This is getting a bit rough here, so I recommend that if you wish to carry on this thread that some temperate self-moderation is in order.

 

Kind regards,

This is getting a bit rough here, so I recommend that if you wish to carry on this thread that some temperate self-moderation is in order.

 

Kind regards,

 

party pooper!

 

 

Vic

The language "failed to look" was deliberatly chosen to provoke a reaction by highlighting the apparent hypocrisy contained in your comment "Try to look before I leap". Hypocrisy you have confirmed that you are comfortable with by the way you addressed me as "Dear". I very much doubt you consider me to be in any way 'Dear' to you, so were you merely being pretentious, or were you aiming at pompous?

 

Had I considered the possibility that you had in fact "tried to look" by reading the rest of the discussion before you commented? Of course I considered it. My comment would have been meaningless if there was any reasonable possibility that you had, but based on the tone and content of what you actually wrote (which I accept may not have been what you thought you were writing), I felt it was quite clear that you hadn't, and that you were making your decision based on a single opinion. In other words, the exact opposite of the careful and balanced consideration implied by the expression "look before you leap".

 

You also asked what was in it for me? Only the child like pleasure of bursting bubbles

Mr. Smith,

 

My comment to Bert's was meant to be light hearted, and because I somewhat know him. If there are hypocrisy in it, it was only you who read it and decided to use the kind of language you did to provoke a reaction for (in your words) "child like pleasure of bursting bubbles". May I ask who gave you that right to do what you did? There are decorum in the forum, and as single, terse comment from you without context was certainly provocative, and one may say insulting. Like many here, I have been burned by Carenado releases, and had I not having modifications by Bert, Bernt Stolle and others, those purchases are just worthless, money down the toilet. Why would anyone has to spent hours on end getting helps on products that one paid money for?

 

I don't have to prove anything to you, that I have thoroughly read every pages. My address to you as "Dear Mr. Smith" was meant to be formal, as I personally don't know who you are, yet you turned it around for your own perverse pleasure. A more constructive comment would have been simple, resorting of sniping, condescending tone to make you feel superior is just plain wrong and I don't have to accept it.

 

Regards

 

This is getting a bit rough here, so I recommend that if you wish to carry on this thread that some temperate self-moderation is in order.

 

Kind regards,

I agreed completely. I was defending myself in the face of an unprovoked comment.

 

Regards

Who gave me the right? Being alive gives me that right. If you are of the American persuasion then you will be familiar with the phrase 'inalienable rights' from 1776. The rest of the world formalised the ideas with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in 1948, so it has been considered the international norm for at least 65 years, and in some places, almost 240 years.

 

I am delighted that you have read the whole discussion, since that means you will have seen the original posters comment that started "Ok, guys, thanks for your imput, I been able to resolve the RPM issue, by reassigning axis in FSUIPC, so I apologize for my mistakes...", and of course you will also be aware of the two Service Packs that have also been released since this discussion started.

 

And since we have been very politly warned by a moderator, I think it reasonable to leave it at that.

And since we have been very politly warned by a moderator, I think it reasonable to leave it at that.

 

well said.. AMEN..!!

 

:Peace:

well said.. AMEN..!!

 

:Peace:

+14

 

Thanks Bert Try to look before I leap. Now I go look at the C90B. That one is not on sale either, but may be it's time to take the plunge.

 

Hey Anxu,

 

In the pages following that initial post from Azteca, he found his controls were miss configured. Since then Carenado released 2 service packs addressing much of what he pointed out concerning the small bits that were missing or not working. This all resulted in probably one of carenados most complete and detailed planes. The rxp integration is bordering on Realair level btw. The lighting is fantastic. This is not the same plane as the original release.

 

Here is where he realized some mistakes in his first impassioned but could not edit the first post as it was too late. Things start to look up and since then the 2 service packs.

 

Ok, guys, thanks for your imput, I been able to resolve the RPM issue, by reassigning axis in FSUIPC, so I apologize for my mistakes, and so the first post will be edited.

 

Obviously some people got the message wrong... I love to have a B200 in FSX, and carenado focusing on the general aviation side of fsx is nothing less than great.

 

Yes I bought the C-90 and I had a rought Idea of how the B200 was gonna be so no excuses there, but there are still mistakes that are obviously overlocked at, like the missing/wrong guages, switches etc.

 

I know this is only a GAME, what am I expecting of a game? to work as expected.

 

Now lets go constructive and help out each othere here, cause in the end we all want a great B200.

 

Carenado PLease consider this findings as my way to help you out sort problems

 

I been testing engine parameters in flight, and with the help of Andy1975 and Flying_bob, this issue with my controllers or FSUIPC is working great.

 

During climb, RPM to max, Torque 2000, everything ok,

 

Here is a comparation of settings during cruise on the same route, on the same day, hour using Active Sky 2012

 

In this situation my torque was limited by the N1 exceding 100%, so i push it as far as it could go this is the setting on our "normal" cruise setting on the real one

Flight Level 170. OAT 1C. Kias 200

ITT

760 760

TQ

2170 2170

RPM

1800 1800

NG

98.8 98.5

FF

380 380

OT

60 60

OP

110 105

 

As you can see I cound push the carenado that far because of N1 Limits... and found out this issue, the toottip show a diferent value than the Digital display

 

taking this into account and using the tool tip as a reference I can push it a little bit higher getting more closer to my findings than with the digital display, the (tootip is showing 98%)

 

Overall things have improved, will try that Autofeather and autoingition lights code.

 

When I have more time I will test it acording to the performance charts.

 

I seems the ITT is still low and the Oil Temperature is very low.

 

Any way to make the Landing Gear drop at 181 not 160?

 

I just found another guage missing, in the overhead panel, the Battery Ammeter

 

Il show you some testing =)

 

 

And pleaaasee some help with the transponder! cant use it!

 

This was second post down the page.

Can someone tell me why my B200 allows me to lower gear at ANY speed? Like even 200 knots? Everyone here talking about 180 limit and not comming down till you are slowed to 180? Why do I not have this limitation?

 

C.

Can someone tell me why my B200 allows me to lower gear at ANY speed? Like even 200 knots? Everyone here talking about 180 limit and not comming down till you are slowed to 180? Why do I not have this limitation?

 

C.

 

Sorry for answering now but I have completly missed this question.

It is because your settings in FSX allow this.

under realism, check to see that "aircraft stress causes damage" is ticked

then the limit will be used as set in aircraft fsx that is 179 I think from my head. I have to check.

 

Many people also ask the opposite question, why cant the put down the wheels at 170 (the published limit is 182). In these cases the "aircraft stress" tick was ON, and FSX refused the gear to go down, unless the plane is below 163. The aircraft.cfg limit I know is wrong. So the people kept the tick "on" but actaully had to correct the aircraft.cfg value.

I have to find the post but it is here somewhere under C90 or B200 sub forums.

 

here is the correct values

The value per carenado is set to

 

point.0 = 1, 13.0, 0.0, -5.75, 1600, 0, 1.4, 40, 0.45, 1.60, 0.4, 3.0, 4.0, 0, 163, 182

point.1 = 1, -2.0, -8.7, -5.50, 1600, 1, 1.3, 0, 0.45, 1.50, 0.9, 6.5, 7.0, 2, 163, 182

point.2 = 1, -2.0, 8.7, -5.50, 1600, 2, 1.3, 0, 0.45, 1.50, 0.9, 6.5, 7.0, 3, 163, 182

 

the second last value must be 182, like below

 

point.0 = 1, 13.0, 0.0, -5.75, 1600, 0, 1.4, 40, 0.45, 1.60, 0.4, 3.0, 4.0, 0, 182, 182

point.1 = 1, -2.0, -8.7, -5.50, 1600, 1, 1.3, 0, 0.45, 1.50, 0.9, 6.5, 7.0, 2, 182, 182

point.2 = 1, -2.0, 8.7, -5.50, 1600, 2, 1.3, 0, 0.45, 1.50, 0.9, 6.5, 7.0, 3, 182, 182

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/392069-landing-gear-extension/

hi ,with regard to service packs for the B200,i can only find one dated 21.11.12 on carenado,s site is this the 1st or 2nd ?,many thanks

peter

Sorry havent been here for a while, Im installing both Service Packs right now, and will give this guy another spin!.

 

I dont seem to be able to edit my first post to reflect the issues that have been solved.

 

Funny thing the Gear, the Max extension speed is 181, and the max retraction speed is 163

 

maybe there was some mixup in the .cfg

Even better

Sorry havent been here for a while, Im installing both Service Packs right now, and will give this guy another spin!.

 

I dont seem to be able to edit my first post to reflect the issues that have been solved.

 

Funny thing the Gear, the Max extension speed is 181, and the max retraction speed is 163

 

maybe there was some mixup in the .cfg

 

Even better news..! maybe the two values were swopped around accidentally. We only concentrated on the 2nd last value and never actually did anything to the last value, because everybody was only complaining about the gear down, but now that you mention gear UP is 163, this bring up a total new question it is very funny that carenado did have a 163, but I think they just have had it in the wrong place.. This is just too much of a co-incidence you mentioning 163 and they had a 163, that we substituted with 182, to get FSX to work correctly with speeds for dropping GEAR down.

 

I will test a bit more.

 

Just re-read the FSX SDK. There is no value that can be maintained for GEAR UP. Only for gear DOWN (extention)

Contact Point Parameter (and example)  Element  Description
1  (1)  Class  Integer defining the type of contact point: 0 = None, 1 = Wheel, 2 = Scrape, 3 = Skid, 4 = Float, 5 = Water Rudder
2 (-18.0)  Longitudinal Position  The longitudinal distance of the point from the datum reference point.
3 (0)  Lateral Position  The lateral distance of the point from the datum reference point.
4 (-3.35)  Vertical Position  The vertical distance of the point from the datum reference point.
5 (3200)  Impact Damage Threshold  The speed at which an impact with the ground can cause damage (feet/min).
6 (0)  Brake Map  Defines which brake input drives the brake (wheels only).
0 = None, 1 = Left Brake, 2 = Right Brake.
7 (0.50)  Wheel Radius  Radius of the wheel (feet).
8 (180)  Steering Angle  The maximum angle (positive and negative) that a wheel can pivot (degrees).
9 (0.25)  Static Compression  This is the distance a landing gear is compressed when the empty aircraft is at rest on the ground (feet). This term defines the “strength” of the strut, where a smaller number will increase the “stiffness” of the strut.
10 (2.5)  Ratio of Maximum Compression to Static Compression  Ratio of the max dynamic compression available in the strut to the static value. Can be useful in coordinating the “compression” of the strut when landing.
11 (0.90)  Damping Ratio  This ratio describes how well the ground reaction oscillations are damped. A value of 1.0 is considered critically damped, meaning there will be little or no osciallation. A damping ratio of 0.0 is considered undamped, meaning that the oscillations will continue with a constant magnitude. Negative values result in an unstable ground handling situation, and values greater than 1.0 might also cause instabilities by being “over” damped. Typical values range from 0.6 to 0.95.
12 (1.0)  Extension Time  The amount of time it takes the landing gear to fully extend under normal conditions (seconds). A value of zero indicates a fixed gear.
13 (4.0)  Retraction Time  The amount of time it takes the landing gear to fully retract under normal conditions (seconds). A value of zero indicates a fixed gear.
14 (0)  Sound Type  This integer value will map a point to a type of sound:
[color=#ff0000]15 (0)  Airspeed Limit  This is the speed at which landing gear extension becomes inhibited (knots). Not used for scrape points or non-retractable gear.[/color]
16 (200)  Damage from Airspeed  The speed above which the landing gear accrues damage (knots). Not used for scrape points or non-retractable gear.

 

from this I then gather that last two values need to be 182 and 182

Sorry havent been here for a while, Im installing both Service Packs right now, and will give this guy another spin!.

 

I dont seem to be able to edit my first post to reflect the issues that have been solved.

 

Funny thing the Gear, the Max extension speed is 181, and the max retraction speed is 163

 

maybe there was some mixup in the .cfg

 

I for one am really looking forward to a re-review. I have been enjoying the plane. Not quite the detail of say... The JS41 from PMDG but for a Carenado plane, it seems pretty good with the RXP GNS530 in it! Especially with the updated to mid-2011 Navdata.

 

C.

Hi,

 

Color correction and size of the white triangle for the ASI

 

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/78000353/FSX/Gauges_B200.zip

 

Pierre

 

Is this fix still available somewhere?

Hi,

What an interesting topic.

Mr.Azteca, what are your findings please?

I consider buying this turboprop...

Grz.

Paul