Criticism from a real B200 Pilot

[azteca 5]

Hi, first of all let me apologize for grammar mistakes and my poor english, Im writing in a Hurry =)

 

I been a real world B200 pilot for a couple of years now and been looking for a good King Air to come up for FSX, when carenado released the C90 I bough it just to find out a bunch of bugs and not so realistic flight, but having zero experience on a real C90 I could not give you my real point of view..

 

So came the B200... I just didnt want to buy it.. i knew I was going to be dissapointed, I wasnt buying PMDG nor A2A... but damm... it was a B200 with the 85 Proline II collins instruments just like the one I fly.. so i bought it.. 39.99 dollars..

 

Just Let me compare prices first.. I know this is not PMDG, but just for comparasion the Jetstream 41 of PMDG is 44.95, thats just 5 dollar more... and the new P-51D of A2A is 49.99 with Accusim.

 

Those are two top aircraft that every switch, system, light, guage.. works not only simulating stuff but works as it should on the real thing.

 

First Impressions..

 

Carenado always does a great work at textures and visuals, overall this is a great plus for the AC, almost everything is right just a couple of issues here

--No ELT antena on the exterior model... it should be on the right side of the Rudder

--The textures over the upper part of where the aux tanks are, are the same on both wings, it shoudnt. Right wing has the Battery, Left has the Hydraulic access port. and im Almost 99.99% sure they arent the same size.. (tomorrow I will confirm this)

 

Now lets go inside the cockpit.. Cold and Dark...

 

-----Guages mistakes omisions and other stuff

 

-Oxygen Guage only works with battery on.. this is wrong

 

-DC/Volt Loadmeters... they dont have the press switch... (how can they get that wrong?)

 

-Hydraulic FLuid sensor press to test doesnt work mmmm to be honest it looks like a circuit breaker is there instead of a button

 

-Bleed air switches have only 2 positions!, as far as I know on all B200 there should be 3! Open, Enviromental Off, Instrument and Enviromental Off.

 

-Transponder selector mode not working

 

--Cabin Alt range is just plain wrong, on some B200 red line starts at 6.0 PSI of diferential, others 6.6..

 

Lets turn on the battery..

--The prop Amp guage is wrong, always showing 20, this should only work then Prop deice is on.

 

Now Lets turn on the engines...

I know the FSX limitations on turboprop, and I make this purchase knowing that i Will not get a real representation of the start up secuence for the PT-6-42

but they actually manage to create a decent startup simulation

 

--Low Idle should limit NG at 61% not 66, high idle seems fine =)

 

--Elevator trim off Light doesnt light up..

 

 

I use my real B200 checklist and procedures to check all systems, they obviously dont work as expected, I performed the next procedures to verify

 

--Airstair Door circuitry check,,, well it works,, if door is open. light comes up.. very simple

 

--Oxygen Sistem Preflight..... Just didnt even bother to test it.. surly doesnt work

 

--Enviromental Systems control.... Just two position switches at the bleed air.. and the A/C sound is from y POV very High

 

--Pressurization... Doesnt work in test mode

 

--Flight director.. Worked fine (except test modes)

 

--Yaw damper doesnt add resistance to the Nose Wheel. in real life you cant move the nose wheel with the YD on

Electric Elevator trim... Light doesnt come up the turned off

 

--Rudder Boost.. didnt notice any movement on the rudder when a differential power is used but to be honest i dont either in the real plane, just a slighly rudder pedal movement.

 

--Autofeather... this is just wrong, the light turns on when the switch is set to arm, in Real life, the autofeather lights turn on (arm) when torque is above 400 lbs and N1 above 90%.. for example during take off if both engines are at TO power, autofeather is armed and both light ON.. if one engine fails and drops under 400 lbs, the working engine Autofeather light will turn off.. showing that the systems has been dissarmed on that engine, if torque continues to drop below 200, the system will feather the prop, and the autofeather light will extinguish. ... The test mode doesnt work either. and as far as i test it.. the system doenst work at all

 

--Vaccum and Neumatic pressure...... Well, the bleed air switches are wrong and didnt expect any luck here, so overall, the Gyro Suction guage is there just the same as the O2 guage and the Loadmeters... just to be there.. it doesnt respond to Bleed air fails.

 

--Engine Anti Ice.. at least the light work as they should, system on... light on.. easy.. they also affect the Torque, wich is just like on the real one.

 

--Ice Protection Equipment... Auto Ignition swithes doesnt seem to work, light never turned On..

Windshield anti Ice doesnt affect the loadmeters.. but then again.. what does?

Prop Deice doesnt affect the Deice Ammeter, well actually its always on

Surface Deice doesnt affect the Pneumatic Pressure...

Stall Warning Heat.. doesnt affect loadmeters but to be honest I havent checked if it does on the real one

Pitot heat... DOES affect the loadmeters.. well they got one right! even though is a very high load

 

Now I now you are thinking I am expecting a level of realism a la A2A or PMDG.. well not! I know but the least thing that I can expect is a level of Consistency in their product if the pitot shows an indication, why not the windshield anti Ice, how hard is to make the light of the Auto Ingition to turn up, as the Anti Ice do?

 

And Im not expecting none of this systems to really work, but at least help in making the checklist as real as they can. Like the Door. if its open, I want an indication in the cockpit, is nice that they get that one right. obviously im not expecting to have any real effect on the rest of the systems.. for example I sure I can pressurize the cockpit with the door open.. I will let that to more professional guys not carenado.

 

Now.. the Flight part...

 

Im gonna be very respectful on this part and gonna say that I need to fly it more to get and actual "feeling" of it in different flight and different situations. I took it to my most common flight.. a 40 minute 17000 feet flight that I do twice a week..

 

My results... this plane doesnt even come up with the real thing..

 

Itt doesnt go up with altitude.. (yeahh thats FSX limitations)

RPM... I just coudnt reach 1900 for climbing.. Prop full forward.. max i could get was 1850 this is plain wrong

N1 exceed 100% very easily,

and Torque is just very hard to adjust, not sure why, in real life you can make very small adjustments to the torque, in carenados version, they jump all over the place.

 

Cruise setting where just wrong, tomorrow will make a more exact comparasion with real life engine parameters

 

The descent was ok.. Torque goes up as it should, and speed seems to react ok, also the red pole at the airspeed seems to work fine.

 

In R/L the King air slows very fast, if you follow the next procedure.. 900 lbs of torque will slow down the AC enough for reach 200 and app flaps, then with the nose up tendency (wich carenado seems to get that right) you will reach 181 quickly, and drop landing gear (carenado gets this wrong probably the worst mistake ever and is a experience killer for me as the gear doesnt drop until you reach 160!!!!) next with full forward prop (this makes the airplane break as much as we pilots can feel it) and around 400-500 lbs of Torque you can drop full flaps on Final, and mantain a nice Vref all the way to the runway. (carenado doesnt seem to slow down at 400Lbs)

 

Anyway even with low expectations, im dissapointed of this product.. this product as it is should cost more than 20 dlrs..

[andy1975 13]

Hello azteca,

 

good to see some input of real world B200 pilot here!

 

"RPM... I just coudnt reach 1900 for climbing.. Prop full forward.. max i could get was 1850 this is plain wrong"

 

I have a Goflight Throttle quadrant, after takeoff, gears up, flaps up I go for RPM 1900 easily , propsync on .... easily all the way to lets say FL 260 without RPM droping down a bit, TRQ is falling down as I climb ... on top I drop the RPM to 1700 per the lever and stays there till approach / final.

Could it be that there is a kind of calibration failure in your yoke / throttle setup or do you use the mouse only to set RPM in VC? Maybe there is a difference? I just can say I never ever had this problem in the B200 nor the C90B.

But many thanks again for your input here and maybe Carenado is reading carefully!

[flying_bob 38]

"RPM... I just coudnt reach 1900 for climbing.. Prop full forward.. max i could get was 1850 this is plain wrong"

 

well I had the exact same issue to the t: see this post.

Now working 100% (well according to me just a pleb)

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/389646-b200-the-numbers-writing-a-tutorial-based-on-real-life-flight/

[Paul_Smith 92]

Yawn...

 

So you reckon you didn't get your moneys worth? Remind us please, what is the current market value of the airframe you fly twice a week?

[flying_bob 38]

Yawn...

 

So you reckon you didn't get your moneys worth? Remind us please, what is the current market value of the airframe you fly twice a week?

 

 

 

that is not the point.. and have no relevance.

[Tom_G_2010 6]

 

 

 

that is not the point.. and have no relevance.

 

+1 Agreed.

 

The market has established a level of expectation related to cost verses realism. And, while Carenado makes some exceptional looking aircraft, their venture into the slightly more complex with the King Airs has not met that cost to realism standard as I perceive it either.

 

If Carenado chooses to listen to the users it can learn a great deal for these King Air launches and would be able to bring themselves on par with the likes of PMDG. That would be fantastic since we would then have a broad spectrum of very realistic aircraft to select from.

[ramrunner800 10]

+1 Agreed.

 

The market has established a level of expectation related to cost verses realism. And, while Carenado makes some exceptional looking aircraft, their venture into the slightly more complex with the King Airs has not met that cost to realism standard as I perceive it either.

 

If Carenado chooses to listen to the users it can learn a great deal for these King Air launches and would be able to bring themselves on par with the likes of PMDG. That would be fantastic since we would then have a broad spectrum of very realistic aircraft to select from.

 

PMDG has indeed set the bar for realism very high, though if we expect their level of realism in all products, we will be in woefully short supply of aircraft to fly. There are only select few developers who can match that level of realism. I seriously doubt that the missing link in Carenado reaching the PMDG level of fidelity is simply that they haven't chosen to do so. (I even further doubt that the users on these forums could provide them with the answers on how to do it) PMDG has amazing resources, such as their partnership with Boeing, and their developers are undeniably very talented. I am sure that PMDG also makes a significant investment into every project they take on. Some of these things may be beyond other developers.

 

Carenado provides a decent level of immersion, which is what I'm after in a sim. The gorgeous textures they provide are key to that, and the aircraft feels like it flies quite well; it's fun to fly. Does it fly exactly like a King Air? Doubtfully. But I've never flown one, and it is unlikely I ever will, so if the aircraft is realistic enough that it helps me to suspend my disbelief, I'm happy. There are quite a few other things in life I'm ignoring to believe I'm really in the cockpit, so I think I can spare Carenado a 50RPM discrepancy in engine performance. I'm willing to spend $40 on that (though I will say that's about the upper end for this level of fidelity, I had to think about it a lot harder than I would $30). Would I spend the same $70 that I did on the NGX? No. But I still find the level of criticism that is leveled at any developer other than the select few (A2A, PMDG, etc.) disturbing. Lord knows most of us would be unhappy if we were suddenly held to the standard of the best in the business in our careers. We all strive to be better, and in this pursuit Carenado has established themselves a respectable place as one of the better devs.

 

I would caution all developers who frequent our little corner of the internet to remember Pareto's Principle.

[Tom_G_2010 6]

PMDG has indeed set the bar for realism very high, though if we expect their level of realism in all products, we will be in woefully short supply of aircraft to fly. There are only select few developers who can match that level of realism. I seriously doubt that the missing link in Carenado reaching the PMDG level of fidelity is simply that they haven't chosen to do so. (I even further doubt that the users on these forums could provide them with the answers on how to do it) PMDG has amazing resources, such as their partnership with Boeing, and their developers are undeniably very talented. I am sure that PMDG also makes a significant investment into every project they take on. Some of these things may be beyond other developers.

 

Carenado provides a decent level of immersion, which is what I'm after in a sim. The gorgeous textures they provide are key to that, and the aircraft feels like it flies quite well; it's fun to fly. Does it fly exactly like a King Air? Doubtfully. But I've never flown one, and it is unlikely I ever will, so if the aircraft is realistic enough that it helps me to suspend my disbelief, I'm happy. There are quite a few other things in life I'm ignoring to believe I'm really in the cockpit, so I think I can spare Carenado a 50RPM discrepancy in engine performance. I'm willing to spend $40 on that (though I will say that's about the upper end for this level of fidelity, I had to think about it a lot harder than I would $30). Would I spend the same $70 that I did on the NGX? No. But I still find the level of criticism that is leveled at any developer other than the select few (A2A, PMDG, etc.) disturbing. Lord knows most of us would be unhappy if we were suddenly held to the standard of the best in the business in our careers. We all strive to be better, and in this pursuit Carenado has established themselves a respectable place as one of the better devs.

 

I would caution all developers who frequent our little corner of the internet to remember Pareto's Principle.

 

I don't feel my comments were particularly harsh or holding them to some impossible standard. They have in a way set that bar by producing a long line of exceptional aircraft in the past. Many have come to expect much from them based on that.

 

And, they have in the past, and I suspect will continue to produce Service Packs for their aircraft taking into account user inputs. However, the King Airs seem to be a bit buggier than many other releases and a bit less faithful to the real aircraft.

 

My ask is that they take comments like those of the OP into account when doing such Service Pack development. Some of the items he mentions would take only minimal tweaks or coding to implement in a SP release. For those that exceed a reasonable amount of development time it's understandable that they not fit in an SP. But, those should be considered lessons learned and base lines for the next aircraft they develop.

[Rocky_53 1,566]

Yawn...

 

Don't be so bloody rude!

[bigsky10 3]

Got this today and though I would share it because I am having issues with ADF pop-up:

 

We are on the process of releasing a new service pack for the B200 that will improve the click spots for the ADF and other instruments.

We suggest disabling instrument reflections on (Shift-5 pop-up) to see if this might fix the issue.

Regards.

Carenado Team.

[davenicoll 103]

Hi Guys,

 

Instead of this thread becoming YET ANOTHER Carenado bashing excercise maybe the author of the post should send his findings to Carenado and they could look at implementing them in a service pack withing the limitations of FSX...after all, his credentials outstrip all of us "Sim" pilots.

 

I also think that Carenado should advertise for real world pilots of the particular model they are developing so as to get real input/feedback.

 

Dave

[Paul_Smith 92]

Don't be so bloody rude!

I shall attempt to follow your example in future...

that is not the point.. and have no relevance.

I can't agree with you. The guy goes on about the door light, ask him how much the bulb for the door light costs? And then ask him how much the engineer charges to change the bulb on the door light.

 

He points out that there are more complete and accurate sims available in this price range, and he is correct as far as he goes, but he neglects to mention that none of them are a B200, or that there is a far greater number of sims of lower quality, many of which cost considerably more.

 

I suspect that he thought he was doing a well intentioned "informed review", and is probably surprised that more people are not bowing to his wisdom. However, the fact that he started with the words "I just didnt want to buy it.. i knew I was going to be dissapointed" means that he should not be surprised that he proved himself right.

[pierdail 0]

Hi,

 

Here are some changes to improve the display systems " Auto Ignition " and " AutoFeather " light.

Remplace the parts concerning the AutoIgnition and AutoFeather sections in the file "Gauge_Anum_L.xml" for the C90 and in the file "Gauge_Anum_DOWN.xml" for the B200, after unzipped files respectively GAUGEC90.cab and GAUGEB200. cab.

 

 

Pierre

[andy1975 13]

Hi Pierre

Hi,

 

Here are some changes to improve the display systems " Auto Ignition " and " AutoFeather " light.

Remplace the parts concerning the AutoIgnition and AutoFeather sections in the file "Gauge_Anum_L.xml" for the C90 and in the file "Gauge_Anum_DOWN.xml" for the B200, after unzipped files respectively GAUGEC90.cab and GAUGEB200. cab.

 

 

Pierre

 

Pierre that is awesome!

 

Can you please paste the proper code here because it is quite difficult to paste the lines as they are pictures not letters!

Thanks so much , waiting for this for months!

[pierdail 0]

Here!

 

The green text is for the original programming

 

For AUTO IGNITION

 

<Element id="Gauge_Anum_L_IGNITION">

<FloatPosition>0.000,0.000</FloatPosition>

<!--<Visibility> (A:TURB ENG IGNITION SWITCH:1,BOOL) 0 > (A:TURB ENG1 N1, percent) 58 < and</Visibility>-->

<Visibility> (A:TURB ENG IGNITION SWITCH:1,BOOL) 0 > (A:ENG1 TORQUE, ft-lbs) 400 < and</Visibility>

<Image id="Image" Name="Gauge_Anum_L_IGNITION.bmp">

<Transparent>True</Transparent>

</Image>

</Element>

 

<Element id="Gauge_Anum_R_IGNITION">

<FloatPosition>0.000,0.000</FloatPosition>

<!--<Visibility> (A:TURB ENG IGNITION SWITCH:2,BOOL) 0 > (A:TURB ENG2 N1, percent) 58 < and</Visibility>-->

<Visibility> (A:TURB ENG IGNITION SWITCH:2,BOOL) 0 > (A:ENG2 TORQUE, ft-lbs) 400 < and</Visibility>

<Image id="Image" Name="Gauge_Anum_R_IGNITION.bmp">

<Transparent>True</Transparent>

</Image>

</Element>

 

For AUTO FEATHERED

 

<Element id="Gauge_Anum_L_AUTOFEATHER">

<FloatPosition>0.000,0.000</FloatPosition>

<!--<Visibility>(A:PANEL AUTO FEATHER SWITCH, bool)</Visibility>-->

<Visibility>(A:PANEL AUTO FEATHER SWITCH, bool) 1 ==; (A:TURB ENG1 N1, percent) 90 > (A:ENG1 TORQUE, ft-lbs) 400 > (A:ENG2 TORQUE, ft-lbs) 400 > and and and and</Visibility>

<Image id="Image" Name="Gauge_Anum_L_AUTOFEATHER.bmp">

<Transparent>True</Transparent>

</Image>

</Element>

 

<Element id="Gauge_Anum_R_AUTOFEATHER">

<FloatPosition>0.000,0.000</FloatPosition>

<!--<Visibility>(A:PANEL AUTO FEATHER SWITCH, bool) 1 ==</Visibility>-->

<Visibility>(A:PANEL AUTO FEATHER SWITCH, bool) 1 ==; (A:TURB ENG2 N1, percent) 90 > (A:ENG2 TORQUE, ft-lbs) 400 > (A:ENG1 TORQUE, ft-lbs) 400 > and and and and</Visibility>

<Image id="Image" Name="Gauge_Anum_R_AUTOFEATHER.bmp">

<Transparent>True</Transparent>

</Image>

</Element>

 

good flights

 

Pierre