Now that all the fleet is now version 2, what could we expect next for XP10? There are no news for long time. And what about Alabeo? Do they updated their models too?

 

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

 

Great fleet !

 

 

Their 1st add-on for X-Plane was the Mooney. Did you know Mooney will build planes again IRL ? B)

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=1f3b84d4-9d97-4cf8-9e98-b8de51d61797

 

My wish for X-Plane: the B200 King Air.

Alabeo is next.

 

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Great I have the Dusty and would like to have it updated as well.

 

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

 

Based on Carenado's release timeline for FSX and taking out the very advanced stuff; they've also mentioned we will not see the AC11 Commander, my guess is we will see the Beechcraft C90 King Air. However I'm sure it will have a dumbed down avionics package from the FSX counterpart. 

I would really love to see either KingAir .. preferably BOTH .

 

I also hope that Reality-XP update their products to 64 bit, maybe Carenado might talk them into it .. wouldn't that be great!?
.

I'm not sure what plane I would like to see next, but in terms of general features - I'd like to see a step up in terms of:

 

-  Higher fidelity engine  performance.  At the moment operating things like cowl flaps and carburetors and de-icers has no impact on engine performance.  I want to see that kind of thing improve.  Likewise I'd like so see some sort of "engine wear and tear" if you continue to abuse those engines by running the oil too hot/cold or firewalling the throttle all the time.. If the engines are cold or outside optimal performance, some more engine growl wouldn't go amiss either.  Running the throttle high with a constant prop speed I'd expect to make the props / engine sound more "laboured" compared with low throttle.

- A Wear and Tear Index for certain components that gradually degrade the performance of that component - based on flying hours, landing impact, braking effort, outside air temperature etc...

 

-  Load and Balance management (a nice user interface where you can place an adult on any seat you fancy).

-  Options including retrofit fuel tanks for ferry flying long distances

-  A calculator that displays runway taking/landing distance, stall speeds and other info that normally exists in the aircraft lookup tables.  I liked the FlyJSim implementation for the 727.  That kind of template would be good here too.

 

In terms of Avionics, I would only want it if it was accurate.  A dumbed down G1000 is a deal breaker.  The Carenado models are nice to look at, but with three very different models in my hangar already, I want to next one to offer something more than nice sound and good visuals.  It's got to have a heart and soul as well.

I don't really care for programming engine wear and tear. The frequency of engine problems would have to be much more often, to please a flight simmer, if the programmer went to all the trouble in the first place. To me...........it would just make the plane seem undependable. I'd leave it in the hangar.

 

 

IMO, if you want to learn about the proper operation of an airplane, then read about it, and practice what you read. I don't need special programming, to imitate everything that can be done wrong. I think it's a waste.

I agree with everything you said Anthony, except the following ... I agree with Larry on that score .

 

 

 

- A Wear and Tear Index for certain components that gradually degrade the performance of that component - based on flying hours, landing impact, braking effort, outside air temperature etc...

I'm not sure what plane I would like to see next, but in terms of general features - I'd like to see a step up in terms of:

 

(lots of good ideas)

 

I agree that I would like to see a General Aviation plane with all the features you name, but it certainly won't come from Carenado.

 

First, such features are not present in their FSX products, and at the moment, I guess they want to achieve exact reproductions of their FSX lineup.

 

Second, I was told that the average Carenado user is NOT interested in increased systems depth, and that even cases where Dan added systems depth (like working circuit breakers), this was either not noticed by the customers or not seen as important feature by them.

 

So I totally understand when Carenado focuses on what they can do best: good-looking aircraft, easy to handle even for novice users.

 

 

By the way, when you search the forums, you will notice some posts that probably XP 10.30 will already include improved GPS festures, which could make it easier for addon developers to include better avionics than before. Goran made such a remark some days ago, but I dom't remember the thread.

My biggest grip with X-Plane is that all of these add-ons - beautiful some of them - have that lousy default GNS GPS implementation. It looks like a GNS 430, but it's a joke of course, and a very bad joke :-(

 

Then there's that great freeware KLN90B, which some have managed to make work with their 64 bit aircraft add-ons, but while a LOT better than nothin  ( for me the default GPS in X-Plane 10 = NOTHING ), it's rather old equipment...

 

The worst of all this is that I do not believe we will have a functional, decent, GPS implementation in X-Plane before v11....

 

Well...  I use the GA aircraft without GPS, just plain VOR / NDB navigation....

 

I believe some would gladly pay a bit more for an add-on with a nice implementation of a GNS 430 or even better a 530, allowing for route programming, etc... (p.s. : What the heck happened to those guys at Reality XP??? )

 

Carenado could develop their own GNS add-on, that would then fit their add-on aircraft, and could be sold for other models too (?)

 

 

I believe some would gladly pay a bit more for an add-on with a nice implementation of a GNS 430 or even better a 530, allowing for route programming, etc...

 

Or we could say that the GNS units are old hat these days, and what we really should have is a GTN 650.

https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/aviation/avionics/gps-nav-comm/gtn-650/prod67884.html

 

The coloured contour maps would certainly look good, and if its functional enough for waypoint programming and RNAV approaches then all the better.

 

 

My biggest grip with X-Plane is that all of these add-ons - beautiful some of them - have that lousy default GNS GPS implementation.

 

Maybe that's what they hired Philipp for? :wink:

Or we could say that the GNS units are old hat these days, and what we really should have is a GTN 650.

https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/aviation/avionics/gps-nav-comm/gtn-650/prod67884.html

 

The coloured contour maps would certainly look good, and if its functional enough for waypoint programming and RNAV approaches then all the better.

 

That looks very nice, and easy to use. But of course it would destroy this "hey, look, I am able to use this Garmin-product-with-bad-usabiltiy"-feeling which we can create when actually learning how to use a GNS 430/530 or G1000.

Maybe that's what they hired Philipp for? :wink:

 

Did Laminar hire Philipp ?