Ummm Cartoonish? I really disagree here. Do any of you own the Mustang? Im practically done buying Carenado stuff... Every bird of theirs I have has more than a few problems or is missing something. If anything Carenado birds look like someone cut and paste a photoreal picture in the VC. They just got click sounds that have background noise like someone is breathing behind you... Every bird they release is not finished. None of the systems are interconnected its just a model with gauges and buttons that move thats it. I guess if you like flying a photoreal shell of a model than they are for you... If you want systems and DETAIL go with Flight1.

 

If you knew anything about Flight 1 you would know that they are the closest thing to the PMDG of GA! They release their birds finished for one. Their systems are very in depth! They have a G1000 that cannot be compared with and its based roughly off there professional sim of the G1000! I will say the in depth systems can be tasking on you computer but really thats your fault for not upgrading your PC. A newer PC should not be struggling to run a very detailed model at avg 25-30 fps, If you dont think you can run it dont buy it and complain its too heavy on frames... Your computers too slow. Saying Carenado is better than Flight 1 is like saying Abascus is better than PMDG. Give me a break!

 

Yup, :Thinking: I read again what I stated it" LOOKS CARTOONISH" .KEY word is "looks". Also, the last time I checked PMDG uses photoreal textures in the VC and panels.

So maybe PMDG is not a good comparision here when we are talking looks....The last time I read the forum rules here nothing stated I had to agree with anyone.

Back in the day, when FSX first came out and there were very few addons for it, I might have over looked this cartoonish appearance ,but not to todays standards. :yahoo:

This does not mean they can't or will not add photo real textures before release. I am just going off of the preview provided.

I will not buy this one ,as it is not compatable with Prepare 3d ,this is what I fly now ,i have now even stopped looking at flight 1 website ,no point shame but why waste money when I can buy from other suppliers who are just as good and maybe better and who give me what I want, ie carenado who for my money go the extra mile and give me Fsx and prepare3d compatability ,

peter

Very Cartoonish, not going to buy it.

 

Well... everyone is entitled to an opinion... my opinion is, you have little clue what you are talking about.

Being Flight1, one can always buy it and if it does look cartoonish, just return it.

fakeflyer737, on 14 October 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Very Cartoonish, not going to buy it.

 

Well... everyone is entitled to an opinion... my opinion is, you have little clue what you are talking about.

 

So are you saying that those who agree the thing is cartoonish have no clue ? Why is that ?

So are you saying that those who agree the thing is cartoonish have no clue ? Why is that ?

 

People who hurl insults at products that haven't been released yet, based upon a small handful of quick pics grabbed by beta testers and designers dont need any further explanations beyond what has been posted.

Hmmmm I dont know guys! Flight One may do a wonderful job on the flight dynamics but astetically you just can't beat Carenado's graphics. Flight One's planes look a bit "cartoonish" to me. I'll be passing on this one unfortunately unless it's goes on a heck of a sale in future which I doubt seriously.

 

Gary

 

Gary, just wondering what Flight One aircraft do you own?

Rather than base my opinion on a few very early texture pics, taken during beta testing and before they are finalized, I will wait and check them out for myself. Like what was pointed out earlier, if I'm not happy then I have 30 days to return it to Flight1 and get a full refund. But based on my prior experience with their aircraft, I doubt I will have to do that. I can't do that with Carenado (I own a few of their aircraft as well) as their sales are final.

If they make a proper simulation of the PT-6 engine, it'd be interested even if it looked like a FS98 addon. I'm all in for the simulation, although the G1000, I don't like it that much, but it's the future, so we got to adapt to it

It appears back in February they posted some additional images on their Facebook page.  I found this thread because I came across the first thread from the developer back in 2009 announcing the project.  I figured it was a dead project if nothing had been released in almost four years, but it appears the project is still alive.

 

I'm not a big fan of the B200 having a G1000. If they want to have some glass in there, like a 430 or 530 I'd be fine with that, but I really don't want a full-blown G1000 glass only cockpit.

Every developer has a "personality" in terms of how their products work, how they look, and where their primary focus lies. I have always associated Flight1 with deep systems simulation, as they do a significant business training real-world pilots. They tend to emphasize the functionality over looks, and are a bit obsessive about it. That's not to say that their work looks bad, but that's not their main focus.

 

Carenado, on the other hand, tend to turn out planes that are just killer to look at, with amazing textures over very finely-tuned 3D models. This has especially been the case lately, as they've really been turning up the heat in the graphics department. Their systems simulation is a bit average, but if you're a Carenado fan then you understand that going in.

 

Point is, if you've been around the FS world long enough, you know what to expect from your favorite developers, and what you'll need to just live with in order to enjoy the good points of their work. There are stand-outs like A2A and PMDG that knock it out of the park on both graphics and systems, but they tend to take ages to produce new products, and rightfully so given the work that goes into them. My approach is to find developers whose work I really enjoy, calibrate my expectations, and use their products in the spirit in which they were created.

Well said, Bill, and you're definately one of those developers whose work I really enjoy.

 

Every developer has a "personality" in terms of how their products work, how they look, and where their primary focus lies. I have always associated Flight1 with deep systems simulation, as they do a significant business training real-world pilots. They tend to emphasize the functionality over looks, and are a bit obsessive about it. That's not to say that their work looks bad, but that's not their main focus.

Carenado, on the other hand, tend to turn out planes that are just killer to look at, with amazing textures over very finely-tuned 3D models. This has especially been the case lately, as they've really been turning up the heat in the graphics department. Their systems simulation is a bit average, but if you're a Carenado fan then you understand that going in.

Point is, if you've been around the FS world long enough, you know what to expect from your favorite developers, and what you'll need to just live with in order to enjoy the good points of their work. There are stand-outs like A2A and PMDG that knock it out of the park on both graphics and systems, but they tend to take ages to produce new products, and rightfully so given the work that goes into them. My approach is to find developers whose work I really enjoy, calibrate my expectations, and use their products in the spirit in which they were created.

 

I'd say that sums it up.  Carenado always does great graphics and, with Bernt Stolle, did an amazing job at the flight dynamics of a number of their latest aircraft.  But their G1000 isn't up to the rest of their work...both in terms of its performance (effect on frame rate) and functionality...not yet.  Having said that, I haven't picked up any King Air yet...still considering it.  Not sure how any of them compare to the Duke (which I fly a lot).

 

Gregg 

Having said that, I haven't picked up any King Air yet...still considering it. Not sure how any of them compare to the Duke (which I fly a lot).

I have the Carenado C90 and especially in the spirit of Bill's comments above I quite enjoy it. Systems may not be perfect but they're not bad at all. That said, if I want to fly a turbine I'm far more likely to climb into the RealAir Turbine Duke or even the Carenado P46T.

 

I remain interested in both of the upcoming KA projects from Flight1 and Milviz, however, and I expect both to take systems up a notch. As for glass vs analog, were I flying the real thing I'd definitely want the glass. How well that glass translates to FSX is, of course, another matter. Flight1 did a good job with the Mustang for example, with reasonable depth, but I still don't fly it much as I've struggled to get it integrated with my hardware and I hate having to use a lot of popups and mouse clicks.

 

Put simply, I think analog is just easier to do well in FSX. Doing glass well requires both more systems depth AND some really good user interface design to accomodate the sim environment. That's tough.

 

Scott

but I still don't fly it much as I've struggled to get it integrated with my hardware

 

Mustang...about the only thing I have working well is my yoke, pedals and gear handle.  I have to use a mouse a lot and some switches work completely differently than the one right next to it.  Still love flying it but I wish that if they (not just talking about the Mustang) are going to almost REQUIRE you use keyboard and mouse that they adopt a standard for knobs and switches.

 

EDIT:  I guess that was off topic...now back to our regularly scheduled program.......