I purchased the SR22 today and wow, I really feel Carenado got this one wrong ..........

 

 

Performance

 

I will keep this short; I own the NGX, Airbus Extended, Coolsky DC-9, etc, and this GA aircraft, with 'light' non-realistic systems modelling is the heaviest aircraft on PC / GPU performance that I have ever used in any version of FS.

 

Not everyone needs such an esoteric, ultra high definition model! I would kill for a SD version, with sensible (that is the key word here) texturing, and smooth operation.

 

This thing is currently slow to load textures, stuttery (jumps between locked 30 FPS and 14 FPS), and just not nice to operate.

 

Systems

 

I was not expecting a lot, but I was certainly not expecting a General Aviation SR22 aircrafts that uses the FSX default autothrottle!!!!

 

Think I've gone mad?........ The "IAS" mode on the GFC700 autopilot is supposed to control speed in this aircraft, by adjusting pitch. But in this simulation it simply switches on an autothrottle to control speed, completely unrealistically! ... I mean seriously, an Autothrottle on a SR22............ to see what I am talking about here, activate "IAS" mode while in a climb..... now move your Throttle..... it has no effect, because the "IAS" mode (which should be using pitch to maintain speed) in this aircraft turns on the FSX autothrottle ............. Man, IMHO that is bad in a $35 simulation of a GA aircraft.

 

If Carenado were unable to model a custom gauge for the true IAS mode, they should have left it out, and just had VS to control climbs and desent. Suggesting in the manual and 'spec' for the aircraft that it has "IAS" mode, then fudging this so unrealistically using the FSX autothrottle is very poor IMHO.

 

The CAPS Parachute

 

Sorry, but surely you either model it (as Easglesoft managed to do almost 7 years ago), or you do not. To set this simulation up so that pulling the level just activated FSX's "End Flight" regime is really quite pointless and silly. I mean, why would anyone use this feature to end their flight?

 

 

To summarise, I believe that whilst this could have been such a great release, it is IMHO the worst ever release Carenado have insulted their long term customers like me with. It feels like the product was 70% done (and done well) and they thought "we need the revenue from this" and rushed the last 30% out, with very drastic results.

 

I expect a serious SP for this release, otherwise this release will for me, put Carenado down there with Captain Sim and other "grab the money, forget the standards" companies, whom I would never again pass my hard earned dollars to.

I will keep this short; I own the NGX, Airbus Extended, Coolsky DC-9, etc, and this GA aircraft, with 'light' non-realistic systems modelling is the heaviest aircraft on PC / GPU performance that I have ever used in any version of FS.

 

I have no issues with performance and that is with opus and various addon sceinery.

 

This thing is currently slow to load textures, stuttery (jumps between locked 30 FPS and 14 FPS), and just not nice to operate.

 

Not here, I experience a solid 25 FPS (locked). I cannot comment on the autothrottle since I do not use it so I'll take that with a grain of salt, so far I've only used the altitude hold feature.

 

Granted I'm not a RW SR22 pilot but so far I'm very happy with this release and the avionics package is awesome considering with FSX limitations they had to deal with but since it is $35 I'm willing to accept a few cut corners, and at the same time the Aerosoft Airbus is a bit more expensive but far more bug ridden (its initial release was a failure in terms of navigation errors, typos, etc).

 

EDIT---> Seems like the performance page and fuel predictions are nearly spot on, currently flying PWK-HOT.

........ then you're very lucky..... look all over AVSIM and you will see plenty reports of poor performance (frame rates and stutters) from this product.

........ then you're very lucky..... look all over AVSIM and you will see plenty reports of poor performance (frame rates and stutters) from this product.

 

Everyone's systems is different and mine is rather robust but to add to the mystery I get slightly better performance in the 22 than I do in the NGX but without the frame counter you can't really notice it. The one error that bugs me the most is the incorrect OAT.

If the OAT is the issue that bugs you most, fly it more. It's terribly inconsistent. The avionics are shameful. Performances seems to be on par with the T182T, which was no benchmark for frame rate.

 

Raul, you actually did a fair job of summing up my complaints!

If the OAT is the issue that bugs you most, fly it more. It's terribly inconsistent. The avionics are shameful. Performances seems to be on par with the T182T, which was no benchmark for frame rate.

 

Raul, you actually did a fair job of summing up my complaints!

 

+1

If the OAT is the issue that bugs you most, fly it more. It's terribly inconsistent. The avionics are shameful. Performances seems to be on par with the T182T, which was no benchmark for frame rate.

 

Raul, you actually did a fair job of summing up my complaints!

 

I have about 10 hours in the aircraft so far, most being 1 hour hops around the Chicagoland area and one long 3.5 hour cross country trip from PWK-HOT in bad wx leaving Chicago Executive. There were times where I dropped to around 22-23 frames but most of the time I stayed near 25 locked frames. Never had an issue although I fly either vatsim or offline with no AI traffic and its the AI stuff that drags down performance more than anything else. My PC can handle pretty much anything so I'm not doubting that people are having issues, but you will always have some people who have no complaints in certain aspects.

 

As for the avionics aside the OAT and an approach page glitch (can't seem to exit it), I have zero complaints but again I have almost no RW Garmin 1000 experience to relate to.