I'm talking about realistic operation in important areas e.g. reverse, flight idle, max torque, flat rated performance, realistic torque/drag figures at idle during flight (without the need for an invisible speedbrake or no drag at all like other add-ons) etc...

1-Not wrong but VERY right. Carenado's 208 gauges show FS variable values taken directly from its .air and .cfg files. No doubt at all, unless you have a different version than the one is officialy published.2-The opposite of this phrase of yours gives a perfect explanation on why companies like PMDG have such a success.3-So what? We are talking about the C208, Carenado version, and in this case a few lines of code can make a gauge behave the same as its real counterpart, and probably would make happy a bunch of virtual pilots (or many perhaps?).Regarding the flight model I agree with you that FS's turboprop isn't bad; in fact I find C208's current version (the one with some user tweaks) very good despite the natural limitations I speak of. Improving it even more, as you probably can do, and programming the engine gauges to show as much real values as possible would be almost the perfect combination, don't you think?Tom