Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Knoxpilot

TBM 850 Review

Recommended Posts

Ok.... so how do you turn off the big frigging "CAS" box on the PFDs?  Don't need that on the PFDs, no instructions on how to get rid of it.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND... The Right PFD off button is the top left screw area.

 

 

 

I found this G pretty nice actually.  I like being able to look up the next airport in the tour, and then entering the various freq. into nav and com from the info page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beoxx, on 21 May 2013 - 01:27 AM, said:

 

I just found out something strange.

 

As soon as I use the mouse and the mouse pointer appears I get a huge FPS hit. When the pointer dissapears it takes a while and the FPS go up again. I used Fraps to confirm. I heard that the I-Fly 737 also had that problem at first.

 

Can anybody confirm this or is it just me...?

As far as I know this is a known FSX bug, that cannot be fixed.

Maybe something to do with bringing up tooltips or mouseclick infos?!

 

If you hide the menu in flight it will disappear when mouse fades away or try to keep the menu on the screen and move the mouse "out of the way" to the top of the screen.


Best regards,

 

Avsim-Banner-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can live with the G1000 as long as the various bugs are fixed, but the big killer for me is the missing top cruise speeds. I am very surprised that Carenado could continue to advertise the TBM850's speed on release, yet miss it by such a large amount. Surely they must have known about the error.

 

However, thanks to Cactus521's "fix" posted on page 3 of this thread, at least I'm now enjoying flying this aircraft more like it should be. I'm using a value of 37 at the moment, which reduces excess speed at low levels a little without significantly affecting the top speed. For me, that is a reasonable compromise for now.

 

Incidentally, I am not experiencing any problems with slowing down on descent and approach.

 

Another issue is that I'm not finding reverse-thrust very effective on landing and I'm not even sure if it is working at all? This was the case even before I made the speed "fix".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can live with the G1000 as long as the various bugs are fixed, but the big killer for me is the missing top cruise speeds. I am very surprised that Carenado could continue to advertise the TBM850's speed on release, yet miss it by such a large amount. Surely they must have known about the error.

 

However, thanks to Cactus521's "fix" posted on page 3 of this thread, at least I'm now enjoying flying this aircraft more like it should be. I'm using a value of 37 at the moment, which reduces excess speed at low levels a little without significantly affecting the top speed. For me, that is a reasonable compromise for now.

 

Incidentally, I am not experiencing any problems with slowing down on descent and approach.

 

Another issue is that I'm not finding reverse-thrust very effective on landing and I'm not even sure if it is working at all? This was the case even before I made the speed "fix".

 

Reverse thrust is working for me--I hit "F2" and hold it down to apply reverse thrust on landing.  It's so effective, the aircraft will start to back up if I forget to neutralize the throttle.  I can stop in a hurry. 

 

I do find it a bit hard to keep the wings level at touchdown.  The aircraft likes to rock back and forth.  A decrease in the roll MOI in the aircraft.cfg should fix this issue for those who've run into it.  I haven't adjusted it--maybe a real '850 pilot can weigh in on whether this is normal or not.

 

Looking at the .air file, it seems so similar to the Malibu turbine, I wonder if Carenado just used it with a tweak here and there.  Many of the dynamics tables are exactly the same. 

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Reverse thrust is working for me--I hit "F2" and hold it down to apply reverse thrust on landing. It's so effective, the aircraft will start to back up if I forget to neutralize the throttle. I can stop in a hurry.



I do find it a bit hard to keep the wings level at touchdown. The aircraft likes to rock back and forth. A decrease in the roll MOI in the aircraft.cfg should fix this issue for those who've run into it. I haven't adjusted it--maybe a real '850 pilot can weigh in on whether this is normal or not.



Looking at the .air file, it seems so similar to the Malibu turbine, I wonder if Carenado just used it with a tweak here and there. Many of the dynamics tables are exactly the same.



John

 

That reverse-thrust behaviour is exactly what I experience with my other turboprop aircraft, but not with this one. This one just keeps rolling along, despite me holding down F2. However, thanks for pointing out that it is working for you, so I can start looking at things at my end.

 

I also found some sensitivity in keeping the wings level on approach. It wasn't a biggie, it's handleable but I might try reducing the roll a little.

 

That is interesting about the Malibu .air file and not very inspiring as far as Carenado are concerned, if that is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverse thrust is working for me--I hit "F2" and hold it down to apply reverse thrust on landing. It's so effective, the aircraft will start to back up if I forget to neutralize the throttle. I can stop in a hurry.

 

I do find it a bit hard to keep the wings level at touchdown. The aircraft likes to rock back and forth. A decrease in the roll MOI in the aircraft.cfg should fix this issue for those who've run into it. I haven't adjusted it--maybe a real '850 pilot can weigh in on whether this is normal or not.

 

Looking at the .air file, it seems so similar to the Malibu turbine, I wonder if Carenado just used it with a tweak here and there. Many of the dynamics tables are exactly the same.

 

John

I don't find that "rocking" so much is the issue as it is simply the plane's natural tendency to bank left due to prop torque I assume. This is actually correct behavior for this plane and in fact I have read some articles by TBM850 pilots and one of them mentioned the need to use rudder trim before the takeoff roll begins...in fact the real plane (and carenados) has a rudder trim gauge you'll notice with a GREEN mark right of center...in the real plane you would take off with rudder trim set to that green mark, although in the sim that would be too much and I find that about 7-8 right clicks on the virtual yoke's rudder trim button (giving you a right rudder trim to +7 or +8 in my case) is just about right to stop the plane from having a tendency to bank left after takeoff and on approach. Give it a shot and see for yourslef...I dont see any issue with roll MOI at all.

 

...as for the reversers...they work but are a little weak...it slows you down without using brakes, but you'll slow gradually...I cant recall if any of the articles I read say anything about the reverser strength. I feel its ok as long as you ca land the plane within the proper published length...and you can easily do that right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the more I fly this plane the more I like it's behaviors. I'm finding through lots of researching and reading about the real plane's tendency's that this sim version ain't so bad afterall :-)

 

Here are the only edits to it's fde that I've done:

 

1. John's fix: drag at zero lift in the air file turned down to 41 (was originally at 51)...I dont miss the extra 10kts at altitude...310TAS is good enough for me since this setting stops the plane from flying 300+ at the low alts...so for me this is fine and dandy for now.

 

2. aircraft cfg change: toe brake scalar increased to .6 (originally at .4)...dont touch the differential brakes, leave them alone.

 

3. aircraft cfg change:: rudder effectiveness decreased to .8 (originally at 1.0) You can still fly a 20kt crosswind approach as published.

 

Before takeoff trims: rudder +8/elevators -6

 

...not bad...she's a lively plane with gentle control inputs a requirement. I have not yet tested coordinated turns properly...but Ive read that the yaw damper in real plane is used...but yaw damper in FSX is improperly simulated for all planes...as it doesnt actually act as a damper at all and instead it pretty much locks out manual rudder control from the pilot....therefore, on takeoff and final approach you need to disengage the yaw damper on the a/p panel (which is what they do IRL anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a marvellous review. Thanks.

 

I came here to choose this aircraft specifically because I want a prop/turboprop with a modern set of gauges, which I could use to realistically train myself with whilst using a fine aircraft.

 

Well, I see that this goal is unattainable, which is why I will not purchase this plane at this time. Such a shame really. I indeed am getting the feeling that the makers are simply not listening to a significantly important part of the community, and they simply must be able to guess that there are deals going down the drain because of this. 

 

I also would be willing to pay more for a fully- and correctly-functioning set of instruments.

 

Please listen to all of us, and, above all else, RESPOND somewhere to all of us to let us know if such thoughts are present or if we should just accept the lovely planes and leave it at that.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you try to put the rudder trim on the green mark in the MFD, the tooltip will tell you you're at +48!

 

That can't be right.

 

I can never tell whether this kind of stuff is sloppiness on the part of the developer (relatively speaking; the little voice in the back of my head always retorts, "well, YOU try and make something this complicated, then!"), or a function of just having to fight FSX with loads of compromises around a core FDE that just was never really optimal for turboprops.

 

I suspect the latter; you're always battling between "numbers accuracy" and feel, and for me, long-term, feel matters more, as it's what really distinguishes taking one aircraft up instead of another.

 

The TBM850 feels distinct enough to be a worthy addition, IMHO. You're very rarely going to get dead spot-on numbers accuracy in FSX (or elsewhere, for that matter), and look how tough and expensive that is to do (PMDG). And sometimes if you do, the feel goes out the window in the process (not claiming that re:PMDG, to be clear).

 

Or maybe sometimes it really is just sloppiness? Who can say? Only the devs themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you try to put the rudder trim on the green mark in the MFD, the tooltip will tell you you're at +48!

 

That can't be right.

 

Did you mis-read my post, or are you just reiterating?

 

Already mentioned using the green rudder trim mark would be overkill in the sim and that instead you should try either +7 or +8 (which is about halfway to the green mark).

 

I think everyone has the same thoughts as you mentioned :-)...could be a combination of both (fighting FSX, plus dev time constraints while coming in at a caertain price point...either way its not easy and they dont make alot of money per hour doing this...noone does, not even PMDG).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that Carenado IS working on a patch... and report these to them in their ticket system.

 

 

 

 

 


What a marvellous review. Thanks.

 

Welcome to Avsim jonnie.  FSX was never intended to be a professional trainer on any level, despite our insistence that developers try to make it so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can never tell whether this kind of stuff is sloppiness on the part of the developer (relatively speaking; the little voice in the back of my head always retorts, "well, YOU try and make something this complicated, then!"), or a function of just having to fight FSX with loads of compromises around a core FDE that just was never really optimal for turboprops.

 

I suspect the latter; you're always battling between "numbers accuracy" and feel, and for me, long-term, feel matters more, as it's what really distinguishes taking one aircraft up instead of another.

 

The TBM850 feels distinct enough to be a worthy addition, IMHO. You're very rarely going to get dead spot-on numbers accuracy in FSX (or elsewhere, for that matter), and look how tough and expensive that is to do (PMDG). And sometimes if you do, the feel goes out the window in the process (not claiming that re:PMDG, to be clear).

 

Or maybe sometimes it really is just sloppiness? Who can say? Only the devs themselves.

 

I suspect a bit of both - or rather than sloppiness, maybe a lack of skill? As you say, programming .air files is not easy. Cactus521 even hinted that they may have based the TBM on the Malibu's .airfile. This would of course make sense in order to save development time, and I'm sure other developers do this too (why reinvent the wheel?)...But it could also mean that the other developers at Carenado just don't have the knowledge to create a good turboprop airfile with the right feel from scratch, and so they only got close to the correct numbers for the TBM by modifying the Malibu through trial and error..

 

All those tweaks and fixes people have discovered are great, and obviously makes the plane more enjoyable for many. However, out of principle, I won't take the plunge until the developer has fixed these issues in an official patch.


Asus Prime X370-Pro / Ryzen 7 1800X / 16 GB DDR4 3200 MHz / Asus GTX 1070 Turbo
Fractal Design XL R2 / Phanteks PH-TC14PE / Corsair CX650M
2 TB SSD / 4 TB HDD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


FSX was never intended to be a professional trainer on any level, despite our insistence that developers try to make it so.

 

That's not strictly true as FSX was, for example, used as part of the original Redbird Jay trainer (it now comes with P3D) and in any case, the core of FSX is at the heart of several professional trainers.

 

That aside, a number of developers make products for the FSX platform that have been good enough to make for some darned good procedural trainers - which is a very different thing from saying they're "professional" or certified.  Thanks to community reviews and feedback such as appears in this thread, we as consumers get to decide whether a given feature set meets our individual needs.  This isn't a case of insisting on "professional", it's simply deciding that something meets a set of personal requirements or doesn't.

 

These comments are in no way intended as criticism to those who are enjoying the TBM, BTW.  And the plane will likely go through a revision or two before the dust settles.

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    42%
    $10,670.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...