They fly like a joke

Really??? :(http://www.avsim.com...renado/337.htmlhttp://www.avsim.com/pages/0112/Carenado/210.htmland yes, Ray is a RW pilot..

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by Bert Pieke

Really??? :(http://www.avsim.com...renado/337.htmlhttp://www.avsim.com...renado/210.htmland yes, Ray is a RW pilot..

I don't have the skymaster.... I was talking about the one's I have.The C340 is a fail. I turn and give it a bit of rudder to keep the turn corridnated and the plane *flips*. The 172 does the same thing. I am a student pilot and I fly 172's. I can tell you that there is no addon out there yet that even comes close to the real thing. Not even *close*.Alot of the other Carenado planes have this behavior.They seem to fly bizzarely and don't seem to even have somewhat believable flight characteristics. -- This is one reason I am a loyal A2A fan. :(

I think Carenado currently offers two worlds in that FDE aspect. The planes with the co-work of Bernt Stolle and the ones without. The ones without are those which may still be present in people's heads and could ring a bell on 'wonky FDE'. While the ones including Mr. Stolle's work offer the complete opposite. Very enjoyable.Make sure to update your older Carenado releases with the optional patches from the Carenado site. Those things then enable e. g. the Bonanza to fly closer to the real thing or, from a simmer's viewpoint, much more reasonably than the initial release.

The C340 is a fail. I turn and give it a bit of rudder to keep the turn corridnated and the plane *flips*. The 172 does the same thing. I am a student pilot and I fly 172's. I can tell you that there is no addon out there yet that even comes close to the real thing. Not even *close*.

That was exactly the reason why I offered Carenado to make FDEs for them. They do make the most realistic looking and most immersive aircraft but the FDEs used destroyed the whole experience for me, expecially because I like to fly at (and past) the edge of the envelope.Making new FDEs afterwards is of course a possibility but it's easier if you work with the developer because you can get them to implement features that are impossible to do on your own.E.g. the high additional drag on the C337 during gear retraction and extension just when all the gear doors are open.All the aircraft in my signature are able to slip, spin and snap realistically, only if the real one is capable of course.Even subtle differences are there which means e.g. while the F33 is fully aerobatic, the 'stall' speed on the A36 is higher at low weight than at low weight because the CG is so far forward that you are actually running out of elevator authority before actually stalling.Presently the Milviz C310 is the only GA twin in FSX that is being recommended by RW pilots for single engine training because it also handles exactly like the real one which means she rapidly enters a flat spin if flown below Vmca (and 'unfortunately' also dutch rolls heavily in turbulence like the real one)I love FSX and it's simply my goal to give the community the most realistic FDEs possible.Most of the time more than 100% of the money I get, I spend on NASA etc data to be able to create the best possible FDE.Best regardsBernt

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by bstolle

Nice Bernt. Thank for your contribution. Hows the 208 coming?Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkJB

Found a bunch of unexpected inaccuracies which in effect necessitate a complete FDE redesign from scratch (if you are shooting for a very high quality FDE), so it takes more time than expected, but the result will be a much more precise 208 :(

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by bstolle

I'm a real world pilot, and I love the Carenado 337 and the V35. I also have the Seneca and the Mooney and they are ok from a FDE standpoint, but not in the same class as some of the aircraft from RealAir. The latest aircraft from Carenado do a really good job with their virtual cockpits - gauge refresh rates are very good, the instruments are legible, frame rates are good, and I find it enjoyable to fly IFR with them.I'm looking forward to their release of the C90 Kingair. This will be a much more complex model than their usual GA aircraft, so it will be interesting to see how they do.Dale

The Caravan is very good, especially after the patch that fixed some flight- and performanc-model problems, but I wouldn't put it in the PMDG class. It looks terrific and it's fun to fly but it doesn't come close on system depth. I don't own the Malibu, so can't comment firsthand, but I'm not aware that it's a study simulation.

Absolutely true.. Not even 20% of the in depth systems are being modeled/simulated by carenado. Carenado is just a set of really nice looking flying textures..that fly good (and then it is also only the last few where Bernt has been involved with FDE) No proper in depth system modeling and maintenance enhancements.The Malibu cant even be started as per RL and quite a few systems have been ommited, not to even talk about proper turbine simulation. But hey they tried, made a respectable airplane within confines of FSX, but to properly do all system modeling for the turbine props they need to go way outside FSX to simulate proper turbine aspects and systems.. something that ONLY PMDG do and A2A with accusim, but definately NOT carenado (O and also the Bronco lately..)Obviously the guy putting Carenado up there with with PMDG quality do not know what PMDG quality is.. PMDG is not only good looking textures. Their in depth system modeling is so advanced that nobody can come even close, apart from A2A accusim, that is also in a league of their own, though with mostly "military" planes.Carenado do not even knock at the door of "realair".The only reason I like Carenado planes is that it is no fuss, jump in fly planes for those times that I am pressed for time and they give me a lot of opportunity to correct things myself delving into the gauges etc... (I leave the FDE's for Bernt who is doing a sterling job - really looking forward to his 208 redo)

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by bliksimpie

337 is a good aircraft, some major bugs which they don't seem to be bothered to address. No more Carenado for me....I just wish they would spend some time getting their aircraft patched instead of chucking a new one out every 4 weeks.

I have a nice collection of Carenado planes. They were worth the price. We must keep in mind that we get what we pay for. You want PMDG quality, then you have to pay for it.Plus, we can't expect every plane developer to offer the same expertise. Carenado has carved a niche and is doing a great job offering planes that people want. The 337 and the 210 are excellent airplanes, but I also love the A36 and still enjoy the Arrow and Mooney.

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by DJJose

I leave the FDE's for Bernt who is doing a sterling job - really looking forward to his 208 redo

Forget it. If you are disappointed with the PT6 simulation of the Malibu you will be disappointed with the 208 and the C90 as well.That being said I have to mention that I don't agree on a single point about the lack of realisim concerning the turbo prop simulation you mentioned.I've tried to PM you about the details concerning the various different PT6 simulations available for FSX a long time ago, but since you block my PMs I can't.

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by bstolle

I'm happy with flight charc. of the 340 and the Malibu; for sure, after all its a simulation on a home PC. I don't use all the PMDG bits and peices, just don't have the time these days, so to each his own..

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by simon747

Really??? :(http://www.avsim.com...renado/337.htmlhttp://www.avsim.com...renado/210.htmland yes, Ray is a RW pilot..

Yes. Really. Is Bert experienced in a 210? I have oodles of time in several different model 210s. The FDEs are off.

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by ZachLW

Have you read Ray's review?Suggest you take up the 210 inaccuracies with Ray and Bernt Stolle, the new Carenado FDE designer - he did the 337.(I believe he flies tubeliners for a living.. but Ray certainly has RW experience with 210s) :(

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by Bert Pieke

Bernt Stolle did NOT do the 210.Look in his signature for the planes he has done.