The FLC mode.

[ryanbatc 12,813]

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

[tttocs 301]

 

 

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

[BilboBaggins 82]

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

[SirStiggie 63]

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

[BilboBaggins 82]

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.

[Q_flyer 766]

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:

[BilboBaggins 82]

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.

[N400QW 205]

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)

[BilboBaggins 82]

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.

[N400QW 205]

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)

[LeeL 272]

The Feelthere version is $5 cheaper too, the result of Carenado raising prices for the same level of work and us consumers still buying

 

I don't own either of them, so I'm just the bystander

[tttocs 301]

 

 

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.

 

Steve, I'm not trying to convince you of anything (and I'm certainly not trying to suggest you shouldn't enjoy the plane - anything but).  You joined the OP's discussion and have made certain arguments, disagreeing with the OP and others who believe this is a problem.  I, and others, have offered a differing viewpoint, not expecting to convince you but to present another side to others following or participating in the discussion.  That's kinda how this is supposed to work, isn't it?

 

If you believe the discussion (I don't consider it an argument, at least not at this point) is pointless and fruitless then why participate?  If you do participate, as you have, it would be reasonable to expect that others will continue to do so as well, don't you think?

 

 

 

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.

 

Why?  I could make a similar statement to you - if you're happy and enjoying the plane, then my congratulations, and move on.  But that might be considered "snarky" of me, couldn't it?  ^_^   The fact is, I respect your opinion, though I'm not sure you do mine.  Which is a very different thing from whether we agree with each other.

 

 

 

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.

 

And similarly, part of what I'm trying to convey is that system accuracy in these basic areas and your "I just want to fly" don't conflict.  In fact, the whole point behind FADEC in particular is to remove engine management from the pilot, leaving you with a far simpler task - "just fly".

 

I wonder if you've ever flown the F1 Mustang?  As others have mentioned, it's not so much systems deep as it is systems correct in terms of what's modeled, and as an accurate model of the real thing is very much a "just fly" kind of plane, especially if that's how you want treat it.  Why?  Because like the Phenom, the RW plane is designed to be this way - to allow a single pilot to fly a fast and capable plane - so an accurate model reflects this. 

 

And please... Consider this in the spirit it's offered and don't tell me to "just go fly the Mustang".  I do.  As a GA guy, it's the only jet I own, but in RW terms I like the Phenom better.  A little faster, a little more range, a bigger cabin.

 

Shoot - at this point if I thought Carenado would listen and fix these couple of things, I'd buy the plane just to be able to submit FADEC and the AP as issues and get them fixed.  I'd live with the 1000 issues and sub in an RXP 530 popup.

 

Scott

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

I'm equally in a quandary here.. the Phenom looks sexy, and I can envision enjoying the

feeling of sitting in the cockpit and figuring out where the switches are..

 

But, I equally dread the discovery of basic interactions with the G1000 being incorrectly

modeled or key systems like FADEC, or the autopilot lacking functionality..

 

The C90, B200, and B1900 are all a joy to fly (with some minor updates), but the TBM

is borderline IMHO..

 

I've now got the TBM to the point where it works, kind of, but not really sure I have the energy

to dive into yet another unfinished "masterpiece"..

 

I guess I am going to pass.

[fs4fun 366]

 

 

I guess I am going to pass.

 

Me too, for now. Not simulating the FADEC or autopilot modes is a showstopper for me, I'll stick with the FeelThere version which has its own issues but at least models the Phenom's systems to a satisfactory degree (for me anyway). I could have lived with the lite G1000 provided the clickspots work (not all of them did in the T182T for example).

 

I'll keep watching the service packs with interest though, maybe Carenado will surprise us.  ^_^

[BilboBaggins 82]

Scott,

 

Of course I respect your opinion, along with everyone else's here, sorry if I've created any impression otherwise.

 

It's clear for this genre of add-on there are explicit expectations from people here that haven't been met.  That's Carenado's issue, not mine, all I was interested in was sharing my enjoyment and enthusiasm for what I found, and I think I've done that, and then some, and will just fade into the background at this point.

 

Apologies if I've offended anyone here, and here's to enjoying all of it.

 

Trundled my A2A Spitfire out of my hangar this evening, I continue to be amazed at everything A2A does.  The core Accusim update has brought even more life even to their older aircraft -- which are, basically, timeless in design, will last as long as FSX/P3D do and remain competitive in areas of realism and feel with anything to come.  So, I enjoy that, too.

 

Thanks all for listening and again, goodnight.