A Plea to Carenado/Alabeo

[Guest BeaverDriver]

I have a plea for Carenado/Alabeo (yes, they are one and the same, at least at the top). Now I strongly suspect that the powers that be (Carenado/Alabeo - "C/A" from here on) don't read their own forums, so I may well end up emailing this to Carenado support, but here it is as an open "letter". This won't sit well with everyone, but I suspect strongly it will sit well with a majority of simmers who buy Carenado/Alabeo (C/A) products. So here goes.

 

Please, please go back to doing what you do well. This is steam driven, often older style, simpler GA aircraft! There is no disputing that your graphics are the best there are. I have yet to buy a C/A plane where I haven't been blown away by how good the product looks. I should know, I've worked in Aviation as a pilot and maintenance person for the past 47 years now (and am still in it). When I sit in a Cessna or Piper or Beechcraft airplane that we have in our hangar, regardless of model (up to and including the King Air), I am amazed at how accurate the graphics are in your models and how immersive they are when stacked up against the real thing. I don't think there are too many people out there that will dispute that.

 

There are a couple of advantages to going back to the more basic airplanes. First, there is less work to do. Yes, the graphics you pretty much have to do from scratch. The flight dynamics however, you can copy and modify from the base FSX aircraft. You don't need to reinvent the wheel there. Most light aircraft fly very similarly to each other. The 206 flies very similar to the 185, which flies similar to a very heavy 172 (twitchier and heavier at the same time, and you need to allow for a tail wheel undercarriage, but there are people who can help with that), and so on. Believe it or not, the standard FSX aircraft are extremely well done in terms of flight dynamics. In particular, the 172 and Beaver (of which I have RW time in - a LOT of RW time in the case of the Beaver) are almost dead on the money in terms of their FDE's. I sometimes think that the dynamics for the later aircraft you have done are over-engineered - trying to build in parameters that FSX simply can't replicate. The end result is aircraft that do not even come close to resembling the real thing, or are so quirky to fly that the fun is gone from them completely. If you used the KISS principle ("Keep It Simple, Stupid"), I think you'd be well served. Oh, and the 208 is like an overgrown 206 - very forgiving and flies like a big baby. So from an FDE standpoint, you have enough templates to do all kinds of airplanes, and with little extra coding for FDE's.

 

Secondly, with a bit of attention to some nagging details, your functionality could be the best out there as well. There just isn't a lot to code from one airplane to another when you're doing the GA type of machine. What you DO need to do is pay a lot more attention to things like backwards working switches, instruments that don't read correctly, and so forth. These are "bugs" that have been reported time and time and time again, but little is ever done to fix them. This is basically why I stopped buying your products because I already know before I get the airplane exactly what bugs are going to be in the machine, and know there is little chance of them being fixed. That is maddening as (insert expletive which I can't use here since Avsim treats us like children). I would think it would be a matter of pride that you would want to have as bug free a release as possible, but I guess since people buy your machines regardless, you don't really have to care. For me, I would feel embarrassed to not fix what bugs I could. The good thing is, once you have one full set of gauges done and working properly, it's a matter of adjusting the graphics and a few of the parameters for the particular aircraft and you're good to go. Again, you do not need to reinvent the wheel for those either. The key is to actually DO the adjustments and not just do a straight copy and "hope" that the needles sit where they should. In terms of "sophisticated" instruments, many, many of these older aircraft still use simple, hand-held GPS units similar to what you have in the 185 or (older) 206. They work and are easy to use. And they don't require a lot of coding compared with the newer, more complex glass instruments.

 

So, what kinds of airplanes am I talking about? The kinds you will find at your local airport, so you do have access to them. Aztecs (huge demand for those!), Navajo's, 310's, 421's, Apache, Comanche, Twin Comanche, Shrike Commander, Queen Air, Single Otter (that would be tougher due to the STOL flight characteristics, but if you modeled after the default Beaver, you'd be pretty close - I do have time in those so could help), and so on and so on. There is no shortage of material for you.

 

Now I know there are people who would like you to continue pursuing the biz jets and more sophisticated aircraft. And I would hate to stop anyone from pushing the envelope because otherwise they stagnate. I think though, in this case, it makes much better sense for you to slow things down a bit and get back to basics. Your larger, more sophisticated aircraft have not gone over well and are in danger of ruining your reputation. I see more and more posts about bugs, errors and omissions than ever before here, and fewer and fewer posts praising C/A aircraft. That's not good - for us or for you.

 

The bottom line is, if you did get back to the basic GA aircraft (listed above), and tended to the bugs and refined the the functionality of the gauges (not make them more sophisticated - just fixed the ones that don't work), you'd make a killing in this business. Your airplanes would outsell anything else out there by a country mile. That's not only good for you, but it's good for us. Please, at least think about this. I suspect it would be a win-win scenario.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Glenn

[Demious 23]

I think it can be a good thing to speak up when you think that's nesecary. Dont worry if there are people who dont share your opinion, every opinion may be expressed and I think you tell a very reasonable story, here. One thing I totaly agree with, I've been thinking about the same thing myself lately, Carenado should stick to the old-school aircrafts. They've proven themselves with a beautiful collection of classic aircrafts already and there are plenty more I would love to see happing from Carenado. The Grumman Goose, just to name one.

 

Good luck!

[Robk182 0]

wooow !! BeaverDriver ! those are a words of the words..... im agree with you !!!! im sure that like us there a millions that thinks the same..... a basic GA .... piper, cessna, beech.. .a queen air!! navajo... ! 402... analog old stile!! they have ambicius plans... jets etc... but come back to the basic and beautifull !! 

 

Redgars

Robert Bernard

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Agreed, it hit all the points we been grumbling about for years. Go back to making ga planes as all never buy bizjet.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

I have a plea - finish my Hawker no screenies in months

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

I don't think many will disagree with your opinion, and I really hope Carenado would read this. But apparently the bizjets are selling a lot so unfortunately I don't think they'll ever return to their roots.

[khiball 0]

I tend to agree, I fly mostly GA and mostly Carenado, since moving to FSX from FS9 I really miss the 421 Golden Eagle I am though really enjoying my latest purchase the Seneca V.

[Bob650 31]

Excellent post BeaverDriver, my sentiments exactly! There are so many GA planes yet to be done, there's a wealth of subject matter out there. I know this doesn't bother a lot of Carenado customers, but for me their glass panels are very lacking. Just because a panel looks like it has an advanced nav system doesn't mean it works like one. All of Carenado's glass to date is just window dressing for a default GPS. They can't do advanced programming, so stick with what they know, steam paneled GA aircraft. That is a realm they do very well.

 

I wish them all the luck with the Hawker but I'm highly skeptical they'll be able to pull it off judging by their track record. Having a Navigraph database in no way indicates a fully functioning navigational system. If they can pull it off I'll happily be a customer for that product. Short of that, stick with what you know.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

You've already recognized that Alabeo is part of Carenado; but if look closer at the products that the two respective names offer, Alabeo does exactly what you're making a case for here.  They make simpler planes that look nice.  I'm pretty sure Carenado recognizes that there's a market for both simple planes and complex (but still simple) planes and are trying to cater to both.

[Flying Penguin 44]

I'd agree with that.

 

There is definitely a sense that C/A have neither the resources nor the desire to do the work necessary to do complex aircraft well, at least in simpler aircraft they would stand a better chance of getting them somewhere in the general vicinity of right. If they took this suggestion onboard they could be worth buying again, as it stands they are pumping out aircraft that I just can't bring myself to buy because I can't get past their sloppy approach to their products.

[Patco Lch 1,466]

Fantastic post. Not being a pilot I wondered how close default planes come in flight dynamics. Not very I always assumed. But man! A PA31 Navajo and  a single round engine Otter! That would take me back to when I was six years old living in Bogata and my Dad would take me to meet the US Army Otter coming in from Panama. That bird was such a beauty. Beaver driver, did you fly in the Army by chance? The only thing I might add is if Crenando could bring the power plant behavior up to A2A level.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Thank you for your responses.

 

@Maarten - Yeah, a Goose is an outstanding idea! It's a little harder to find those, but they are around. Good idea. You make a good point as well - what I wrote is my opinion, not a hard and fast "demand". It is based on several things which I think have merit, but in no way am I trying to exclude those who might want more sophisticated aircraft. What concerns me with the latter is that while C/A are including more and more sophisticated instruments, the level of modeling in each isn't going up. That means more and more features are left out of the instrument. C/A makes it sound attractive by saying things like "aircraft 'x' comes equipped with an Avidyne system", but in fact, the "Avidyne" is just the default GPS (with possibly one or two added features) dressed up to look like an Avidyne ("Avidyne" is just one example). That's where I have the biggest problem. They aren't expanding their horizons and offering us more and more features. Instead, they are simply re-dressing what we've had for years to make it look (and sound) like we are getting more. If this level of programming is beyond them (and as Bob650 suggested, it sure seems to be), then let's get back to what they do best so people are led to believe they are getting something that is nothing more than window dressing in reality.

 

@Robert - YEAH, 402! I was trying to think of that one but I couldn't remember which model it was . Thanks!

 

@Richard - I think you are making a good point here (perhaps without knowing it). In fact, there's been nothing new on the Hawker or the 207 in quite a while now. In fact, since they announced the introduction of the Navigraph system. Now I'm speculating here, but my feeling is that C/A have got hung up on trying to implement the Navigraph system, and because C/A is in fact one outfit, that is holding up the works for both aircraft. All the effort may well be going into trying to get the Navigraph system working in the Hawker, leaving the other aircraft wanting. Therein lies the problem with dividing the resources between C & A, when both are the same people. Again, this is pure speculation on my part, but it is very atypical of either C or A to suddenly go "silent" on their projects. The one thing you can't accuse C/A of is a lack of updates. They are extremely good in that respect (better than most developers, IMO). Now, also as Bob650 warns, just because the Hawker does use the Navigraph system, does NOT in any way, shape or form mean that we will suddenly see C/A making functional advanced navigational systems or FMC's. All Navigraph is, is a different (and more complete) database of navaids. It is totally separate from the instruments that can make use of them.

 

@ChaoticBeauty - I hope you're wrong, but I suspect you are right, sadly.

 

@Khiball - The new Seneca would have been a welcome addition to my stable as well, except it has a very severely crippled glass cockpit. Thus my reason for wanting to get back to the steam systems, which C/A is very good at (minus the bugs that never seem to get addressed, but they are still better than the bugs contained in the glass machines).

 

@Bob650 - very good points on the navigational systems. If in each new release C/A were advancing in terms of functionality and one could see obvious improvement in their product line (besides re-dressing the default GPS), then I'd be more supportive of their endeavours. It is the fact that you see the same level of functionality (which is very low compared with the real thing) that makes me believe this level of programming is beyond them. They lose and we lose by that.

 

@Jim - at first glance you are correct. However, the Alabeo versions leave a little too much out (autopilot, any form of a GPS). The other points remain however - bugs in the system that never get fixed such as backwards switches, etc. You aren't wrong, but as I think we are seeing now, this dividing of labour between the same group working on both "sides" has encountered a serious log jam (likely with trying to implement the Navigraph system in the Hawker). The more sophisticated aircraft are much closer to being pure "window dressing" than are the pure GA aircraft in that so few systems, including the FDE's from what I've seen and read, work with any degree of accuracy that C/A are doing both themselves and us a disservice. Why not put your main efforts into what you do best and then in the background work on expanding your capabilities to a fuller degree? Then, once you (C/A) have mastered something more sophisticated (i.e. a mostly fully functioning 530 for example), then start including them in their projects. That would boost their reputation and we the customer would be getting much more bang for our buck.

 

@Vic - No, never flew in the Army. I worked as a bush pilot for many years in the Canadian north country. That's where I got almost all my time, which is divided up chiefly between the C180, 185, 206, Beaver, Otter and Aztec in various locations. I liked the Otter a lot, but my favourite was the Beaver, followed closely by the 185. It would be trickier for C/A to do the Otter I will admit. That wing really made it "interesting" when first getting on that airplane. Only airplane I ever flew where once airborne and you got the flaps up to "Climb" setting (which you had to use, as with the Beaver - flaps up and you don't climb at all!), you shoved the nose down and climbed in the level attitude. That took some getting used to, believe me .

By the by, I have sent my original post to Carenado via their support system so as to be sure they read this. I did not ask for a reply.

[kiki 89]

There are many companies in business world who wanted to do something else that what is the back bone of their success. Usually that leads to trouble. Is that what C/A is doing right now. I have purchased many of their products but after B1900 I am not so sure if I do that in the future.

 

BeaverDriver said it so well...

[Donmo 6]

Full agreement, 100%

 

Don

[Dumont 9]

Hello Glenn

100% agree.

 

 

João Alfredo