Aesthetics and Dynamics

[ENergy]

I've read a number of post here where people are asking whether or not they should buy the Carenado King Air B200. The answer to that question depends mostly on why you're interested in siming in general and in a general aviation twin turbo prop in particular. Some people want particular aircraft for making videos and doing repaints, This is a great airplane for those purposes. The visual model is excellent. Then there are people, like me, who are mostly interested in the piloting experience. This is a good airplane for those people, but in my humble opinion, it's not quit great. It's not of the caliber of PMDG, but of course it doesn't cost that much either and PMDG doesn't do general aviation aircraft. That said, on the piloting side, this aircraft's implementation certainly is on par with most payware add-ons.

 

At this moment, if you want a King Air for FSX and want a turbo prop because they're fun to fly into smaller airports, it's really only Careneda's C90 and B200 to choose from. Others are working on King Air projects for FSX. For example, MilViz is working on a 350, which I'll likely buy that when it's released. (I have MilViz's Cessna 310 and love it,) I just wish Careneda could excel on the piloting side as much as they do on the graphics modeling side. For example, RealAir's Turbine Duke is a great plane on both sides, but of course it cost a bit more too. (RealAir does 3-D cockpits right.)

 

Personally, I passed on the C90 because of the avionics and I'm flying the B200 using my Reality-XP 530W to replace Corenado's 530W. The B200's weather radar caught my eye, buts it's just eye candy as meaningful weather radar remains elusive in the siming world.

 

Nonetheless, I do feel Carenado's B200 is worth the $40.

 

Regards,

Jim :-)

[flying_bob]

it's spelled " Carenado", and yes you are correct, we all by now know Carenado produce stunning flying textures.. and never expect full systems modeling from them neither that they ever release a proper plane and that it take at least 2 SP's to correct and even then they have tendency to NOT fix everything ever, but we all got to a stage where we accepted that as part and parcel of Carenado. for them it is all about eye candy only and the more they can produce in the shortest possible time is the ONLY priority for them. They have mastered the thing called "managing customers".. They release plane , never fix it properly, and just by the time people start to get up in arms they release the next plane, and then everybody hoooo haaa for a while and after a while again they see the plane does not get fixed and just as everybody start commenting about that, Carenado just release another.. and so the circle continues... Personally a sick format of doing business, but a very effective one for them..!

 

Just my 2 cents

[fppilot]

For all the criticism, look in the topics in almost all of the type-specific forums here for Carenado aircraft models and you will find two additional consistent and significant themes beyond what is mentioned so far in this thread. Carenado provides for most of their models integration of the excellent Reality XP GNSs, and most if not all of the Carenado models come with a blank texture as a canvas for skilled painters that frequent our companionship here and provide us with realistic eye-candy. The Carenado models are also embraced by enough end-users that among us we gain a solid number who are skilled enough to help the rest of us make key adjustments to enrich our experience with the models.

 

PMDG is another totally dimension to flight simulation than this GA segment. Outside of these two, there is unfortunately only an occasional, almost stray offering equal of mention. And the vast majority of them do not allow a comparable level of customization.

 

Yes, I wish my flight sim "cockpit" was situated on hydraulic and pneumatic systems that would provide something closer to the physical forces of actually being in the air. My "tweaked" Carenado Bonanza and my King Air C90T come amazingly close to hitting the marks documented in the real world POHs. Past that the arguments for more accurate flight dynamics becomes arguments of each of our individual perspectives and viewpoints, If these don't provide what you are looking for then drive to your local GA base of ops and take to the air for real. Otherwise I suggest you contribute toward erasing any shortcomings you identify.

[Anxu00]

Flight 1 is also doing a King Air 200, but with glass cockpit. The system modelling will also be excellent. Flight GA products is at par with PMDG, IMHO.