Good evening,

 

I'm interested in knowing what people that have an experience with the B200 from Aeroworx think of the Carenado one.

 

I'm almost willing to buy the Aeroworx and do some tricks to make it work in FSX. But does it worth it in your opinion ?

I love the fact that the Aeroworx have all these aircraft managers that come with (but can does be used through FSX ?)

 

Thanks.

 

Souheil

The Aerowrox is an FS2004 aircraft that shows its age and looks like it has been discontinued. Why would you want it?

Anyway, this is the Carenado forum. Go ask the Aerowrox users (if you can find them)

I would agree that the Aeroworx plane is FS2004 technology and well past it's prime.

 

Flight1 has picked it up and is developing a new version for FSX. I'm sure it is faithful

to the real plane, in the Flight1 tradition.

http://www.simforums.com/forums/beechcraft-king-air-b200_forum50.html

 

The Carenado plane is brand new, looks great, and can be equipped with Reality XP GNS

gauges, which makes it a pretty nice airplane IMHO. The systems modeling is not anywhere

near the Aeroworx level, so that is what you are giving up.. also the Carenado GNS530 gauges

are not much better than the FSX default units, upon which they are based..

..and MilViz is building one as well - so next year some time, we'll have three King Airs to choose from.

 

The MilViz version will have the new Collins FMS, whereas the Flight1 version has a G1000, and the

Carenado version has the "classic" Collins avionics with the autopilot on the floor..

and even though some have got the aeroworx ported over it is very limited in FSX and do not fullfill everything of the fs9 version at all in FSX. I am one of those that initially had it ported over. While we did not have a fsx b200, it was OK, but now that we have a "reasonable" B200 in FSX from carenado I dont go back to the ported over version of aeroworx and the only reason is that everything is NOT working in aeroworx ported over version, so comparing aeroworx in fsx to carenado b200, the carenado is much better then the ported over version of aeroworx.

 

comparing the aeroworx in FS9 is completely different subject alltogether because here you have all the system moddeling that count more to me then beautiful textures.. pity we never could get everything (systems modeling) of aeroworx b200 properly ported over to FSX.

 

There is a dedicated aeroworx B200 forum available for those that did port it over.

 

http://sdmaus.com/kingair/index.php

 

I also agree with bert, that I suspect the Flight1 B200, will be good iro systems modeling as it was them that bought the original aeroworx B200. However Henning van rensburg the original developer of the aeroworx b200 is not involved with the flight1 B200, so I am not too sure what to expect.

 

Even though I look forward to the Flight1 B200, I dont know if I will get it, because it has glass cockpit. I am not into glass at all. Maybe it is an age thing. I grew up with steam, Same thing with the milviz KA350, it is going to be glass. another pass. (at least milviz indicated they might release a steam panel version later after the initial release.

Thank you Bob,

 

That is exactly what I needed to know. I'll stay with the Carenado one that I just bought.

What I wanted much from the Aeroworx were all the aircraft manager that came with.

 

One other thing: do you know if the Excel fuel loading sheet that Kurt is referencing to, in his tutorial is available somewhere ?

 

Souheil

Jip that was the bad not to be able to have the addition aircraft manager functionalities in FSX. Unfortuanately when you port it over it just become a normal regular plane..

 

I have send you a PM.

Hi dear friends!

 

Being a long fellow member of the good old Aeroworx forum and also being an olddays Aeroworx alpha/beta-tester I can say that systems-simulation Henning achieved in the Aeroworx B200 was just second to non. The AWX B200 was in a LONG production time, formerly built for FS2002, in production time rewritten and recoded for FS2004 CoF and released in the end for FS2004. Henning and his team put so much heartbleed in this release you could see that in nearly every bit, started from the panel, the gauges, the VC (in these FS2004 times one of the best IMHO) and the great exterior.

 

Allthough I am as you can see very biased as I also put very much of my free time into the B200 when beta-testing ... I somehow had to abandon the AWX B200 and FS2004 with a big aching heart and long after FSX was released, as time and FSX-Versions moved on and I wanted to be able to get all the new features of FSX. Importing the AWX B200 into FSX was a pain and made me cry after seeing the result when doing so.

A long long time of suffering and waiting passed and now I am able to fly these beautifull aircrafts virtually again with the Carenado C90B and B200 creations, on top of the possibilities what can be visually done in now days!

 

You cannot compare Carenado with Aeroworx .... every developer has it´s own targets where to put all their efforts in when producing addons. Henning from Aeroworx spent LOTS of hours if not years to reproduce his version of the B200 whereas Carenado have a list of aircrafts they want to built with both very beautifull visual and entertaining purpose and their new FDE´s by Bernt Stolle bring them to a great realistic life and feel.

 

So if you ask me which I like more, it is not possible to answer ... I love all of them, Henning / Aeroworx for giving me the chance of being part of a great project and giving me the "simulation-time- of my life" and for sure Carenado for making me FEEL again back in these times after soooo long by giving us a beautifull B200 and even a C90B! I personally cannot thank Carenado too much for that!

 

.... to come back to the topic: So if you read above, importing the AWX B200 into FSX won´t give you much of satisfaction when doing so, lots of special codes do not work, some gauges do not work at all, visually there are a lot of glitches inside and outside the aircaft .... all these things will surely not give you in FSX the love and feel to the product I was adoring in the text above ...

Thanks for your testimony Andy. I understand the facts better now.

 

Souheil

Maybe a little offtrack but having tried FSX I dumped it and returned to FS9. FSX simply gave me nothing new and I paid a penalty in machine perfomance, not to mention the loss of the 2D cockpit. So that said, What is your experience? What do you get from fsX that you did not from FS9?

Assuming that this is a straight up question, and not a troll bait, I would say, get a new gaming pc, fire up fsx with a nice airplane, like a realair duke, or a2a cherokee, and orbx pnw scenery, and it will give you your answer.

KSeyffert,

 

When FSX first came out I tried it and then went back to FS9. I had a ton of money invested and my machine could not handle FSX like it could FS9. I too was addicted to 2D panels for clarity and flying in actual IFR conditions.

 

Last year my old faithful Alienware's power supply died and fried the mother board. I had the machine totally rebuilt using today's top of the line processor, motherboard, memory, GPU and power supply. Using the new machine, FSX is vastly superior to FS9. The virtual cockpit is vastly superior to the 2d cockpit for visability outside and as sharp and smooth as the 2d for IFR work. I fly the PMDG 737NG in the virtual cockpit!. The flight physics are also superior. With the current FSX aircraft and Scenery, espically ORBX, FSX is much better.

 

Greg

I was also a BETA Tester on the Aeroworx B200. Flight 1 B200 is much better in FSX  than the Aeroworx was in FS9.

 

Greg