C210 - Does a real 210 land like this?

[GHarrall 494]

Either way guys..............the 210 looks great........but lands like junk. Its also VERY twitchy in the pitch controls.

[CoolP 283]

I don't run her, but perhaps you folks should state the need for Bernt Stolle's interaction. Since he's already worked on other releases (for free!), there's hope. Seems like a beautiful plane, so it would be a shame if it reverts to a hangar queen.

[LeeL 272]

Yes I'm sure if there was enough interest he would do it. He just needs some help from real world 210 pilots. He wanted to before just couldn't get enough info. I hope he will make one.

 

Lee

 

 

Sent using Tapatalk

[Bob650 31]

Not to turn this into a King Air thread but while I haven't quite removed the C90 from my system it does now reside in a backup folder in the hopes it receives further patches (not hopeful on this). Besides the avionics issues mentioned by Beaverdriver the turbine modeling leaves a LOT to be desired. The ground/taxiing and spool up dynamics are poorly done. If I choose to overlook that I have a possible avionics failure to look forward to during the flight. Yes, I do have some RW PT6A experience. Yes there are restrictions within FSX that hamper turbine modeling. However, the Real Air Turbine Duke is an entire level of magnitude better than the C90 in every regard. No FS model will ever be perfect but value has to play a part, and value in this hobby comes from comparing models from various developers.

[CoolP 283]

Yes I'm sure if there was enough interest he would do it. He just needs some help from real world 210 pilots. He wanted to before just couldn't get enough info.

We could fake the reports and whenever there's a question on how she lands, we answer 'nice and smoothly'. Then Bernt will render the FDE to reflect that. Fancy plan, huh? :spiteful: Don't tell anyone!

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Humm. That second one labeled "Quote" does not ring a bell for me. Are you sure its my comment? If so please point me to it and I will review and apologize.

 

fppilot - I owe you an apology. I misread the post. It was not you that started that thread. You were the person trying to help, not the person with the problem. I apologise for that error and retract my comments regarding that thread. Getting old is a bi... well, you know ^_^ (or maybe you don't -_- !). Anyway, my apologies.

[fppilot 4,355]

fppilot - I owe you an apology. I misread the post. It was not you that started that thread. You were the person trying to help, not the person with the problem. I apologise for that error and retract my comments regarding that thread. Getting old is a bi... well, you know ^_^ (or maybe you don't -_- !). Anyway, my apologies.

 

No problem. I just could not recall any EFIS issues and a cursory review of several of my posts didn't turn up that quote.

[LeeL 272]

We could fake the reports and whenever there's a question on how she lands, we answer 'nice and smoothly'. Then Bernt will render the FDE to reflect that. Fancy plan, huh? :spiteful: Don't tell anyone!

 

sounds like a great plan! we will get on this right away....and I wont tell anyone :unknw:

 

lee

[Guest BeaverDriver]

OK, this is the part where I spend some time attempting to extract BOTH feet from my rather large mouth, and at the same time issue another apology. I GOTTA quit writing things while I'm in the process of doing other things. I end up making a mess of both.

 

So, here's the deal. It IS the EADI I was meaning when I mentioned about the distance issue, NOT the EHSI (I just found a pic of the panel in the Carenado King Air and that's what twigged my memory, or what there is left of it). The EHSI works as it should. The problem (and this much is true) I was having was that unless I had a VOR station that was within range tuned in, I could not get GPS distance information on the EADI. That shouldn't be the case. The distance information comes from EITHER the Nav 1 receiver OR the GPS unit. They don't co-exist. Your Nav Source switch (GPS/NAV) is what determines which distance information will be displayed. I should have been able to get GPS information without having a VOR station tuned at all. That much I am certain of.

 

So, to Scott, fppilot and others who have read my previous postings to the contrary, my apologies (again <sigh>). I think in future I'll take my time and research what I'm saying before I hit the ENTER button.

 

The rest remains and my opinion of the aircraft doesn't change because the issues I have are still real and present. But they are my opinions only. I won't try to tell others whether they should like something or not. But that said, I think it is in everyone's best interests to hold the developer accountable. Only then will the product improve. If we all rave over a machine (or even accept it) regardless of both minor and major errors and then watch them simply move on to other projects without fixing all the errors that are possible to fix, then we are accepting a substandard product and paying good money for it. From almost Day 1 Carenado has been sloppy. No one can argue that the graphics are among the best (not the best I've seen, but very close to it). But other, stupid little things that should be fixed, aren't. Example - in the 206 (an airplane I have put a lot of time in and love), the Avionics switch moves in the wrong direction. To turn the Avionics on, the switch moves down. It should move up. Carenado was made aware of that. There were no fixes. It is a 2 second job to reverse the coding in that, and that would make the airplane very much complete. It's a minor thing, but it's an annoyance. In the 337, you don't (or didn't at last check) get any fuel pressure reading on the rear engine when you go Mixture Rich, Fuel Pump On and Throttle to full. That's how you start that engine! You follow that procedure until you see roughly 15 gph on the gauge. Then you go throttle cracked, fuel pump off and crank the engine. It works on the front engine, but not the rear. Why not simply copy the coding for the front engine/gauge through to the rear? We won't talk about the 185 and 208, both of which required complete reworks by the customer. Have you all not noticed how many aircraft since the 206 have been fixed up by the customer? There are some extremely talented and knowledgeable people here and fortunately they stepped up to the plate for all of us. The 208, if you flew it by the book on first release, would over temp at anything close to full, or even cruise power. Now that machine was tested by a RW 208 pilot. I cannot for one second believe that he didn't say something (a lot!!), and yet the airplane got released in that state anyway. It is my belief (but I can't prove it) that it was that very test pilot that stepped in to help a customer (and his name escapes me unfortunately, because he's a hero to me) rectify it and give us the product we have today - a pretty realistic rendition of the Cessna 208. At least since Bernt stepped in we've had better FDE's out of the gate (the King Air's engine dynamics on the ground notwithstanding, but that may not have been his issue, just as the 210's landing attitude isn't his issue as well, by the by), but still stupid problems continue. The fact that the Avionics do quit at all on more than a few people is something that needs to be addressed. It has been reported by numerous people (to Carenado) and yet the replies have been MIA. Carenado's airplanes are no longer all that less expensive than some of the top developers in the world, including Real Air, Flight Replica and PMDG. But he's doing it on graphics and eye candy and not on an overall quality product. More than 90% of the issues that the aircraft have are easily fixed with a little coding repair. Some, like the Avionics issue will be harder for sure. But doesn't it behoove the developer, in good conscience, to do his very best to make the product as complete and good as possible? If he doesn't, then he's basically saying he doesn't really care that much about his product or his customer. That attitude can come in large part from the customer not holding him accountable, although he shouldn't have to. By raving about how wonderful his airplanes are, and yeah, "no airplane is perfect" that you hear repeatedly only encourages that attitude. It's true, no airplane is perfect, but in the name of pride in workmanship and respect for the people that are paying your salary, one would think he would to the utmost to get it there. Yes, it is just a sim, but it's just a sim to the other developers, most of whom at least fix backwards working switches or gauges that don't read. I had a turn coordinator in the F1 177 that wouldn't work in the air. Most people might say, "big deal - it's just a sim and you don't really need it anyway." Tell that to the guy trying to do a 2 minute, rate one turn on a procedure turn instrument approach! If I can't do that, then I can't simulate a lot of what I got it to do - fly it IFR. F1 never batted an eye. It was fixed within 2 weeks when the main patch came out. Yes, it, like almost every other airplane released, did have an SP, but believe me, it was nearly flawless when it came out in the first place! I had a pitot heater that wouldn't work in the Cera Bell 212. That was fixed that night. How many issues (including the landing attitude/static position of the 210) have been reported and yet nothing at all was done about them? And, once they've issued a patch (sometimes 2), that's generally the last you see of repairs to that machine. Tell me you haven't noticed that! The 210 is long done and I can all but guarantee you, any squawks on it you have now will go unnoticed or un-addressed. If it wasn't addressed in the first couple of weeks after release, what makes you think it will be addressed now? And no, Bernt is NOT the guy to talk to. This is in the modeling, not the dynamics. I repeat that here (several times) because I've seen several comments since the first time I mentioned this, about having Bernt fix this issue. He does dynamics, not the modeling. Modeling is Carenado's responsibility. And besides, it was Carenado that did the dynamics for this airplane as well - not Bernt.

 

My point is, if we give any developer a free pass by accepting unconditionally a flawed airplane that are things that can be easily fixed, then we are saying, "here, take my money and I'll take whatever you give me afterwards." Would you do that if you were wanting to buy a new computer printer (about the same price these days)? Probably not, but if you answer yes, have I got a deal for you!!

 

End of editorial, but a repeat of my apology for having got my facts mixed up on the instrument error. Thank you for reading. Since this was an editorial, my opinions are mine. You may choose to disagree, but I will not respond to this post because I don't want this turning into a flame war, and that was certainly not the intent here to do that. It's just time some of this was said; not to bash Carenado, but in hopes that we'll hold him to the standards we know he can achieve, thereby getting more (a fair) value for our buck. He's not PMDG, and we don't expect that. I DO expect that the airplane is beta tested BEFORE release, and that more attention to detail is paid. I say that as a paying customer.

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

Glenn,

 

My thought is that Carenado is comfortable with this level of response and communication. As much as we'd like them to do more to support their users/aircraft, I don't have the feeling that they really want to...they'd rather build than do the, sometimes, very tedious (sometimes painful) job of support. Some developers (people) really hate doing support. In some sense, I guess that that's what you're getting into when you buy their aircraft. It's something we have to factor into our decisions about which company to buy from. They'd probably improve their sales some if people didn't have to worry so much about what issues they'd be likely to face after the purchase.

 

Gregg

[tttocs 301]

So, to Scott, fppilot and others who have read my previous postings to the contrary, my apologies (again ). I think in future I'll take my time and research what I'm saying before I hit the ENTER button.

 

Glenn,

 

No worries, man, and no need to apologize. The followup is appreciated as are your Carenado thoughts.

 

As for those thoughts, I'll just say that to me it's not a simple matter of support/don't support, black/white. It's a value proposition - does the vendor provide me sufficient value to earn my $$ for a product? Not unconditionally either. I take it plane, by plane and I'm not afraid to offer criticism which may impact further sales, but on the other hand, I'll also offer praise when I think a plane is worthy of it and have done so for several Carenado models. I have no doubt in my mind that Carenado could sell more planes if they went a bit further - heck they could sell more to me, as they have planes that I find don't meet my needs in their current state.

 

I also think Carenado could do better if they had a bit of forum presence - if not here, at least somewhere - as part of the problem is communication. Case in point, the fuel pump switch problem on the 337 you mentioned was fixed a long time ago and could always be easily worked around. But how many knew that, and from what source?

 

And finally, the issue of first release quality. I don't really want to say a lot about this, because it could easily go in the wrong direction, but there are other developers who have put out less than stellar 1st versions. The community has stepped in and helped with many of these - Carenado is not unique in that - but what matters to me is how well a developer reacts (how quickly, how completely, with what sort of attitude towards their customers and with what level of communication). Here's where others I'm familiar with do far, far better than Carenado.

 

Scott

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

I also think Carenado could do better if they had a bit of forum presence - if not here, at least somewhere - as part of the problem is communication. Case in point, the fuel pump switch problem on the 337 you mentioned was fixed a long time ago and could always be easily worked around. But how many knew that, and from what source?

 

I always wonder why they don't get involved in forums.

 

I found this on a non-Avsim forum...

 

The patch is NOT on the Updates page. The patch is only obtainable through the My Account page and, of course, only then if you have actually purchased the aircraft directly from Carenado.

 

Carenado will eventually update the basic installer for all vendors.

 

In the meantime, it pains me to say that you have to go to Avsim to the Unofficially Official Carenado forum to find all the good stuff.

[tttocs 301]

Gregg,

 

I'm not sure of the context of that posting, but one of the reasons I've bought directly from Carenado (with one exception - the A36 which I never fly anymore) is for timely access to the patches. They do update their vendors so, for example, a currently available 337 should have the fuel pump switch fix and existing users should be able to re-download that version from wherever they purchased. But I like to have direct and immediate access to the patches.

 

As for the "good stuff" I expect that simply refers to the wealth of community fixes and enhancements available here and not, well... there. ;-)

 

Scott

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

I'm not sure of the context of that posting, but one of the reasons I've bought directly from Carenado (with one exception - the A36 which I never fly anymore) is for timely access to the patches. They do update their vendors so, for example, a currently available 337 should have the fuel pump switch fix and existing users should be able to re-download that version from wherever they purchased. But I like to have direct and immediate access to the patches.

 

I was just pointing out that there was a patch and noted that the guy was also frustrated with Carenado's communication. Ah well...it is what it is.

[fppilot 4,355]

I flew the Centurion into the excellent new Sunskyjet scenery for Philadelphia International (KPHL) today and had no issues with approach and landing. I have not IRL flown a C210, but have significant hours in various Cessna types from 150's to 208s. My first FSX approach today to KPHL 27R was a bit flawed as I attempted to flare at somewhere between 95 and 100 knots. Instead I floated for a distance. I reduced power again, and with the long runway blead off speed to less than 85 knots and then was able to flare for a exemplary touchdown. I taxied around for a bit, then took off and circled for an additional touch and go, and then for a terminal landing. The final two landings were textbook with flare. Again, I do not have IRL hours in a 210, but my IRL experience with other Cessna types is consistent with my FSX experience today. If airspeed is toward the higher end of the range for landing (or above) then the ability to flare is reduced and float is the experience. If at the proper airspeed I find the Carenado acts as IRL upon flare on landing.