List of Outstanding Issues/Bugs?

[LeeL 272]

hi

 

theres also still the problem with Map mode and the EHSI. Wish this would be fixed

 

lee

[roland 28]

hi

 

theres also still the problem with Map mode and the EHSI. Wish this would be fixed

 

lee

 

can second that

 

Cheers,

Roland

[baldk9 3]

I apologize first off I have not check all the replies on this forum, but here is my issue. I have notice that the compass card in the HSI is app. 40 deg off course in comparison with the RMI. Anyone elese have this problem?

[fppilot 4,359]

I apologize first off I have not check all the replies on this forum, but here is my issue. I have notice that the compass card in the HSI is app. 40 deg off course in comparison with the RMI. Anyone elese have this problem?

 

See if this topic is of any help to you:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/374352-different-heading-in-efis-and-avdyne/

[Tim__757 0]

I don't have a problem in handling the King Air on the ground....corners well with differential power, brakes-it isn't exactly a 'small' or light aircraft...I know when I flew the RW King Airs back in the early 80's it was 'interesting' to get used to the taxi characteristics.

 

Now for something different-search on-line for a magazine devoted to King Airs-once in thier website poke around and you'll find a number of back issues you can read various articles on RW operation of the various King Air models-not a bad read....but you do have to poke around a bit to find the back issues, it is 'obvious'. (not sure on AVSIM's policy on posting links etc-sorry this is a bit Cryptic)

 

Oh, best part is the back issues are free to look at...

 

Tim

[Vealhoffen 0]

Bump. I want to preface my issues by saying that I love all my Carenado aircraft, and the C90 is my favorite. I use my King Air to practice procedures used in the real aircraft.

 

My first concern would be the unrealistic ITT and torque behavior. On an ISA +0 day, the ITT should start to max out somewhere around 10,000 to 12,000 ft MSL, and the torque should start slowly dropping off. So, instead of being torque limited, we would now be ITT limited. I realize this is probably a limitation of FSX, but it would be nice to find a way to make it work.

 

Next is prop feathering during an engine failure. Auto-feather doesn't work on mine, and manual feather is very awkward, at least the way I do it. Just using the mouse pointer to grab and pull the prop lever back into the feather detent doesn't work for me, it just goes to low RPM. I have to hit Ctrl+F2 then grab and pull the prop lever into feather, which, of course, brigs the other prop back a bit, too. Not very cool...and I need three hands unless the auto pilot is on.

 

When in GPS mode, the EHSI course pointer should change course automatically always matching the GPS course. At least that's the way all the RW EHSI's I've always used functioned including the Collins EHSI depicted in the C90. And it's been a few years, but I do think it's supposed to be white.

 

Thanks

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

When in GPS mode, the EHSI course pointer should change course automatically always matching the GPS course. At least that's the way all the RW EHSI's I've always used functioned including the Collins EHSI depicted in the C90. And it's been a few years, but I do think it's supposed to be white.

 

Thanks

 

If you install the RXP GNS430, you can set it to force the Course pointer to match the GPS course.

As to the color.. In the original release, a gauge bitmap was included that looks like it was from the real aircraft.

See below..

[Vealhoffen 0]

Right, first of all that is a picture of a Bendix/King EHSI (EFS 40/50), and second, it is in LOC mode, not GPS mode.

 

The Collins EFIS-84 EHSI installed in the RW C90B changed the CDI pointer white when in GPS (LNAV) mode. It was green in VOR/LOC mode.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

OK that would not be hard to change.. send me a PM with your email address and I'll see if I can send you an amended version.

[FSMP 95]

I see a lot of dedicated people, find, reporting and documenting bugs, with a lot of talk about submitting these reports to Carenado.

 

Unfortunately, I see no posts about Carenado fixing any of these issues, or even responding.

 

Maybe they are just too busy to listen, while churning out the next Cookie_Cutter aircraft, with exactly the same bugs as their previous planes.

 

Not impressed with Carenado -- I see more repeated issues with their planes, than most other developers, and very few corrections.

 

Needless to say, I have stopped purchasing Carenado Aircraft, at least, till they start fixing some of their previous planes, and I start seeing a significant improvement in their support.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

You can fault them for what they fail to do, or recognize them for what they contribute...

 

I have a love/hate relationship with Carenado that stretches over several years.

 

Having said that, I still enjoy some of their planes more than any other in my hangar,

so they must be doing at least something right.

 

I love their C182Q, Bonanza F33, and C337, just to mention a few..

[flying_bob 38]

I see a lot of dedicated people, find, reporting and documenting bugs, with a lot of talk about submitting these reports to Carenado.

 

Unfortunately, I see no posts about Carenado fixing any of these issues, or even responding.

 

Maybe they are just too busy to listen, while churning out the next Cookie_Cutter aircraft, with exactly the same bugs as their previous planes.

 

Not impressed with Carenado -- I see more repeated issues with their planes, than most other developers, and very few corrections.

 

Needless to say, I have stopped purchasing Carenado Aircraft, at least, till they start fixing some of their previous planes, and I start seeing a significant improvement in their support.

 

+1

 

I wish carenado get a proper BETA testing team in line. It is pathetic to see so many elementary mistakes and customers fixing 90% of mistakes. (thanks to some dedicated flightsimmers here willing to lend a hand and share their work)

 

I havent bought the last releases and I cannot say I miss them either when I see the "must fix" lists for each plane after release..!!

[tttocs 301]

Maybe they are just too busy to listen, while churning out the next Cookie_Cutter aircraft, with exactly the same bugs as their previous planes.

 

"Cookie_Cutter"? Carenado can be accused of a lot of things, but I don't see any of their recent efforts as stamped out or repetitive.

 

I'm solidly with Bert on this one. Carenado can be frustrating and never seem to quite finish what would otherwise be excellent planes and often the things that don't ever get fixed are small and would have been easy to do. On the other hand, being a popular GA vendor they sometimes get called for things that seem to get a pass with other vendors - most likely because they have higher visibility.

 

To my mind, the problem isn't beta testing - I don't see Carenado's initial releases markedly worse than most other vendors - it's follow through. Carenado seem willing to make early fixes, but after a few months nothing will change and their planes become set in stone. This does cost them sales - a point I wish they'd realize. I've passed on several older releases due to problems that I know will never be addressed. A few fixes and my purchases from them would almost double. Nevertheless, several of their planes remain favorites and are on balance, excellent efforts. In the end, my Carenado purchases come down to how important the problems are to me.

 

In the case of the C90, I don't regret my purchase for a second, despite a few problems. The C90 will never be one of my favorites because it's a bit out of the sweet spot for what I like to fly, but I do enjoy it, and it does come out of the hangar from time to time when I decide to take a break from being a private GA pilot and decide to do a charter or two. This in spite of a few mis-steps.

 

It's a good plane. In a way that's too bad, as with a few changes it could probably be a great plane.

 

Scott

[Vealhoffen 0]

Carenado planes are excellent as far as I'm concerned. Sure, they have a few minor bugs, but what they do within the limits of FS is remarkable. Most of the FS planes and even some other payware offerings are ridiculous compared to at least the Carenado planes I have (C206, C210, C182Q, PA46T, A36, C90B). Having RW experience in most of these planes, I can say they are about as good as they can get visually and as their flight model goes. A few minor issues doesn't detract from their overall awesomeness. Besides, most of the issues I have been able to tweek out through trial and error or from the help of everybody here.

 

That said, I wish I could manually feather the prop during an engine failure without a bunch of monkey-motion on the C90. Or get the Autofeather to work.

[Tom_G_2010 6]

Maybe I missed the post, but I read in the earlier posts that V1Vrv2 was going to send this to Carenado, but I don't see any post confirming that he did or what if any response they provided.

 

Even if they said they would not address any of this it would be good to know. Before discovering this thread this afternoon I opened a ticket with CArenado about an interface issue. They were prompt in responding but the answer was incomplete. I have now sent the a clarifying e-mail.

 

It would really be great to see them receive and do some level of follow through on this,