Hi,

 

i have some questions concerning the deep quality of carenado addons. Why?

 

- I have demand on the real role models of what carenado deliveres for fsx.

 

I was customer of the Mooney M20J, where i had unrealistic carb ice effects without having a carburetor installed at this engine. That was only one major bug i found at that time. Several unrealistic errors and uncompleteness in system modeling and behavoir. An efficient quality management should have solved such problems.

A second chance was the C152 and that was my last order.

 

The only advantage is:

- Model selection is good.

- External texturing is good

 

That is all. Nice preview screenshots using environmental effects of AS or REX should not be all i think.

 

 

New releases becomes more and more, faster and faster. Is there any chance in the future to get completely finished products without beeing a beta tester? Is there any chance to have realistic working leaning if combustion engine? Any chance for working variabel oil temp an pressures up to the environmental conditions? Fluctuating dynamic (living) gauges which are not static programmed? Variabel engine reactions and sounds? Why is a turning propeller a totally flat disc in external view?

 

Why do i ask such things?

 

Because other developers are an example how to implement that. Every aircraft feels different in the air. A2A simulations shows what i like to say.

 

 

Is carenado interested in customers coming from real aviation business.

Has carenado quality- demanding on themselves/ flight simulation customers?

 

Any chance for improvements, about 10 newer developements after the C152?

 

 

 

Regards

 

Nico

Sorry for my bad written english, here again the modified questions:

 

 

Hi,

 

i have some questions concerning the deep quality of carenado addons. Why?

 

- I have demand on the real role models of what carenado deliveres for fsx.

 

I was customer of the Mooney M20J, where i had unrealistic carb ice effects without having a carburetor installed at this engine. That was not the only one major bug i found at that time. Several unrealistic errors and uncompleteness in system modeling and behavior. An efficient quality management should have solved such problems.

A second chance was the C152 and that was my last order.

 

The only advantage is:

- Model selection is good.

- External texturing is good

 

That is all. Nice preview screenshots using environmental effects of AS or REX should not be all i think.

 

 

New releases becomes more and more, faster and faster. Is there any chance in the future to get completely finished products without beeing a beta tester? Is there any chance to have realistic working leaning of combustion engine? Any chance for working variabel oil temp an pressures up to the environmental conditions? Fluctuating dynamic (living) gauges which are not static programmed? Variabel engine reactions and sounds? Why is a turning propeller a totally flat disc in external view?

 

Why do i ask such things?

 

Because other developers are an example how to implement that. Every aircraft feels different in the air. A2A simulations shows steady what i like to say. Where is the trend and innovation getting better at carenado? Talked to several advanced simmers and real life aviation work colleagues about the known steady issues of carenado products. They confirmed again insufficient system and flight physics simulation quality. You still see it at preview screenshots. RPM at or above the "red line". This is again an example for the overall quality.

 

 

Is carenado interested in customers coming from real aviation business?

Has carenado quality- demanding on themselves/ flight simulation customers?

 

Any chance for improvements, about 10 newer developements after the C152?

 

 

 

Regards

 

Nico

The carb icing issue is a problem with FSX coding rather than the Mooney.

The carb icing issue is a problem with FSX coding rather than the Mooney.

 

Hi,

 

but why does Marcel Felde´s Katana 4X and the A2A stuff etc. work much more better or even perfect? Would innovation in programming techniques be a solution? State of the art is programming outside FSX to circumvent limitations.

 

Regards

 

Nico

Because they are a lot more recent releases than the Mooney, also considerably more expensive. You pay for what you get after all.

Because they are a lot more recent releases than the Mooney, also considerably more expensive. You pay for what you get after all.

 

Hi,

 

as i wrote before "old" problems and uncompleteness are also at newer releases. You are absolutely right, good standard at programming an addon will cost litte more money, but i have no problem to pay for quality work. We are talking about FSX addons, FSX seems presently to be the only flight simulator who makes sense to use. I think there are more than enough "aviation games" aviable at the market for those who do not like to have a state of the art system simulation programm for planes.

 

Regards