A Plea to Carenado/Alabeo

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

I REALLY miss the in-depth documentation. It indicates a lack of passion about their release.

 

They've never been good at documentation but the web (and some product offerings) have been filling that increasingly quite well.  POHs, flying guides, videos, articles. 

[MarioB 4]

They've never been good at documentation but the web (and some product offerings) have been filling that increasingly quite well.  POHs, flying guides, videos, articles. 

 

True enough; you get a lot from the web. But a customized documentation for the model you buy provides a nice touch to the package.

[tttocs 301]

 

 

True enough; you get a lot from the web. But a customized documentation for the model you buy provides a nice touch to the package.

 

If nothing else, a switch/control diagram would really, really help.  I remember how frustrated I was with their first KA release (the C90) due to this very issue.  I found great information online for procedures and checklists, but spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to figure out where all the referenced switches were to run my checklists.

 

Scott

[MarioB 4]

If nothing else, a switch/control diagram would really, really help.  I remember how frustrated I was with their first KA release (the C90) due to this very issue.  I found great information online for procedures and checklists, but spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to figure out where all the referenced switches were to run my checklists.

 

Scott

 

I couldn't agree more with you Scott. I have the same disappointments / frustrations when "INOP" switches / levers are not discussed in the documentation. Furthermore, it makes the checklists a bit futile.

 

True, we are getting quite difficult with aircraft models and the sim itself may have functional limitations. But I have passed the stage of getting excited about every new aircraft release. Carenado is still pumping too many cute aircraft with all the so-called bells and whistles and cheap manuals. I have disengaged... I barely follow their releases anymore. Their products are soulless.

 

I'd rather spend my valuable free time on vendors specializing in few, realistic models with dedicated documents.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

"The Last Word" (by me at least - please feel free to carry on if you have more to say )

 

Thank you to all who have responded to this post, once again. I have read every reply, and have been very interested in all that has been said. I feel that with the release of the PC 12, one of the commentor's suggestions has been addressed. One fellow stated that he felt Carenado/Alabeo ("C/A") would respond to this thread, either in words or by actions. When I first read that, I was skeptical since C/A has never (to my knowledge) responded here to anything, thus the reason I sent the original post directly to them as an email (as I will this post). I wanted to make sure they saw what was being written, and would at least (hopefully) show us all at least a measure of respect by reading what was being said here. Whether they have done that is anybody's guess. I do know I've never had a reply via email or any other form of communication. That, in part, is the reason for my "...Last Word" post here (again, my last post - I'm not asking this thread be closed). All that said, the commentor in question turned out to be quite right in his comment. Carenado did respond to this post by their actions. Or, should I say, inaction. I have been reading the posts for the PC 12, and many, many of the issues I'm seeing there are the same as for many previous releases that prompted this post in the first place. Yes, there are new issues (the #1 GPS disappearing when turning the lights on, the standby altimeter not working correctly (from what I've been able to see, whether it sticks or not, it does appear to be reading incorrectly), etc.). A good friend of mine has the aircraft and confirmed that carry-overs like the transponder dropping a leading "0" are still there, mislabeled switches, and so forth are still present. Please tell me that this aircraft wasn't ever beta tested (well, until now that is) because as a beta tester myself, I'd hate to think something as obvious as a GPS unit disappearing wouldn't be found right off, and then fixed. Insofar as the leading 0 with the transponder goes, I wrote them a ticket for the Cessna 210 (which came out how many years ago now??) about that, and in every single release, that bug has been present. By the by, being an Avionics Tech, I can tell you absolutely that leading 0 is there in the real unit, and has to be as numerous times I've been assigned codes such as "0500" or "0700" by ATC IRL. Without that leading 0, the unit is unserviceable. So yes, Carenado has responded - with what I consider a slap in the face by completely ignoring 90% of the posted bugs on yet another release. To make matters worse, they have changed how the texture panels are arranged such that their newer aircraft are all but impossible to repaint. So not only has functionality been crippled, now you can't even repaint the airplanes if you do decide to use them! A very, very strange way of doing things, but maybe it's just easier to do it this way, never mind what works best for the customer.

 

A few months back on another forum, I made a prediction that the next C/A release would have "bug x, y and z". One fellow replied and derided me for stirring the pot by not even waiting until the aircraft had been released before complaining about it. I responded that C/A were very predictable now and I stuck with my original thoughts. There have been 2 releases since then, and in both cases my predictions were dead on. That doesn't make me a genius (heck, it doesn't even make me smart). It just is a sign of what C/A thinks of us as customers, IMO. And, it's repeated itself here.

 

So my last word goes to C/A, right here (which will be forwarded in a ticket again - "just in case"). C/A, you've got my last dollar. I will no longer even look to see what's coming next. You are charging a premium price for eye candy. Your avionics are still default FSX dressed up to look like the real thing, but with almost none of the functionality. The vast majority of the bugs that YOUR CUSTOMERS have taken the time and decency to sit down and post here, have gone ignored. I don't know about the world you live in, but if a company does that where I come from, they soon find themselves in bankruptcy. It's disrespectful, to say the very least, and you aren't deserving of their hard earned money. Yet you keep on churning out these "MacPlanes" (as one fellow calls them). That's sad, and you are reducing our hobby to not much more than an arcade game. So, you've lost a customer for good. There's only so many times I was going to "consider" one of your releases and be disappointed by reading the same-old, same-old, and I've hit that magic number. Time to cut bait and run.

 

Lastly, to all who responded here. As I said, I have read every reply, and have been extremely impressed with all the comments. Whether you agreed with me, or held the opposite viewpoint, you all made your points eloquently and with respect. I have a new-found respect for all of you here and my hat is off to you. This is the way a forum should be. It isn't all about agreeing with the OP. It's a discussion, and points - for and against - were well written and well considered. Nice work folks, and again, thank you. I wish you all the best, and rest assured, whether they care or not, C/A has "heard" you at least.

 

Glenn

[davenicoll 104]

C/A are not unique in releasing "Buggy" aircraft...almost every developer...including A2A  have bugs reported after initial release.

 

It is like a new model car...It is tested exhaustively but it is only when the "Public" get their hands on it and put it through its paces that faults pop up.

 

When C/A use Beta testers (I am sure the same can be said for any company) that is only a handfull...Once it's released a considerable number of people are using it and all will try different things and spot things others missed so bugs will crop up and no amount of beta testing can change that IMHO.

 

Now to the crucks of the matter.

 

Where Carenado are unique is there complete detatchment from the end user..which is the paying customer...I personally don't know of any other company that keeps their heads buried in the sand with la la ears on...

 

I very rarely let off steam but as I have said before...I don't mind products  released that require fixes...What I do mind is being ignored and taken for granted. I work hard for my money and as a reward for purchasing as a customer the one thing I do require is a little respect which I feel is sadly lacking in C/A .

 

Sorry if that sounds harsh and like a rant.

 

Dave

[Jimmy RFR 406]

They've never been good at documentation but the web (and some product offerings) have been filling that increasingly quite well.  POHs, flying guides, videos, articles. 

 

True enough; you get a lot from the web. But a customized documentation for the model you buy provides a nice touch to the package.

 

This should be something that *all* developers should take into account, not just Carenado.

 

Customized documentation is *always* required.  The increasingly common practice of including only a 300 page POH or perhaps a 500 page FMC operators manual that has everything to do with the real plane and almost nothing to do with the add-on is really frustrating when you are trying to figure out how something works in the sim.  It's a rare addon that provides perfect 1:1 functionality; most do not.  Then you're left with trying to adapt what the real world manual says and apply it to the functionality and quirks in the sim.

 

Developers, please stop this.  Feel free to include all the background docs you like, but please give us a customized overview of what works, and how it works, in the sim itself.

 

(This seems to be a rant thread so... )

[Rocky_53 1,579]

Great thread Glenn, thanks for starting it and also your very lucid and professional style of writing. For me personally, I stopped buying Carenado aircraft a couple of years ago, for the very reasons that have been discussed here.

 

I take my hat of and greatly admire anyone, in any business, who maintains a passion and strives to produce the very best product they can. A2A and Realair are two that spring to mind immediately, although there are of course others who share that same passion and commitment.

 

I have always followed my own belief and philosophy in business... If you're going to do something, make sure it's done well, otherwise shut up shop and don't bother!

[Greggy_D 936]

I enjoyed reading your post OP.

 

I guess the real question to be answered is.......why do all of the C/A aircraft receive mostly glowing reviews from various Flight Sim websites if the modeling/systems are so bad?

[Guest BeaverDriver]

I enjoyed reading your post OP.

 

I guess the real question to be answered is.......why do all of the C/A aircraft receive mostly glowing reviews from various Flight Sim websites if the modeling/systems are so bad?

 

My theory (and this goes beyond just FS):  Reviewers get models for free to test. If they give bad reviews (or point out constant deficiencies), those freebies will come to a screeching halt and they probably won't be getting anything from other developers as well. In that same light, if the reviewer writes for Avsim (just for example), then some (fans) will suggest not going to Avsim for reviews because they are always "bad", and Avsim (again, just one example - could be any site) may lose advertising revenue in the process. Secondly, most reviewers aren't RW pilots, so much of the time they have no idea what and how many of the systems in these planes are supposed to work. Now most of the users aren't RW pilots either, but the reviewer should be able to give a full, knowledgeable, unbiased report and let the reader decide what's important to them and what's not. For the most part, we don't have that, and the only way to find out is to buy the aircraft.

 

Again, just my theory, but it's held by quite a few people I know.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

Secondly, most reviewers aren't RW pilots, so much of the time they have no idea what and how many of the systems in these planes are supposed to work.

 

Agreed. And I've also noticed that reviewers give the sound packages in Carenado aircraft high ratings (while they obviously reuse sounds from default or older aircraft) probably because the reviewers don't know that sounds were not recorded from the real aircraft (contrary to what the Carenado website says).

[Holdit 551]

Secondly, most reviewers aren't RW pilots, so much of the time they have no idea what and how many of the systems in these planes are supposed to work.

 

 

Lack of systems depth is one thing, and should probably be considered a feature, since some virtual pilots will have a problem with it, and some won't. Bugs are another thing altogether...and to be quite frank, in my opinion reviewers who don't mention bugs are either not reviewing properly, or are lying by omission. Here's an admittedly somewhat utopian idea: that the reviewers of Avsim, PC Pilot, Flightsim.com, Mutley's hangar, etc, present the makers of all 3rd party aircraft add-ons with a "reviewers' terms of reference " stating that when they review a product, all bugs found will be mentioned in the review, and the reviewer will not assume that those bugs will be addressed, i.e. that the product will be reviewed as it is now, not as it might be when service pack x has been released. In short, "what's released goes in the review". 

 

Maybe that would help keep everyone honest...

[Dumont 9]

My theory (and this goes beyond just FS):  Reviewers get models for free to test. If they give bad reviews (or point out constant deficiencies), those freebies will come to a screeching halt and they probably won't be getting anything from other developers as well. In that same light, if the reviewer writes for Avsim (just for example), then some (fans) will suggest not going to Avsim for reviews because they are always "bad", and Avsim (again, just one example - could be any site) may lose advertising revenue in the process. Secondly, most reviewers aren't RW pilots, so much of the time they have no idea what and how many of the systems in these planes are supposed to work. Now most of the users aren't RW pilots either, but the reviewer should be able to give a full, knowledgeable, unbiased report and let the reader decide what's important to them and what's not. For the most part, we don't have that, and the only way to find out is to buy the aircraft.

 

Again, just my theory, but it's held by quite a few people I know.

 

I full agree Glenn

 

João Alfredo

[Robk182 0]

Thats right..... !! 

 

Lack of systems depth is one thing, and should probably be considered a feature, since some virtual pilots will have a problem with it, and some won't. Bugs are another thing altogether...and to be quite frank, in my opinion reviewers who don't mention bugs are either not reviewing properly, or are lying by omission. Here's an admittedly somewhat utopian idea: that the reviewers of Avsim, PC Pilot, Flightsim.com, Mutley's hangar, etc, present the makers of all 3rd party aircraft add-ons with a "reviewers' terms of reference " stating that when they review a product, all bugs found will be mentioned in the review, and the reviewer will not assume that those bugs will be addressed, i.e. that the product will be reviewed as it is now, not as it might be when service pack x has been released. In short, "what's released goes in the review". 

 

Maybe that would help keep everyone honest...