Sign in to follow this  
ramprat

The FLC mode.

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I think the FLC mode is (incorrectly) modeled as an auto-throttle instead of a true FLC mode.  Anyone agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi all,

 

I think the FLC mode is (incorrectly) modeled as an auto-throttle instead of a true FLC mode.  Anyone agree?

 

Yep.

 

Carenado have done this in their last 3 aircraft that are supposed to have a FLC mode.   (they even put an auto-throttle in the Cirrus SR22 single piston!!).

 

It appears they can not or have not coded a custom gauge that can perform true FLC (adjusting aircraft pitch to maintain speed).

 

That's why I won't be buying this jet.   Just a little too far off the realism scale with things like FLC being fudged by using the default FSX autothrottle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one of many things I like about Carenado. They operate within the boundaries of what works in FSX, instead of attempting to include complex module add-ons that produce no end of hair-pulling glitches.

 

You install it, it works, period. That's increasingly rare out there as everyone gets more (perhaps over-) ambitious.

 

This FLC may not be "realistic," but it gives me a much more relaxing, enjoyable FSX experience.

 

I believe they have a separate line of products used for professional training, if you need that.

 

steve

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I believe they have a separate line of products used for professional training, if you need that.

 

Care to point me to where I can buy these "professional" Carenado products.

 

Thought not, as they do not exist.

 

In my opinion, if the real aircraft has a FLC mode then the simulated version should have one that works correctly.

Otherwise we may as well just fly the default aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

Carenado have done this in their last 3 aircraft that are supposed to have a FLC mode.   (they even put an auto-throttle in the Cirrus SR22 single piston!!).

 

It appears they can not or have not coded a custom gauge that can perform true FLC (adjusting aircraft pitch to maintain speed).

(...)

 

 

Yep, Dave!

 

FeelThere did the FLC, the VNAV and the Takeoff Configuration Test button in their Phenom. (And the FTh version doesn't have the pitot heat/Ctrl+H issue! :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to point me to where I can buy these "professional" Carenado products.

 

Thought not, as they do not exist.

 

In my opinion, if the real aircraft has a FLC mode then the simulated version should have one that works correctly.

Otherwise we may as well just fly the default aircraft.

Look up Redbird Simulations. With your snarky attitude..... I won't Google that for you. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Redbird Simulations

 

Don't see what link Carenado has to Redbird other than you can use Carenado aircraft with the product, but then you can do that with any addon.

I will say again, there are no "special professional" versions of the Carenado aircraft.

They are just a pretty set of flying textures with limited functionality.

 

If you think that Carenado are super realistic then go ahead and enjoy them, each to their own, but lets be honest here the Carenado Phenom is NOT simulating an Phenom 100 in any way that I can see.

The Phenom has a working FLC mode, the Carenado does not.

The Phenom has No Auto throttle, the Carenado does.

 

There is no Takeoff config button in the Carenado Phenom, even feelthere got this right years ago and they were honest enough to describe their offering as a Lite addon, the Carenado does not even have close to the functionality of the Feelthere version.

 

Looks prettier though, and that is enough for many folks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And 4 Gauge programmers at Eaglesoft can satisfy customers like you, no need to continue to snark here, for no good purpose, except maybe to turn the Carenado Unofficial Support Forum into the anti-Carenado Whiners Club, which is mostly what this place is at this point.  Much like the ORBX Unofficial Support Forum (ORBX seems to be doing fine on their own, apparently.....).

 

If you really think that -- of the 788 pages of the Embraer Prodigy Manual -- the Phenom 100 is ruined for you because one page, p.459, -- which doesn't even explicitly state that the FLC controls pitch, not airspeed [guess what? someone on the internet might be wrong! shock horror] -- while a substantial portion of the rest of those 788 pages is indeed modeled, quite well in fact -- well then go elsewhere, it's that simple. 

 

Don't like the programming? Change the channel.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who cares to get back to the opening post and read it again?!? (This is Bill's topic, after all.)

 

@ Bill in Colorado:

I agree with you.   B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I agree with the OP. FLC is modelled incorrectly as an autothrottle. I was a sucker and bought this piece of crap. If you want to charge $40 then give me an accurate model or at least tell me what I am getting before I buy. Carenado did neither. This is the first "complex" aircraft I have purchased from them and it will be the last aircraft I buy from them period. Lesson learned the hard way. Anyone want to buy my license for a discount?

 

Fleetingthought - Carenado makes addons for the RedBird Jay. That's it. In their full motion sims used for real world training, RedBird uses proprietary flight models. So, no, they do not have a "professional line."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


well then go elsewhere, it's that simple.

 

I already did, I use the Flight1 Mustang which is light years better than the Carenado Phenom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I wish Flight 1 would release the Mustang for P3D.

 

Same here, Flight1 are getting badly left behind now that P3D 2.2 is out. Shame because they were a great publisher but life goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This FLC may not be "realistic," 

 

Why model something if you're not going to do it properly? It is not even in the spirit of what FLC is supposed to do.

 

I'm not being "snarky", I'm simply asking a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might be able to issue a refund.... That's the route I'd go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Don't like the programming? Change the channel.

 

What if I've enjoyed the station's programming for some time, but I'm not happy with some of the newer shows?  How 'bout lobbying the station for better programming and if that doesn't work THEN, yes.  Vote with my $$ and change the channel.

 

I'm a GA guy in the sim and RW (though not currently active) and have 7 Carenado planes.  I like all of them, and several of them are actually amongst my favorites.  I'm not one of those who simply dismiss Carenado as just a pretty face, as some of their planes rise well above this.  But I am a past Carenado customer who's having a hard time being a current one.  I truly appreciate the discussions here (including your contributions, Steve, as I mentioned in commenting on your review) as I try to evaluate whether this particular plane meets my expectations, and I'm not sure why these discussions bother you so much.

 

My base level requirement for add-on planes is simple.  Sure I'd prefer everything to be as true to life and detailed as possible, but I can easily enjoy a plane that lacks the n'th level of detail if one basic criterion is met - can I fundamentally fly the plane as it would be flown in real life?  Not to the last detail, but fundamentally.  I can do that with planes like the 337, the 210, the A36, the V35B, the Malibu Mirage and even the C90 and JetProp, despite things that aren't perfect.

 

The issue for most of us isn't whether or not Carenado rises to PMDG standards for systems.  That's a strawman as most of us know that's not their strength and isn't going to happen.  The issue is whether a given Carenado release (in this case the Phenom) meets our own personal standards for the price asked.  To my mind, the things being discussed aren't nits for a plane of this type - they're fundamentals, as the base line changes as the complexity of the plane modeled increases - and they're things that others in this price class are doing.  People aren't asking for sophisticated failure modes and systems wear simulation, maintenance hangars or the like.  They're asking for things like engine controls and basic autopilot modes to function as they should.  Though I understand these things aren't always easy to implement, they're still pretty basic for a plane of this class.

 

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my impression has consistently been that Carenado does listen, does what they consider reasonable in response to bug reports or requests for more "accurate" systems, so I have no question about their being responsive.

 

What is the discussion here for at this point?  Are you curious about getting me to persuade you to like the Phenom more than you do, despite what you consider its fundamental failings?  Is it to persuade me that these failings are fundamental and thus I should not have purchased the aircraft and must not enjoy it?

 

If neither of the above, the argument is pointless, and fruitless.  I had a lot more fun flying the Phenom at night, through REX clouds over ORBX NCA San Francisco scenery, with all the incredible lighting, sounds, the feel of the cockpit and the instrumentation, the coherent and smooth LOOK and FEEL of it all, at a great frame rate with lots of my FSX options turned up pretty high... than I would have had continuing to try to argue you and others here into considering something interesting that you obviously don't consider interesting.

 

Feel free to continue to judge Carenado's efforts based on your standards, and I -- and many others, quite clearly, just not on Avsim -- will judge them based on mine.

 

If you're interested in lobbying Carenado to develop a pitch-based FLC in the Phenom and you know or think that this is just a little software bagatelle that they're just carelessly ignoring because they hate Garmin and Phenom pilots, and could implement easily with one hand while smoking the best Oregon weed while guzzling spiced rum, by all means write them and tell them so!

 

Continuing to argue here about it may be a form of entertainment for you and others, it's ceased to be so for me (mostly, although I will take any opportunity I can get to wrangle words to my twisted intentions, just for the hell of it, so watch out!). :nerd:

 

One last point, from my perspective: I judge an add-on by basically, how involved I feel in the experience, how distinct it's proven to be, whether it ended up being enjoyable, or a fist-fight between me and dll.xml and fsx.cfg and aircraft.cfg just to get the damn thing working and the engines running.  The thing I really like about Carenado aircraft is they give me enough realism and detail across the board -- install, graphics, modeling, sound, performance, systems -- all in good balance -- to provide a coherent, smooth experience. Period.  Thus, I enjoy them.  I go to bed at night with visions of the cloudy night skies over the Bay Area in my heavy, small jet, swirling in my mind's eye.

 

I don't go to bed wondering whether or not I remembered to hit the TO/GA switch upon takeoff, or whether the proper click was there.  I may be OCD about some things, but since I'm not a real-world pilot, I'm not, about that.

 

I can get frustrated there are only 61 keys on a synthesizer keyboard instead of the 88 "there are supposed to be" because it's sort of like a piano, but not really.  Or, I can notice there are knobs on the synthesizer, and none on the piano.  It's all a matter of choice, expectation, what you want, or don't want.

 

If having a wrong auto-throttle FLC (IF that's what it is, I'm still not convinced, nor does it matter... to ME), or FADEC, since the little gauges for the engine temps go bouncy red on the max takeoff setting, kills the Phenom for you, my condolences, and move on.

 

I hated the first time I saw the premiere of Outland (starring Sean Connery) because we arrived to the theatre late, had to sit in the front row and all I could see was his nose hairs, 8 feet long, right over my head, in the first scenes.  It made watching the movie more difficult. I watched it again years later, on DVD, from a better distance and it was a lot more fun, and engrossing, instead of just gross (great movie, btw, and still relevant).

 

So, I understand. :lol:

 

Good night, and have a better day tomorrow! :)


Why model something if you're not going to do it properly? It is not even in the spirit of what FLC is supposed to do.
 
I'm not being "snarky", I'm simply asking a question.


Ask Picasso:

https://www.google.com/search?q=picasso+nude&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BlJDU8q-PJbJsQSV7oGQBQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1333&bih=737&dpr=1#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=jRbP7Lu6ZkCeAM%253A%3Bs9b0DuOetpET1M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.tate.org.uk%252Fart%252Fimages%252Fwork%252FN%252FN06%252FN06205_10.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.tate.org.uk%252Fart%252Fartworks%252Fpicasso-nude-woman-with-necklace-t03670%3B1128%3B1536

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're comparing Carenado to Picasso?
 
I'm baffled on how to respond to this so I think I'll quit before this thread goes any further pear shaped and go fly the Mustang up to FL320 using the working FLC and call it a day :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all just a question of what you consider a proper model, is what I'm sayin', Stiggie, and a good night to you as well. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one of many things I like about Carenado. They operate within the boundaries of what works in FSX, instead of attempting to include complex module add-ons that produce no end of hair-pulling glitches.

 

If you're saying that all add-ons, developments and releases for FSX / P3D, etc should stay within the confines of default gauges and systems, I think you'd be in the minority by quite a number.  

 

Imagine;  the PMDG with a default FSX autopilot and no custom systems above the default FSX 738...........

 

99% of custom gauges don't cause any issues - they just work.    I can't think of a single aircraft add-on for FSX that uses a custom FLC gauge that exhibits problems with it....... (examples being;  all PMDG, Level D, Flight 1 Citation Mustang, King Air, T182 and others Most Eaglejet Biz Jets, etc, etc, etc).

 

Aircraft that have a FLC mode use it as a key part of the climb flight regime.... every modern airliner climbs in FLC mode; using IAS as reference, not VS.  (Even if under VNAV calculation, they're still using FLCH).

 

.......but each to their own I guess.    I personally would have left FS alone a long time, were we given products that don't go beyond the default FS gauges.

 

Incidentally (and honestly), it's definitely you that's coming across as 'snarky' on this thread...  just saying :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, appreciate the additions aircraft offer via .dlls for various things, be it A2A's work, PMDG's or, best of all, VRSimulations'. Or all the other smaller efforts, from Coolsky's DC-9 to the load manager interfaces for various aircraft. Or, of course, Majestic's Q400.

 

Two points, though: 1. Sometimes I just want to get into a plane and fly, no heavy procedures involved, it's the end of a long day, I'm tired, and don't want to wrestle mentally or physically. What I said is, this is one of the many things I like about Carenado's fleet; they are "just get in and fly" planes, as Nemeth's choppers are mostly just get in and fly choppers.

 

That, for me, is my main pleasure at this point in FSX.

 

I also engage in the deeper processes of the other aircraft mentioned above, but they require a desire on my part to get involved with a lot that has to do with systems more than flying.

 

I can enjoy that, too, if I remembered everything in the flight planning and programming and procedures and did it all correctly, I can hit TO/GA, climb to cruise and level off at the push of a few buttons, put the joystick away, go get a beer and watch the pretty clouds and scenery go by, just like Game of Thrones. :)

 

And then hit APPR and land and call it a day.

 

Each is a different experience, and I think the people on this thread critical of Carenado are needlessly looking for the latter from them, when what they provide is the former, with a few extra odd details like their FLC or whatever, to fiddle with and get some flavor of systems automation, even if not 100% complete and realistic.

 

They concentrate their efforts elsewhere, quite well, and those are completely ignored in these conversations, for the sake of mourning the fact that the apple is not an orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And 4 Gauge programmers at Eaglesoft can satisfy customers like you.....

Thought, the OP considers a feature which is either missing or not well done as a disappointment. Others here express the exact same expectations.

 

Your expectations appear to be simpler and focused on visuals.

Nothing new here as many in this hobby lean toward the OPs position while there remain those who lean your way.

 

It remains to be seen whether the "visuals" crowd bend the market more than the "systems" crowd. We hope to provide both... B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of doubt the visuals market will win, it's more likely - as my past experiences in other contexts have proven to me - that the size of the market willing to get past Twitter-level attention spans to really dig in to complex systems simulations will remain small. Unfortunately.

 

I'm sure your CII 3.0 will be spectacular; I look forward to it.

 

Meanwhile, it's also possible to enjoy simpler things, too, which is all my already weary (and probably wearisome) attendance upon this subject has been attempting to convey. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the visuals vs systems discussions will continue...the market will demand both going forward.

We too are looking forward to the 3.0 series as progress. B)

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