Their best ever aircraft......

[Stick 0]

So, back in the FS9 days, I really loved Carenado; their planes were the most beautiful VCs out there at the time, and they flew wonderfully two. (My fave of the time being their C210 for FS9 :))...Enter FSX...... and after the Mooney (their first true native FSX offering) I found some of the releases very 'samey' and also felt that they could no longer master convincing flight dynamics in FSX, as well as they had in FS9. A lot of their early GA aircraft for FSX just seemed very similar to fly, and well, lacking a bit in inspiration. These were mainly the PA28 series, but there were some exceptions; the 172N being a nice flyer. :smile:Anyway....all that changed when I bought the C208 Caravan for FSX, which is a beautiful addon that I use a lot B)But the real purpose of this post is to say that having recently bought the PA46T Malibu, I can say without hesitation that this is the most beautful aircraft Carenado have released to date, IMHO. :smile:The VC is just stunning (particularly with 'super sample AA' set on your video card, as I use). The exterior, the sounds, the views, the G500 .........the full package is just so nice, and I cannot "put this plane down" .......... I keep going to others like the MilViz 310R that I also recently bought (a lovely addon) but always find myself pack with the PA46T Malibu.So anyone that loves GA, singles, Turbines, Glass Cockpits...... this beautiful plane has them all, and I highly recommend it!Carenado are well back at the forefront of the GA game again in FSX :Applause:Cheers.

[dighost 25]

Thanks, I will go check it out. Carenado has always made awesome planes!!

[pmanhart 176]

I've been teetering on the fence in getting the Malibu, but as time goes by I'll probably slip over the edge.I'm still thoroughly enjoying the Skymaster and Centurion when I'm not out in the Baytower RV7!

[Nyxx 6,994]

Hey Phil,Good to see you, come pay some names from the pass a visit, would be nice to see you agian.http://forum.avsim.net/forum/471-the-unofficial-orbx-forum/

[gmohr 0]

Glad to hear it. In fact, very glad, because I'm very much looking forward to the King Air. I had my doubts about Carenado, and I'm excited to hear that their recent stuff is better!-G

[Shiner 1]

Flight 1 T182 Excellent plane

[Virtualwombat 4]

How are the frame rates compared to their C337H Skymaster?Cheers,Noel.

[ryanbatc 13,028]

Flight 1 T182 Excellent plane

Sorta off topic but I was able to fly a C172 G1000 sim the other day and I must say, the G1000 in the 182 is superbly done by Flight1. I flew many approaches (precision and non precision) and never used the VNAV calculator. I know we've whined in the past (I definitely have) but many of the little features that the real one has, and aren't modeled in FSX, are not needed imho. The F1 182 version's G1000 has all the important features that the real sim has. My friend was impressed by my knowledge of G1000 operation (I've got no instrument rating) as well!Back on topic...The Carenado Malibu was fairly well done. Had some initial bugs which they subsequently patched (and quickly I must say). There were still some RXP clickspot issues when I owned it and basically it was too slow for my liking in the end. I ended up returning it (good customer service on Carenado's part!). It definitely looked beautiful from the screenies I took.

[Stick 0]

How are the frame rates compared to their C337H Skymaster?Cheers,Noel.

Hi, Frame rates for me are about the same as in the 337 (another great plane, but I rarely fly it as I like flying planes that I've either flown, been in, or at least seen "in the flesh"......Being a bit of an oddball, (the plane not me), I've never seen a 337 in the UK in 39 years! I....... so I don't tend to fly it. Having the glass displays, I was expecting this plane to be harder on frames but for me it's the best performing 'glass' aircraft in my hanger. 200% more frames than the F1 Mustang, although I appreciate those are very different level products. @ Ryan: of course, each to their own; but I find it strange that you criticize the plane for being 'too slow' ; it is what it is. Speed wise well it's not a 737 but it's also not a C150. :( I think any complaint that a PA46T Malibu is too slow is more fairly directed at Piper Aircraft, rather than Carenado :lol:I don't use the RXP stuff any more so can't comment on the clickspots. The core RXP visuals are now so old, that I actually prefer the VC visuals of the stock Carenado 430.

[ZachLW 37]

Flight 1 T182 Excellent plane

Positively!As for that Carenado: I'm patiently awaiting the release of the C90!

[ryanbatc 13,028]

@ Ryan: of course, each to their own; but I find it strange that you criticize the plane for being 'too slow' ; it is what it is. Speed wise well it's not a 737 but it's also not a C150. :( I think any complaint that a PA46T Malibu is too slow is more fairly directed at Piper Aircraft, rather than Carenado :lol:I don't use the RXP stuff any more so can't comment on the clickspots. The core RXP visuals are now so old, that I actually prefer the VC visuals of the stock Carenado 430.

I certainly didn't mean to criticize the speed... just that I've got many planes in my hangar faster than what that jetprop does... and initially the jetprop had many bugs so I was turned off. Stock GPS is not a choice for me as I fly online most of the time. The display on the Garmin series is nearly identical to how they appear in real life. Maybe I'll revisit my purchase decision some day.

[Stick 0]

I certainly didn't mean to criticize the speed... just that I've got many planes in my hangar faster than what that jetprop does... and initially the jetprop had many bugs so I was turned off. Stock GPS is not a choice for me as I fly online most of the time. The display on the Garmin series is nearly identical to how they appear in real life. Maybe I'll revisit my purchase decision some day.

No sweat :( ... I do know what you mean because I initially thought it would be as fast as a PC12 (both singles, using the P&W PT-6 turbine) but that was my ignorance as I hadn't realized that the PC-12 uses a PT-6 rated at 1,250shp (for take off only, slightly lower for remaining phase), whereas the PA46T uses a PT-6 detuned to 500shp ! .....so quite a difference. :(

[Virtualwombat 4]

Thanks Stick. I was concerned about the glass gauges. I'm glad to hear they are not as bad as in other aircraft. Cheers,Noel

[Wing 32]

Enter FSX...... and after the Mooney (their first true native FSX offering) I found some of the releases very 'samey' and also felt that they could no longer master convincing flight dynamics in FSX, as well as they had in FS9. A lot of their early GA aircraft for FSX just seemed very similar to fly, and well, lacking a bit in inspiration. These were mainly the PA28 series, but there were some exceptions; the 172N being a nice flyer. :(

I really, really wish Carenado would go back and bring some of their older planes up to the feature set that the new ones have instead of just churning out one new plane after another. 3D gauges, better flight dynamics, easy RXP integration, etc. Particularly the PA28 series. Wishful thinking on my part, I know.

[Stick 0]

I really, really wish Carenado would go back and bring some of their older planes up to the feature set that the new ones have instead of just churning out one new plane after another. 3D gauges, better flight dynamics, easy RXP integration, etc. Particularly the PA28 series. Wishful thinking on my part, I know.

My thought EXACTLY! ............ They are putting out some nice exotic models at the moment, but I'd really love to see a plain old PA28 (preferably a nice slow model like a -140 Cruiser), up to the latest Carenado standards. :(