Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
alexcolka

Carenado next project Hawker 850 XP

Recommended Posts

 

 


If you all want Carenado to go back to making simpler GA types, you should show them with your wallet. Don't buy the bizjets/glass from Carenado, instead buy the simple Cessna and vintage types from Alabeo.

 

I couldn't agree more TJ.  And that's exactly what I've done.  The only recent Carenado plane I've purchased was their piston Malibu.  Not really a simple GA, but still with an analog panel and RXP integration support to help add a touch more complexity.  Like many Carenado's, it's not perfect, but it's darned good and still hits what I'd call a reasonable balance.

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you all want Carenado to go back to making simpler GA types, you should show them with your wallet.  Don't buy the bizjets/glass from Carenado, instead buy the simple Cessna and vintage types from Alabeo.  Perhaps if they see the sales of the Alabeo GAs are much better than their Carenado corporate aircraft line, that might shift Carenado's focus back to the simpler aircraft.  However if they see the sales are roughly the same, they will probably continue this trend.

 

Couldn't have said it better. But the thing is, take a look at Carenado's Facebook page. Full of ###### who buy everything Carenado release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the sore spot is not how 'lite' the products are. They are in fact lite and that is no secret. But if you are making 'lite' products, then charge lite prices. At least that's how I feel. I am not knocking them as developers, I even said that they had a great run there a while back with planes that fit their style and price points to match. I am sure there are others that share my feelings there.

There planes aren't expensive look at milviz king air 350 its gonna be $70. Orbx charges $30 or so for a small airport when at the most carendo charges is $40 for a super high quality plane

David Womacks CFI,CFII,MEI

Copilot: Captain have you ever flown a 777 before?

Captain:Nope,but we got a strong tail wind and the bar in Hong Kong stays open till 5am, so lets kick the tires, light the fires and, get the hell outta here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that almost nothing new today is analog anymore.

 

 

I was raised in the 70's, and I'm glad those years are over.  For my personal taste, ever time I see a 1970's top winger being announced, I want to scream.

 

The 350i will be the only... on the show room floor right now... version of the King Air. After 8 years of FSX release, that pretty pathetic.

 

 

I'm getting older. But I'm not quite at the point where I need to ask a kid how to turn on the t.v., or operate my phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Don't forget that almost nothing new today is analog anymore.

 

Irrelevant for several reasons.  Primarily - if you do new, you have to really do new.  What's the point if you do the look of new with less than the functionality of old.  Secondarily (but very secondarily), the majority of the GA fleet is not new.

 

My comments are about function, not appearance.  Don't know what "top winger" has to do with this.  Or age, for that matter.

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to go Carenado, looking forward on these exec jets.

 

 

 

Kin M.

(Klax)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't have said it better. But the thing is, take a look at Carenado's Facebook page. Full of ###### who buy everything Carenado release.

 

Perhaps you tell me where I can get a nice Beechcraft 1900D for FSX then? If you suggest the PMDG B1900D I have it, and I think the Carenado one is WAY better (probably the only time you will ever hear me say that Carenado's product is better than PMDG's). Again Carenado makes aircraft that other developers do not dare to, so they are the market "guinea pig" if you will, if their product line is received well like their King Air series then it shows other developers where a market for an aircraft may lie. A2A looks at other companies sales, Milviz most certainly does this, and even PMDG takes this into consideration. If business jets from Carenado sell well enough it proves to others that there is a definitive market for them with ACTUAL SALES (which unlike polls and posts on forums and facebook pages actually has real value). So Carenado actually helps drive the FS community, they do not hinder it.


8414713730_2947d4201c_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If business jets from Carenado sell well enough it proves to others that there is a definitive market for them with ACTUAL SALES (which unlike polls and posts on forums and facebook pages actually has real value).

 

And how exactly would the other manufacturers know what their sales are? I doubt Carenado, or any other developer, will release sales info to other developers so the only way to try to estimate is but the number of people posting about the product.


Chris Magnus

HR Manager

Air Jamaica Virtual Airlines and Cargo (http://www.airjamaicavirtualairlinesandcargo.org)
YP7ieCq.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the majority of the GA fleet is not new.

 

Very seriously true... and a shame. Two working slobs like my Father and Brother were in the market in 1977 for something like the Grumman Tiger... A manageable 30,000 dollars off the show room floor.

 

You have to build it yourself to get close to that now a days.

 

 

We will have to agree to disagree on new aircraft for FSX. I don't think new AC have to be carbon copies of the real thing, or replicate their abilities with avionics. I'll be very happy with a developers economical simulation of such. Like I said in another thread, we should check our demands on devs with modern avionics like the G1000, Pro Line, and Primus Apex systems. Other wise, we'll be stuck with the same 1970's planes.

 

I believe most people who don't like glass/modern AC,  are so because of the limitations of their particular computers.   I get that. Not everyone can throw a couple grand at a desk top. 

 

I love aviation. AC of today is exciting and advanced in so many fabulous ways to what I grew up with.  Completely and utterly out of my price range however. For 60 bucks, I can at least have some idea of what those planes are like in my simulator.

 

Sorry for the long post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the perfect jet for Carenado to tackle. The Lockheed JetStar 731 is complex and yet its all steam gauge, and it has 4 engines B)

Oh now we're talking lol


 

Banner_FS2Crew_Instructor.jpg  Regards, Lee Lambert     :israel-flag:  :canada-flag:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my posts, nowhere did I say they were horrible or useless junk as I think they are one of the better publishers of FSX add-on's out there. I quite like the 337 and I fly it, the C90, and the Mirage quite a bit. My issue has always been why make something with a G1000 or an FMS and not model that properly, especially after putting in the effort to make it look gorgeous. That is my only issue.

 

 

 I was not specifically implying you, it was a general comment based on many of the posts I have seen on here in the past.

 

NERD FIGHT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe most people who don't like glass/modern AC,  are so because of the limitations of their particular computers.   I get that. Not everyone can throw a couple grand at a desk top. 

 

 

 

I have the F1 T182T which runs fine on my system.  The only reason I got it was that if I find myself current again sitting in front of a G1000, I would like to know how it works, such as accessing certain flight info or managing a flight plan on it,  

 

However I don't fly the T182T or many other glass planes except for the PMDG 777 now and then.  In the PMDG case, the automation makes up for not having a first officer B)    I find the steam gauges help keep my basic skills and instincts sharper by making me do the math in my head and not having the plane do it for me.   I think the steam/RXP combo the best of both worlds.  This might be simpler for developers since they don't have to 're-invent' the wheel so to speak.  To each their own tho, if you enjoy glass planes, more power to you :)

 

The G1000 is a fine piece of technology, with lots of safety features and automation.  This is great for the real world.  However, it is only great as long as it's operation doesn't erode basic flying skills and instincts.  As technology progresses, we hand over more skills and things we were doing in our head before to the 'computer'.  This is not a bad thing as long as the pilot can still easily perform those skills without computer aid.

 

Any competent pilot should be able to rent an old clunker 172 and comfortably navigate VFR simply with a sectional, heading indicator, and looking at the giant moving map that is outside the window.  Pilotage and dead reckoning are essential flying skills that should be instinctual for any pilot.  I wouldn't feel comfortable riding with a pilot who lacked those skills, nor would I want my loved ones flown by pilots lacking those skills and instincts.

 

There have been two incidents recently involving large jets landing at the wrong airport, despite being surrounded by technology that can provide multiple sources of info on where they should be.  What were those pilots doing?....Texting?   Pilot's make mistakes all the time, I sure did, but good pilots give themselves redundant sources of info that help verify the equipment's working and help prevent or catch user input errors.  This is basic skill and instinct too.

 

Technology is constantly going forward.  In 30 years the G1000 will probably be considered 'antique'.  Does this mean in 70-100 years, planes will be so automated that all the pilot has to do is press a big button marked 'GO'?  Are we even 'pilots' at that point?  Would the title 'pilot' be replaced by 'flight manager'?  You know this trend is going that way too, just look at the startup proceedure on the DA-42, which is an awesome plane....its like starting a car lol.  Want to do a run-up in the DA-42...just press a button, it checks everything for you.  

 

I love the DA-42 too, especially the new -VI version.  If I could buy any airplane, I would probably get that, especially when transporting loved ones, where safety is paramount.  Would I take a loved one up in an old airplane?  Of course, and I have.  However if I wanted to fly a loved one over the Rockies at night....i'll take all the safety gadgets too B)

 

I have got nothing against technology...I work in IT.  I happily enjoy using FS to learn the new gadgets as well as practice basic skills.   I will embrace new technology as long as I still get to think and act like a pilot.  I don't want to be called a flight manager.

 

lol sorry for the long reply, this is a subject of interest that I have been observing for a long time, not just in aviation.  

 

Cheers

TJ


"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Douglas Adams
war2.jpg
Tejon 'TJ' Stanley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Carenado criticised in recent years because they keep releasing the same type of aircraft over and over.... the Cherokee, the Archer, the Arrow. The F33, V35 and A36. The 172N, the 182Q, 182RG, 206G etc etc.

 

Now they moved on to pastures new and have started filling rather glaring gaps in the market (the King Airs being a good example) and will shortly start bringing us the much neglected biz jets the criticism is now that they don't do basic GA types any more.

 

How does the saying go? You can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

Any developer who sticks to making just one type or subset of aircraft - no matter how well - is eventually going to be self defeating.


Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Carenado criticised in recent years because they keep releasing the same type of aircraft over and over.... the Cherokee, the Archer, the Arrow. The F33, V35 and A36. The 172N, the 182Q, 182RG, 206G etc etc.

 

Now they moved on to pastures new and have started filling rather glaring gaps in the market (the King Airs being a good example) and will shortly start bringing us the much neglected biz jets the criticism is now that they don't do basic GA types any more.

 

How does the saying go? You can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

Any developer who sticks to making just one type or subset of aircraft - no matter how well - is eventually going to be self defeating.

 

The thing is, Carenado would do the general aviation aircraft and Alabeo would do the exotic aircraft. Now Carenado are doing the bizjets and Alabeo are doing the general aviation aircraft. Just check Alabeo's incomings, one Piper and two Cessna aircraft (though I'm excited about the C177B). I kind of preferred the previous approach, the vintage types were interesting.

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.


    2%
    $565.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...