If that old FSX nav data really is a problem, one can trick the default gauges by streaming some current waypoints into them. Aivlasoft EFB allows this, or the feature of the RXP GPS units. By this, you don't have to access the FSX menu to load and display a new flight plan (with a current SID for example), but the FSX gauge just receives the new data on the fly.

 

Downside is that you can't access and manipulate the approaches and things in the FSX gauge itself, it can only receive the waypoints from the mentioned sources. However, it allows to work with a default GPS and still running updated approach paths (only lateral) for example.

 

I flew the planes with the default GPS renditions (500 and G1000) for quite a while with that method and it works, but may of course incorporate a bit of a workaround character trait at times. For GA flying, this may be ok though.

 

For serious and FSX internal nav operations (working on the G1000 data and flight plan itself), the F1 may be the better choice. No doubt. I like her for that detail.

Just got it this morning. Looks impressive. Flies well. I can't compare it to its' real-world counterpart since I have never flown one. But overall, quite pleasing aircraft!

 

Somehow I couldn't get to the AUX mode in right MFD. Not sure why...

 

Here's a video of Carenado C182T just shot this morning:

 

 

Regards,

Mike

Thanks for posting the video. Gives a good impression I think. The engine sounds familiar, maybe they've used the same co dev as F1, featuring a (headphone) muffled experience in the VC.

 

Are you happy with the fps? I know that the video recordings always eat a few frames, so it's difficult to judge at times.

Here's a video of Carenado C182T just shot this morning:

 

 

Nicely done vid.

Yep, I am happy with the FPS I am seeing so far. I think it's around 35-40. Not too bad.

I officially deleted my 182RG after flying this. The 182RG flew like a glider with a constantly shifting ballast tank that would empty when applying flaps.. The 182T flies like a well balanced machine.. Oh and it looks good too but god darn she is a absolute dream to fly.

I officially deleted my 182RG after flying this. The 182RG flew like a glider with a constantly shifting ballast tank that would empty when applying flaps.. The 182T flies like a well balanced machine.. Oh and it looks good too but god darn she is a absolute dream to fly.

 

It'd be nice if you could copy this FDE in some of their older models (210, 182, 182RG). I spoze the numbers wouldn't match tho. Too slow for the 210 and too fast for the 182 models.

You could probably use the 182T on the RG just fine and pretend you bolted on a turbo (or just enable it in the cfg). The major difference though is fixed gear vs retractable. Someone would need to tweak the FDE to reduce the drag profile when the gear are up.

You could probably use the 182T on the RG just fine and pretend you bolted on a turbo (or just enable it in the cfg). The major difference though is fixed gear vs retractable. Someone would need to tweak the FDE to reduce the drag profile when the gear are up.

 

Gosh, I guess I could tweak my old Q model this way, If I added a RealityXP 530 I'd have an almost new airplane. Hmmm.

Ya know, the more I think about it, Carenado would have an amazingly cheap to make new offering if it would replace the FDE for the old 182 with this FDE and add the C210 avionics. Just pull some of the horsepower out and, voila, a model for us folks that prefer steam. (Yeah...*of course* it's that easy...chuckles to himself.)

 

Since I'm not going to hold my breath on that (LOL)...can anyone give me some guidance on how to replace the FDE on the old one with this one?

Ya know, the more I think about it, Carenado would have an amazingly cheap to make new offering if it would replace the FDE for the old 182 with this FDE and add the C210 avionics. Just pull some of the horsepower out and, voila, a model for us folks that prefer steam. (Yeah...*of course* it's that easy...chuckles to himself.)

 

Since I'm not going to hold my breath on that (LOL)...can anyone give me some guidance on how to replace the FDE on the old one with this one?

 

I cocurr. I want this exterior model...but with steam gauge. IF I am going to get a G1000 payware it needs to be the real G1000.

 

Manny

I bought it a few hours ago. I have a long list of carenado hangar corpses but I like the 182. Also I was looking for a GA with glass (and the F1 version felt too expensive in my personal opinion), so I couldn't resist. The exterior model ist stunning and the interior looks good, too. The G 1000 looks also nice and is finally easy to read (Carenado Malibu, anyone ^_^ ?)

Sounds are nice (a bit loud on the outside though). The plane feels heavy for it's size but I hear that the real 182 does that as well. With that in mind flight dynamics feel right and it is fun to fly. I have not checked out the functions of the G1000 much yet so I cannot compare them for now.

 

Frames are so so. There is a HUGE hit on my system when I turn on the right display and use the map. Far worse than on comparable aircrafts.

 

I made a quick comparison over some rather light scenery with REX clouds including "normal" aircraft for reference.

My system is a E 8400 oc @ 3.6 Ghz, GTX 560 oc 1 MB, 4 GB ram running 1920 x 1080 x 32. I used Fraps Benchmark for the fps.

 

Frames:.....................Aircraft:

-------

26..........Carenado 182T G1000, both displays on and using the terrain map

48.(!)...... "" , only left display

-------

39..........RealAir Legacy, gps on

34..........RealAir Turbine Duke, gps on

-----

28..........Feelthere Phenom 100 G 1000, all three displays incl. Map

31.......... "" , 2 Displays, no map

----

30..........Carenado P46T Malibu g500, both g500 displays incl. Map, 2 x gps, weather radar on

33.......... "" , only left display from g500 on

-----

23..........PMDG Jetstream 41

63..........Default FSX Cessna 172

 

Like the test shows using the map has far more impact than other glass cockpits like the phenom 100 or Malibu have on my system. The 182's G 1000 may be a bit more complex but I don't think that this explains such a huge difference. Without map the fps is rather great :lol: .

 

While changing between the aircraft for the test I somewhat realized (again) that the 182T, while being a nice addon, is finally lacking that last drop of realism that I feel in the Duke, Legacy, PMDG JS 41 or the Katana 4x. It is a bit hard to put my finger on it, but I felt so in my other Carenados, too.

Nevertheless I like the addon. One reason for it might be that I like the 182 in real life.

 

Just my 2 cp.

Frames are so so. There is a HUGE hit on my system when I turn on the right display and use the map. Far worse than on comparable aircrafts.

 

Welcome to the world of multiple glass displays and FSX. Its a pretty simple concept that seems to elude many... the more you draw, the more it costs.

If you want great glass displays in FSX, it doesnt matter if your model is a pogo stick with wings. It is going to cost frames and it is up to the user to back off other settings to make it reasonable.

 

Jim

The plane feels heavy for it's size but I hear that the real 182 does that as well. With that in mind flight dynamics feel right and it is fun to fly. I have not checked out the functions of the G1000 much yet so I cannot compare them for now.

 

Really nice stats...very useful.

 

Trying to come up with an analogy that works for how a RW C182 feels. My perception from the first time I flew one is this: a C-172 and PA-28 feel like cars...a C182 feels more like a full size van. It's a little lazy on the controls and sways as you adjust on final. It also has some momentum...you start *easing* back the power one to two thousand feet from the runway, giving it time to slow.

Trying to come up with an analogy that works for how a RW C182 feels. My perception from the first time I flew one is this: a C-172 and PA-28 feel like cars...a C182 feels more like a full size van.

 

Perfect :)