Sign in to follow this  
FLIGHTO

Bug / Correction List

Recommended Posts

After a weekend of flying this aircraft I have developed a list of items that are erroneous and need to be addressed by Carenado.

 

1) FPS - This thing is near unusable on the ground with add-on scenery and in weather intensive areas. Even on ground with default scenery I am getting less than TBM frames. At some airport with REX real time weather I am getting 4-7 fps. It almost seems like there may be a coding issue as my graphics card is at idle temps (55 degrees c) when I'm getting these low frame rates and at altitudes when I am getting good frame rates with less scenery rendering, the card is pushing 80 degrees c. I don't get this with the TBM.

 

2) No "TO/GA" switch on throttle lever - not modeled.

 

3) No "TO CONFIG" switch on console - not modeled.

 

4) "STALL" annunciator does nothing.

 

5) "FIRE" annunciator not modeled?

 

6) No sound / chimes with "BELT/OUTLET" switch enabled.

 

7) GPU is inop - Battery will continue to drain with this enabled.

 

8) "ELEC EMER" button does not function.

 

9) When using keyboard to lower flaps (F7) I get, 10-26-27-36 degrees. There should only be 3 positions.

 

10) AP "SPD SEL" knob way to slow. Takes long time to set IAS from 0 to 200 for example.

 

11) No FADEC - throttle detents are useless. "ENG SET" page "ATR ON" "CON" "CLB"  does not seems to do anything. Only way to get near book cruise performance it to get the throttle up near the "MAX" detent or roughly 94% N1 where the fuel flow is a little high.

 

12) "FLC" does not function properly. It is supposed to control pitch to maintain a pre-set IAS or mach number, however this implementation only adjusts thrust to maintain the preset IAS reguardless of vertical speed. This is completely wrong as the real aircraft does not have auto-throttles and the only way it could control speed is with pitch.

 

13) Trip planning page is still screwed up - This is my 4rth Carendo G1000 purchase and it is clear now that they are completely ignoring this. The fuel stats are all wrong. Nothing reflect actual onboard fuel or flight plan. Bert fixed this on the TBM.

 

ISSUE: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412515-fuel-rem-mfd-aux-page/

FIX:  http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412817-flight-planning-page-on-the-mfd/

 

14) MFD freezing on map page after approach is loaded. This is sporadic may has happened 3 times on me. For example: After loading approach, If I am on map and I want to go to weather radar page, I cant. I turn the knobs but MFD doesnt move off the map page. It also froze on the APR pop up once after pressing "APR" button. 

 

15) "EFFECTS" switch on the over head panel does nothing.

 

16) When opening the (rear) baggage door the "STATUS" page under "SYSTEM" shows this as the EMERGENCY EXIST open. You actually have to press Shift+E+4 for the "STATUS" page display to show the aft baggage door as open. 

 

17) When looking through the sound files for this aircraft, I noticed it has a "MINIMUMS" alert but it does not seem to work in the sim when reaching the set minimum baro altitude.

 

 

Share this post


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

Just something small to add to the existing list:

 

CSC (Current Speed Control) - not implemented....easily added. This is the closest thing the real Phenom has to autothrottle (via FADEC).

 

CSC will vary the power (within a narrow band) to hold the present cruise speed (as long as altitude hold (ALT) is engaged).

 

 

Why not simply use the CSC button as an autothrottle/IAS hold which, when turned on, will lock to the present indicated speed? Once CSC is engaged, you cannot change the target airspeed...or at least it ignores the speed bug.

 

From the Prodigy Manual:

 

"The Airspeed Reference Bug can be set at all times (to be used as a visual reference) except when CSC is engaged. In CSC mode the Airspeed Reference Bug is fixed and set at the airspeed existing at the time of CSC engagement. While the bug can be set during these modes it is only being controlled when in FLC mode, when CSC is engaged, etc" - G1000 Prodigy Manual Page 460

 

 

Cheers,

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No V1,r,2/Vref tables listed in the manuals that I could find. Found them online, but how could this be left out when the option is right there in the G1000 to enter them?.

 

I haven't been able or willing to do a complete flight yet because you can not enter a flight plan in on the MFD or GCU 475. Neither "ENT" buttons work on my installation. Tried reinstalling, disabling reflections as stated in the accompanying file. Nothing works. Can only enter data through the PFD.

 

EDIT: After the 2.2 update applied today, the "ENT" buttons appear to be working properly. I was also having issues with the "Cold and Dark" and "Ready to Taxi" buttons. Those are functioning now also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was having similar issues re: buttons (Battery, in this case) not working with A2A C172 in P3DV2.1. 2.2 seems to have cleared it up (I should probably review the .cfg and .xml files, to be sure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what Carenados response is to the above list in the first post. I didn't expect FADEC to begin with so I am no to surprised. I do have to say, on every release that I submit a ticket on, they do get back to me promptly.. Thumbs up for customer service..

 

Greetings,
Let me go one by one,

1) We have reports from some clients regarding this issue, but we haven't found yet what may be causing low FPS in some machines.

 

2) For the number from 2 to 8 and 15 we didn't modeled those on purpose, we consider those functions are not usable and are not detrimental to the enjoyment of the product. Considering some of them will not have the possibility to actually have a "purpose" due to simulator limitations.

 

9) The flap settings in this plane are 0-10-26-26-36, but since the simulator does not permit two points of flaps with the same angle we set them to 10-26-27-36

 

10) Thanks for that input, we'll evaluate to correct it in the service pack.

11) The throttle detention are not working, but we tried to set the lever as close we can to the actual throttle setting for each detent.

 

12) Simulator does not permit control the speed by changing the pitch, so we set the FLC to maintain speed by changing the throttle.

 

13) Thanks for that input, we'll evaluate to correct it in the service pack, unfortunately the link you sent are not working.

 

17) The minimums work using RA MIN not BARO MIN

For the rest of the issues and bug you sent, we'll work on those and try to have all ready for the service pack.

 

We really appreciate the time you've dedicated to make this bug list, emails like yours reinforce our commitment to giving our best in order to create the best aircraft for simmers to enjoy. We will continue striving towards pushing the boundaries of what is possible with Carenado simulations.

 

Best regards.

Carenado Support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

I love the way Sibwings' AN-2 models overheating and fire emergencies spectacularly - as does Aerosoft's Twin Otter Extended - but this isn't the kind of stuff Carenado has ever done or will do, so no reason to get excited about that at every new release.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When they say "Simulator limitations" they mean SDK limitations.

Good developers work around SDK limitations, and in doing so advance the hobby.

All this developer does is put pretty textures around default functionality and with their response above we can forget about any realism with this Phenom and that is a real shame.

Because it really does look great and I would love to buy it if only it functioned correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all developers can do that.  Plus there are pitfalls.

 

Milviz' wonderful F15E, which I consider a significant step up in realism over the IRIS/Metal2Mesh effort (although the latter probably gets the UFC more correctly, in terms of button functionality -- the Milviz takes some useful shortcuts to make a few steps easier.... also the JFS system doesn't auto-shutdown the way it's supposed to after engine start ..... see? anyone can play this game! <g>), is clobbered now both by its incompatibility with Windows 8.1 and its non-functionality in Prepar3D (plus in the latter case there are probably licensing issues anyways).

 

The more specialized you get, the more narrowly you lock yourself in.  I've seen this time and time again, and not just in years of flight simulation.

 

It's a balancing act; and we should have more respect for all the developers involved with creating add-ons, regardless of where they put their focus.  Be the last to judge, not the first, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every developer is obliged to work around every FSX limitation.

 

But Carenado's answer is a bit disappointing to me, considering the fact that there's been the other Phenom 100 around for quite some time. And despite Feelthere tagging their product as 'light', it offers some features outside the SDK, where the Carenado version doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen the "map freeze", but it was not actually frozen. Use of the knob did not advance the pages. I had to click the ring area or hover over a different knob and return and then it worked again. It was like the mouse input on the knob wasn't being recognized.

 

This happens frequently with the knobs. Kind of a hassle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have the same problem as described by woodx.  The FMS knobs seem to be intermittent in that sometime the pages advance and sometimes they don't.  The knobs turn ok.  Gets irritating trying to advance to another page and have to waste time trying to get the thing to work.  At least it's not just me.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand all the points of view, yet I remain disappointed that the basic functionality of the aircraft has been purposefully omitted because it's outside of their scope or knowledge.

 

Sure it's what we expect of Carenado, as they have shown their true colours before; history repeating itself.

 

And yet to say that it's acceptable is undermining the entire philosophy of Carenado themselves moving up the development ladder; they started with single GA types, moved onto more complex models, moved into turbine singles and then twins. Now it's jets.

 

So why bother modelling the wings, static wicks, pitot heads etc, because fundamentally these items are superfluous in the sim - you could design a box or a brick, and still bestow it with splendid aerodynamic properties. And yet this is what you do best, the eye candy, the detail, the meticulous attention to detail, so why leave out the minor allegedly inconsequential facets of the design, especially when they are the hallmark of the manufacturer you are taking care to precisely model from scratch?

 

Carenado models are full of the sort of eye candy that is entirely and deliciously mouthwatering, but to not balance the equation by completing the models a touch more than they generally do is, frankly, shocking.

 

Why not put the finishing touches on your products? Why leave things nearly finished? Have you no pride, as I think you probably do?

 

To say that the simulator itself, specifically the product that carries your business and our interests, cannot handle the complexities of the systems that we, the users, seek, is astoundingly shallow.

 

As has been said. The feelThere Phenom manages it quite well, as do countless other aircraft add-ons; FLC for instance is quite possible. And to say that such a simple thing as a WAV file played in time with the pax-signs switch or take-off config isn't worth it for the sake of our immersion is ludicrous. It is this level of immersion that actually we seek; actually I'd even venture that an item such as the T/O Config button is superficial, whereas seminal products and deeply simulated system depths come from the likes of Majestic and PMDG, and many others.

 

Now, Carenado have not said that they won't, just that they haven't for the reasons given.

 

Let's hope that they choose to please their customers and loyal fans. To not do so is like saying that we the customers are not worth their time. If this is the case, then it's all a sham and a mockery.

 

Henry Ford said that the customer can have it any colour they like, as long as it's black. Please don't subscribe to this ideology, Carenado; instead, place us higher on your list of priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok guys ... I dont know the aircraft factory, then I ask you!!..... we will update for the phenom 100??

 

will fix all bugs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have the same problem as described by woodx.  The FMS knobs seem to be intermittent in that sometime the pages advance and sometimes they don't.  The knobs turn ok.  Gets irritating trying to advance to another page and have to waste time trying to get the thing to work.  At least it's not just me.

 

Jim

 

I've realised that the FMS knobs are best articulated using the TOPS of the knobs.

 

So, you have the larger (outer) knob and the smaller (inner, higher) knob. Rather than just mousing over the knob to get a rotation, you need to carefully place your cursor, basically on the top of the knobs.

 

So, with the outer knob, do not try and rotate using the knurled side of the knob but the top of the outer knob, between the knurled side surface of the outer knob and knurled side surface of the inner knob.

 

After doing this I noticed that every time, turning the knob would work. Although it works, it does make it far harder to adjust on the fly.

 

Some issues I had:

  1. I couldn't figure out how to get the GCU control unit (the keyboard/keypad) to work with typing in waypoints. Not sure if it's just me.
  2. I couldn't get the weather radar to show, the radar cone was completely black even though there was some clouds, only flew 1 flight so will keep testing.
  3. Can confirm GPU does not work
  4. Can confirm FLC does not work as specified (I just don't use speed select anymore, I'll manually adjust VS indicator rather than use the set speed.
  5. Couldn't find any of the gust or rudder locks as mentioned in the Normal Procedures checklist
  6. Most of the other comments above apply.

Furthermore some other comments:

 

  1. Could get moving during taxi using about 37% N1. Could keep a steady 12-15 knots groundspeed using about 33% N1. Not sure why people keep saying 70%/50% N1, maybe above MTO or using non default ground friction?
  2. For some reason halfway through my flight, without any waypoints nearby that I know of (filed a direct GPS flight plan in ASN beta and loaded that in P3D v2.2), the plane decided to start banking in a level tight spiral at about 50-60 degrees bank. Had to shut off autopilot to keep from falling out of the sky and get her back on track. (!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By turning off the center display unit (upper right corner; screw) and waiting rougly five seconds my frame rate went from 10FPS to 30FPS.

 

I'm having problems with the a/c banking to the left during T/O and the plane constantly pitching up unless the throttle is at idle -- anyone else? Tried recalibrating my controls and testing with other a/c but it's only happening on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand all the points of view, yet I remain disappointed that the basic functionality of the aircraft has been purposefully omitted because it's outside of their scope or knowledge.

 

Sure it's what we expect of Carenado, as they have shown their true colours before; history repeating itself.

 

And yet to say that it's acceptable is undermining the entire philosophy of Carenado themselves moving up the development ladder; they started with single GA types, moved onto more complex models, moved into turbine singles and then twins. Now it's jets.

 

So why bother modelling the wings, static wicks, pitot heads etc, because fundamentally these items are superfluous in the sim - you could design a box or a brick, and still bestow it with splendid aerodynamic properties. And yet this is what you do best, the eye candy, the detail, the meticulous attention to detail, so why leave out the minor allegedly inconsequential facets of the design, especially when they are the hallmark of the manufacturer you are taking care to precisely model from scratch?

 

Carenado models are full of the sort of eye candy that is entirely and deliciously mouthwatering, but to not balance the equation by completing the models a touch more than they generally do is, frankly, shocking.

 

Why not put the finishing touches on your products? Why leave things nearly finished? Have you no pride, as I think you probably do?

 

To say that the simulator itself, specifically the product that carries your business and our interests, cannot handle the complexities of the systems that we, the users, seek, is astoundingly shallow.

 

As has been said. The feelThere Phenom manages it quite well, as do countless other aircraft add-ons; FLC for instance is quite possible. And to say that such a simple thing as a WAV file played in time with the pax-signs switch or take-off config isn't worth it for the sake of our immersion is ludicrous. It is this level of immersion that actually we seek; actually I'd even venture that an item such as the T/O Config button is superficial, whereas seminal products and deeply simulated system depths come from the likes of Majestic and PMDG, and many others.

 

Now, Carenado have not said that they won't, just that they haven't for the reasons given.

 

Let's hope that they choose to please their customers and loyal fans. To not do so is like saying that we the customers are not worth their time. If this is the case, then it's all a sham and a mockery.

 

Henry Ford said that the customer can have it any colour they like, as long as it's black. Please don't subscribe to this ideology, Carenado; instead, place us higher on your list of priorities.

 

Well said, and you are exactly correct. Let's take this to the next conclusion which has been mentioned many times before. Carenado's substandard modeling was fun and quirky back when their models were cheap. But they aren't cheap any longer. Flooding the market with these models drives other more competent developers away because they don't want market saturation of any particular model. You can largely thank the fan boys for that who are willing to excuse any and all shortcomings in a model simply because it takes a good screenshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

There are a few buttons on the AP that have been modelled in 3D, but they do not work as they cannot be depressed, and there is no associated function to work anyway.

The T/O Config button is entirely missing, so it has been forgotten or missed. That's sloppy, because they would ordinarily model the button but make it inoperable, as in the AP panel.

To not create a ding-dong WAV file for the pax signs is beyond me, it's such an easy win, unless the real Phenom pax signs switch is quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand all the points of view, yet I remain disappointed that the basic functionality of the aircraft has been purposefully omitted because it's outside of their scope or knowledge.

 

Sure it's what we expect of Carenado, as they have shown their true colours before; history repeating itself.

 

And yet to say that it's acceptable is undermining the entire philosophy of Carenado themselves moving up the development ladder; they started with single GA types, moved onto more complex models, moved into turbine singles and then twins. Now it's jets.

 

So why bother modelling the wings, static wicks, pitot heads etc, because fundamentally these items are superfluous in the sim - you could design a box or a brick, and still bestow it with splendid aerodynamic properties. And yet this is what you do best, the eye candy, the detail, the meticulous attention to detail, so why leave out the minor allegedly inconsequential facets of the design, especially when they are the hallmark of the manufacturer you are taking care to precisely model from scratch?

 

Carenado models are full of the sort of eye candy that is entirely and deliciously mouthwatering, but to not balance the equation by completing the models a touch more than they generally do is, frankly, shocking.

 

Why not put the finishing touches on your products? Why leave things nearly finished? Have you no pride, as I think you probably do?

 

To say that the simulator itself, specifically the product that carries your business and our interests, cannot handle the complexities of the systems that we, the users, seek, is astoundingly shallow.

 

As has been said. The feelThere Phenom manages it quite well, as do countless other aircraft add-ons; FLC for instance is quite possible. And to say that such a simple thing as a WAV file played in time with the pax-signs switch or take-off config isn't worth it for the sake of our immersion is ludicrous. It is this level of immersion that actually we seek; actually I'd even venture that an item such as the T/O Config button is superficial, whereas seminal products and deeply simulated system depths come from the likes of Majestic and PMDG, and many others.

 

Now, Carenado have not said that they won't, just that they haven't for the reasons given.

 

Let's hope that they choose to please their customers and loyal fans. To not do so is like saying that we the customers are not worth their time. If this is the case, then it's all a sham and a mockery.

 

Henry Ford said that the customer can have it any colour they like, as long as it's black. Please don't subscribe to this ideology, Carenado; instead, place us higher on your list of priorities.

 

 

Finally!!! Someone who "gets it". And Bob650's comments are dead on the money as well. If you look at the bug list in this thread, many of the bugs are so obvious that one has to wonder if Carenado actually even pushed a switch in this thing before it was released. Par for the course and why I stopped buying Carenado some time back. I don't like rewarding developers who not only are too lazy to do what's advertised and has already been done (by THEM) in the past, but also have so little consideration for their customers that they tell US what is important (and in most cases are 180 degrees off course!). Really - the stall annunciator isn't important??? And the GPU surely isn't important because we all know that FSX's default battery lasts for many seconds before it kills your electrics (yes, yes, I know - FSUIPC can fix that -- so why are you paying Carenado $40 - you should be buying FSUIPC instead :(). But hey, Carenado knows best, don't they.

 

The OP even said they didn't expect them to model the FADEC. Why not?? That is a primary feature of any modern VLJ (and most other modern jet)! If you aren't going to cover the primary functions, why make it?? I will say one thing for it - for $40, you get a great screenshot model.

 

Anyway, nothing new here except Fabio and Bob650 do get it and it's good to see someone actually speak out on this. Hopefully it serves a warning to other would be buyers because until we get more Fabio's and Bob's, Carenado will continue to pump out not much more than expensive eye candy and good developers will steer clear of making very worthwhile projects, depriving us all of quality airplanes that are widely used. I can't wait to see the bug list on the Falcon. Now THAT should be impressive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I am enjoying this thread, but sad that it's at Carenado's expense.

And I too question the depth and intent of their release candidate checks.

If by chance Carenado are following this thread, then I say to them to please take note of the sentiments that are being expressed. We are your customers, and we are quite clearly telling you what we want, and what we don't want.

The future success of your Hawker and Pilatus are at stake, because if you cannot or will not address the issues that we have highlighted regarding the Phenom, then I am not sure that many will take up their purchase options on future Carenado products.

I am sure that Carenado have a voice, and I for one would welcome some comment, instead of the glossy FaceBook screening of upcoming products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been vocal about the poor level of system modeling in the Carenado Phenom.

 

But it seems there are a huge amount of simmers out there who simple do not care if an addon is accurate in regards to its operation. a lot do not seem to care that the Phenoms Fadec does not work or that its autoflight systems are pure fantasy.

Pretty graphics are enough, Push the throttle full forward, worrying about things like payload, trim, flap settings ect are boring and the aircraft flies anyway regardless so why bother setting it up correctly.

 

Carenado's core market is happy enough with some lovely textures wrapped around a default aircraft and they will fly around happily until the next make believe product rolls out from Carenado.

 

The real problem is when a lazy developer comes out with statements such as "FLC mode is not possible in FSX" when the honest answer was "We do not have the coding ability to model it, Sorry"

 

This is when you know without doubt that they not interested at all in improving their products, instead it's all about making the most amount of money with the minimum of effort.

 

But this was a developer who, back in the day with their C172 product was acually accused of using another devs airfile and passing it off as their own so why should we expect better from them..

 

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0901/carenado_story/carenado_copyright_allegations.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Fabio, I'm sorry to say several of us have been after them since before the Cessna 185. They don't read anything here, and they don't listen to the customer unfortunately. If you read back far enough, you'll see the same issues crop up on every release. Some even get fixed (not many), but then reappear in the next model. As long as they are selling airplanes, they don't have to care. That's the sad part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As they say, sad but true.

 

People, save yourselves some money and buy the FT Phenom; Just Flight were doing the boxed version for £5, not sure if they still are...

 

Darn, and I so wanted the Phenom to be better than it is, and I so wanted to replace my ageing Flight1 PC12...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As they say, sad but true.

 

People, save yourselves some money and buy the FT Phenom; Just Flight were doing the boxed version for £5, not sure if they still are...

 

Darn, and I so wanted the Phenom to be better than it is, and I so wanted to replace my ageing Flight1 PC12...

 

PCAviator has the FT model 49% off through tomorrow. Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PCAviator has the FT model 49% off through tomorrow. Link

Thank you for the heads-up Mr. thefsfempire.  I purchased the FT Phenom and found out what I have been missing.  Nice airplane.

And the FLC mode works correctly! 

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