Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bunkers

Carenado Grand Caravan EX is out!

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Nice eye candy.  :smile:

 

But of course, the RealAir Duke 2.0 has just been released, with exceptional eye candy, sound and flight characteristics - making it a little harder to justify a Carenado purchase at the moment.

 

Saying that, the C208 is my favourite Carenado product, so perhaps..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First time I bought a Carenado at launch, I'm positively surprised. Then again I havent really tested much of the systems, mostly hand flying her so far. Flight model feels credible enough for some1 like me who have never been in a real Caravan so that's not really worth much  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Own) screenshots, Bunkers! :Big Grin:

 

Now that's a G1000 plane, right? So the question in regard to fps is vital too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks good, they sure did excellent work. However, I don't really see any reason for me to buy this plane, because I believe it basically is nothing more than their normal or cargo C208, and I'm not so keen on the G1000 either, and let's face it: nearly 40 dollars isn't exactly inexpensive either. So I guess I'll stick to waht I have already. But I have to say that I'm impressed by every single screenshot of their latest release, when it comes to visual modelling and texturing skills they are right up there with PMDG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Own) screenshots, Bunkers! :Big Grin:

 

Now that's a G1000 plane, right? So the question in regard to fps is vital too.

 

I be the FPS will go into the toilet. Just a guess.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, Bob. 'Nicely put.' :lol:

 

Lets just say they will surely be affected. I can see Carenado delivering 'ok' fps in their TBM with SP2, so maybe there's hope. It's just that the old C208 is very fps friendly, so pointing out a possible difference makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, Bob. 'Nicely put.' :lol:

 

Lets just say they will surely be affected. I can see Carenado delivering 'ok' fps in their TBM with SP2, so maybe there's hope. It's just that the old C208 is very fps friendly, so pointing out a possible difference makes sense.

 

"Nicely put" LOL -- You made me feel terrible. I should have said "There is a possibility that the frames rates (depending on your hardware), may be adversely affected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, you are set for a political career now. :O ^_^

Yes, the impulse replies can get you into trouble. It won't be the 1st time LOL. There has been rumor that we will no longer be able to use fps  when we talk about an aircraft. They are talking something like "lean on the frames" or "fat frames". These types of descriptions are less hurtful and shows compassion for the developers efforts.

 

Hey, let me know how you like the HD version. I think I need a change though. I am eyeballing the Majestic Q400. Very nice reviews on it, and the frames are remarkebly lean considering the complexity and clarity.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Own) screenshots, Bunkers!

Tough audience eh  ^_^

 

 

sga5.th.jpg t76o.th.jpg

 

okiz.th.jpg lmzn.th.jpg

 

About FPS. I was worried about those myself. I dont measure my FPS exactly, but I did expect it to be worse than it is on my system. I have the Carenado B200 and that is worse. I also have the C337 and that is better. Maybe on par with the P46T. I'm sure more measured opinions will be available soon.

 

EDIT: I always loved the idea of a VIP Caravan but didnt actually know one existed until recently. I think this might very well be the perfect plane for me. It's something you just cant explain properly or justify with reason. It's a feeling  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Carenandoed out.... But it looks nice as usual.

 

Wow, "Carenadoed out" LOL

 

I know what you mean. I need something different and looking at the Majestic Q400.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will probably be my last aircraft purchase for now; the past year has been a phenomenal embarrassment of riches, and I feel like I have enough aircraft in my hangar of high quality to last me for years!  Getting really familiar with each one will be my goal, now, along with the scenery areas I will concentrate on.

 

Looks like a beautiful job, downloading now!  I really think their TBM is fantastic, and this is another turboprop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the details on the Carenado site but see no mention of what NAV database is in use.  Anyone found out yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Default as usual... It's the same G1000 as their TBM, cirrus, Cessnas etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they can't make the nav database navigraph or aerosoft compatible. Is it really that difficult to program? All the excellent modelers and texture artists on their team, all the fine people in this world, and they can't find one person who can program the database to use navigraph? I think their G1000 is pretty good; the knob tech is top notch(much better than F1), looks better than F1's, they added the ability to edit flightplans on the fly, if only the database was up to date....sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they can't make the nav database navigraph or aerosoft compatible. Is it really that difficult to program?

No it isn't, some Navigraph AIRAC packs are just text files and some others are databases, both quite easy to access and parse.

(I'm sure there are other pack types, but I don't have those planes)

 

I’m all in with Carenado and any other developer that supports P3D, except the T182T that I got from F1 because of their superior G1000 with navigraph support.

 

They are pumping out gorgeous looking planes like rabbits, and for the life of me can’t understand why don’t they put out an advanced version of their avionic suites.  As expansions if you will for the EFD100, G500, G1000 etc.  (Great looking bodywork with no brains).

 

Private jet current offerings are dated and old so I’m eagerly waiting for their EMB500 Phenom and truly hope it is more than just eye candy.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they can't make the nav database navigraph or aerosoft compatible. Is it really that difficult to program?

Yeah, it is. Using FSX default means you can use FSX default autopilot logic.

 

Reading a navigraph database is the easy bit. Taking that information and converting it into a working autopilot/fmc configuration is a heck of a lot of coding. One example, it is stupidly easy to use FSX commands to get the distance to an FSX database airport. With a custom database you have to create custom code for all those sort of functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Private jet current offerings are dated and old so I’m eagerly waiting for their EMB500 Phenom and truly hope it is more than just eye candy.

 

Cheers.

Me too, but I think we'll be disappointed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Default as usual... It's the same G1000 as their TBM, cirrus, Cessnas etc.

 

Well, adding RXP GPS even as popup/2D may allow crossfeed of the RXP flight plan to the G1000 for display and interface with the autopilot.  Is that likely the case?  If so it could interface a much more current NAV database including WAAS approaches.

 

I just last week flew my Ver 1 Carenado C208 down to the Cessna Greensboro maintenance center for a major overhaul, to have my analog instruments upgraded to RXP Flightline, and to get a separate repaint completed.  Already committed for those dollar expenditures, so this will have to be out into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding it, as always, a unique and enjoyable plane to fly.  Very different for sure from the SR-22, and different as well, more importantly, from the TBM850 (latter is much higher-powered!).

 

I don't worry about the airnav databases on these things.  Every plane has its strengths, and weaknesses.

 

Frame rates are fine, even with the two PFDs and MFD live.

 

One thing you should remember when flying in a heavy traffic area, though: unlike some of the other Carenados with G1000s, this one defaults with the traffic alerting system ON, which is a blast if you're just sitting on the ground but can be too exciting if you're negotiating KJFK (or YBBN, for that matter) at rush hour..... :grece-flag:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it is. Using FSX default means you can use FSX default autopilot logic.

 

Reading a navigraph database is the easy bit. Taking that information and converting it into a working autopilot/fmc configuration is a heck of a lot of coding. One example, it is stupidly easy to use FSX commands to get the distance to an FSX database airport. With a custom database you have to create custom code for all those sort of functions.

If that is the case. How does ISG1 do it using default autopilots and aircraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes RXP with the LinkGPS=on in the RXP.ini will allow the data to be displayed on the Carenado G1000. It's a decent workaround if you have the 430 or 530.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is the case. How does ISG1 do it using default autopilots and aircraft?

By doing the hard work.

 

It didn't say it was impossible. I said it involved a lot of work. Do you think Ernie (from ISG1) took a couple of days to knock out his avionics? I bet you he spent a heck of a lot of time working on them and this is what the original question was all about: "Is it really that difficult to program?"

 

Most FSX aircraft with custom databases still use the default autopilot (try to accelerate time to more than x16, if you get a message saying you can't go higher than x16 when the AP is on then the aircraft is controlling the default AP (yes, even PMDG) ), they just take control away from the user and send their own commands to it (ie heading and rate of climb). I've done this myself when creating a custom AP that had a vertical mode that didn't work like the default AP. Come to think of it that AP also had a heading mode not covered by the default AP commands so I had to do that as well.

 

Think about this. If you are using the FSX database and default GPS logic and autopilot and you want to fly KSEA all you need to do is switch the AP to GPS mode and send KSEA to the GPS as the next waypoint. Stupidly easy.

 

Using a custom database you need to calculate the heading to KSEA (after loading the airport coords from your database), constantly accounting for great circle navigation.

 

There is a whole load of donkey work you have to do using custom databases. eg you can just send a flight plan to the default GPS and it will handle switching to the next waypoint at the appropriate time. Use a custom database and you have to do all that stuff yourself.

 

If it was easy to make a custom database and autopilot then everyone would be doing it wouldn't they?

 

It takes me about a month to create a GPS based on the default GPS (and I've done this 3 times). It would take me at least 6 months to code a completely custom GPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites