A Plea to Carenado/Alabeo

[hawkeye52 8]

Man I could not agree more, I only have their 337 and PA46 and adore them.  I love their steam gauges, and I love that they are FPS friendly.  I really do not enjoy the idea of the glass panels very much and that fact that I have heard they have a HUGE FPS hit.  

 

I would love older represented GA aircraft or even updated "HD" version of some of their very first releases.  

 

Also, if every plane has the same glass cockpit, it's great from an aviating standpoint IRL when going from aircraft to aircraft for familiarity, but man does the aircraft lose it's charm and personality.

 

For your second point about bugs, I agree, even with just my two there are a couple annoying things that just don't work right and I doubt they will every be fixed.  Beautiful planes with a handful of flaws under the hood.

 

Finally, I tend to not buy carenado aircraft if I can avoid it due to the fact they seem to not be very social or community oriented.  I've pretty much seen every other dev on here or another forum, but they are dead silent...

 

Doubt we'll hear much from them but glad you took the time to write this up!

[TerribleT 0]

100% spot on - oh for an Aztec, then a Navajo-Chieftain sequence to an Aerostar - same for the great Cessnas - 402 onwards.

[carm 0]

       I agree totally Glenn.  

                Well said.

                                      CJ 

 

                  

[Eman 23]

Glenn,

 

You raise many interesting points regarding Carenado, a development company that has generated more mixed opinions about the consistency and quality of its products than probably any other developer.  However, I have to disagree with the notion that they should go "back to their roots" and exclusively stick to what they're good at.  

 

There is definitely a need for high quality (key phrase), sophisticated GA aircraft.  Looking at the current field of developers producing said aircraft:

 

Eaglesoft - while they deliver excellent products (Citation X being their best example), their development cycle is very slow and the visual quality of their aircraft is no longer state-of-the-art

Milviz - C310, Baron, and now a King Air 350i - a particularly promising effort upon which I hope they capitalize (P180 Avanti and other aircraft with Collins Pro Line 21 avionics).  However, they're not entirely focused on GA aircraft and they tend to have (what seems like) many projects in the pipeline/active development

Flight1 - once again, fantastic products (Citation Mustang, B200), but their current lack of support for P3D and XP10 is unfortunate

RealAir - hard to beat the quality of their Turbine Duke.  Hopefully they continue to expand their portfolio

A2A - great C172, but I wish they would make some faster, flashier aircraft

 

I probably forgot a few, especially those producing for X-plane.

 

I think many would agree that visual immersion is a huge part of the overall "illusion" of being in the cockpit and flying, and there really is no one better than Carenado when it comes to aircraft visuals.  The other advantage that Carenado has over the competition is a larger team than most developers.  What Carenado really needs to do is work on their weaknesses, that is, systems programming and long-term product support.  Releasing comprehensive service packs at the expense of a rapid development cycle of incomplete, bug-ridden aircraft would make many simmers happy.  If those guys combine their outstanding visual modeling with at least halfway decent systems in a mature, thoroughly beta-tested package, they would have a winner.  And I'm hoping (though currently skeptical) that aircraft is the Hawker 850XP.  It's been ages since a great business jet was released.

 

IMHO, the following would be ideal: have Alabeo be the product line of "steam driven, often older style, simpler GA aircraft" that Carenado used to exclusively develop and to which you refer, Glenn, and have the Carenado product line push the envelope with increasingly advanced aircraft.  In my book, that's the best of both worlds, even if it means slowing down the development cycle.

 

-Elliot

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

All I'll say is, if I were the graphics developer for Carenado, as fine as his work is...I'd walk over to the guy that does the systems work and turn his computer off.  I mean, you can't turn the ADF?...still?...after how many aircraft?  Com switches don't work?  How can anyone *possibly* even *consider* building complex airplanes if that's the level of their systems and quality control? 

 

On another note, I'd disagree with the cut and paste of the FDE.  There is more going on there.  Not many people can create a good FDE.

 

And I'd also say that this thread does speak to the fact of how much their steam aircraft are loved despite these issues.

 

Gregg

[Brazen 5]

Just to tell you that your wall of text didn't go unnoticed: I agree. I won't buy from them until I hear a stellar review (and then I'd still be wary). Was waiting for the King Air, but, yeah, no go.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Thanks again for the support gentlemen.

 

@Elliot - yes, we are actually on the same page wrt having both GA and biz aircraft developed. We really do need both for sure. My problem with things as they stand now, is that C/A leaves too many features out of the basic instruments (see Greg's post - he hit the nail right on the head!). The more sophisticated the instrument, the lower the percentage of modeled features, thus the greater frustration. If you can't turn an ADF head card (to use Greg's excellent example), that's frustrating, but those thing can and do break. At least the ADF still works so that's the only thing missing. Get into a GNS 530 however, and 90% of the instrument is non-functioning. Take away the 10% that FSX just can't do, and you're still left with an instrument that is 80% dysfunctional. The more sophisticated the instrument, the less of it we have at our disposal. Sadly, this hasn't changed over time (graphics have, but not functionality) appreciably. That's why my plea to get back to doing just the basic equipment. If C/A were showing signs that with each release, the equipment had greater and greater functionality, then that would be different. I'd be encouraging them on as hard as I could. History shows this isn't the case though.

 

@Gregg - I do agree about the FDE's being complicated, but my point is more that the base FDE's from the default aircraft are a good place to start. Unfortunately, some aspects of real flight just don't translate to the sim well at all, as you know. Torque on the ground is one. Even on skis I very, very rarely encountered any sideways slippage/skidding that you get so often in FSX. Building in torque (again, just one example) might be "realistic", but unfortunately FSX's interpretation of that just doesn't work and you end up going sideways in a crosswind or with torque down the runway. That's why I prefer the more basic versions of the FDE's whenever possible, and adapt those to each aircraft (i.e. the 206 handles similarly to the 172, but is a much heavier airplane with more sluggish controls. Start with the 172 FDE and then adjust inertia and stability controls until you get that "feel" in there). Now that all said, I've only ever made minor modifications to any FDE and your experience may be well beyond that. If so, then I bow to your greater knowledge and will concede that I may not be standing on very solid ground with this point.

 

Thanks again people. Appreciate the feedback. I know that C/A received my support ticket, which consisted of the original post, but I have had no reply. In fairness, I did say that a reply wasn't necessary, so I really don't expect one. I just hope they actually head over here and read what folks have been saying. I'm hoping for the best but expecting the worst (can't be disappointed that way ).

Just in closing (I think our point has been made), I would like to make clear that if C/A were doing freeware, that would be one thing. The only thing they be getting from me would be my undying thank you for all their hard work (and they do work hard, certainly in terms of the graphics). However, as with everything now in FS (mostly everything - there are still some really good folks doing things here for the pure love of it and the good of the community - and they DO get my undying thanks!), this is payware. It's a business, and we are the customers who are paying to have something made for us. If it's not right, then we have every right to complain, and go elsewhere if our complaints go unnoticed by the manufacturer. Now I have heard the (completely idiotic) comments that "it's only $35 (or whatever), what do you want?" That doesn't wash. The point is, we have seen these instrument coded before, so we know it can be done. Even C/A themselves have had switches and instrument working properly in Airplane A, then be backward or broken in Airplane B. Rarely are those bugs fixed, which is rather a slap in the face to us customers. We have PAID for this product, and it's more "broken" than the product before. So, maybe $35 isn't a huge sum of money, but when I bought FSX, it was $80. $35 is slightly under 50% of the cost of the entire sim. That's not nothing. Oh, and yes, $35 is a LOT less than the full RW working gauge. But then there are not hardware engineers, software engineers, no factories, no DAR personnell to pay to do the approvals, no FAA forms to fill out, etc., etc., etc. that there is with the RW instrument. So the "it's only $35" argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever I'm afraid .

[jfri 42]

 

 

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.

 

Since  you mention the Beaver here I would like mention and ask something. I have the Aerosoft Beaver X (have you flown it ?) and one thing that stroke me about it and also Carenado planes is this. In these planes you can use and stress the engine anyway without problem. My impression is that this is not realistic. Isn't this an area where improved realism is needed. For example if you fly a Beaver all the time at maximal power what would happen in real life ? In FSX it's no problem. According to the manual it should never be flown like that. What about asking Carenado for better damage moddeling ?

[dave2013 1,130]

I disagree that Carenado should only develop GA piston-powered aircraft, which is what many of you seem to advocate.  Thank goodness that a decent developer is now producing not only fantastic turboprop aircraft like the Beech 1900 and Kingair, but also bizjets like the Embraer Phenom and soon the Hawker 850 and Cessna Citation II.

 

Not too long ago almost all we had was Eaglesoft making bizjets, and while their stuff was great for the time, much of it now needs some major updating.

 

I would like to thank Carenado for their great work and for expanding their product line.

 

Dave

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

I disagree that Carenado should only develop GA piston-powered aircraft, which is what many of you seem to advocate.  Thank goodness that a decent developer is now producing not only fantastic turboprop aircraft like the Beech 1900 and Kingair, but also bizjets like the Embraer Phenom and soon the Hawker 850 and Cessna Citation II.

 

Not too long ago almost all we had was Eaglesoft making bizjets, and while their stuff was great for the time, much of it now needs some major updating.

 

I would like to thank Carenado for their great work and for expanding their product line.

 

Dave

 

I'd agree with that.  I can definitely appreciate the fact that there is a market for airplanes that look and fly like they're a complex airplane.  I would have expect them to be more into creating good systems for them, though. 

 

On the other hand there's also opportunity in creating vastly more refined versions of the kinds of airplanes they've done.  Adding things like icing effects, rain effects, realistic CHTs and EGTs, working ground radios, a complete GNS430/GNS530 (and others), working IAS and FLC, adding engine failure. completely functional avionics, etc., etc.  While their jets are selling well, so are A2As GA airplanes.

 

Gregg

[robb13 22]

Being a simmer with a PC over 2 yrs old and not so good display card by todays standards, I stick with the GA aircraft (a) as being a 'not-real' pilot the twin eng. props are good enough for me and (b) the lower speeds of the GA helps keep away the jitters as the countryside flows by. Therefore I found that the Carenado GA aircraft I purchased were a world apart from others I got and agree that there are some annoying bugs in them that just should not be there. Fix them and all the GA simmers will be on board I'm sure but I guess that there are too many simmers who think that the bigger the plane the better and thats where the market is....  but surely fixing those bugs cant take too long and as BeaverDriver says, once done, its all re-useable.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Since  you mention the Beaver here I would like mention and ask something. I have the Aerosoft Beaver X (have you flown it ?) and one thing that stroke me about it and also Carenado planes is this. In these planes you can use and stress the engine anyway without problem. My impression is that this is not realistic. Isn't this an area where improved realism is needed. For example if you fly a Beaver all the time at maximal power what would happen in real life ? In FSX it's no problem. According to the manual it should never be flown like that. What about asking Carenado for better damage moddeling ?

 

Well, better damage modeling would be welcome, but it's hard to do in FSX (getting it accurate, at least), and if C/A can't get a switch or simple gauge working correctly, not sure how they would do damage modeling.

 

To answer your question about the Beaver though, yeah, running it at full power for any length of time will turn that engine into a molten mass of metal, particularly in the summer. We'd use full power (36.5"/2300 rpm) only as long as it took to get it in the air. As soon as the floats were solidly out of the water (or skis, but I flew it on floats mostly), you'd immediately and simultaneously bring the throttle and prop back to 30"/2000 rpm. You then immediately bring the flaps to the "Climb" position (IRL the Beaver won't climb without Climb flap). Then at cruise, go to something like 27"/1700 rpm (give or take). The reason you can go with your manifold pressure higher than your rpm's is the engine is supercharged (not turbocharged) so it's made to handle it. Often times you will only be climbing at 300 to 500 fpm on a hot day where you're fairly heavy, so you need some patience with this airplane (and some room at the end of the lake under those conditions). On a cold day, your performance goes through the roof with this machine, although on floats you'll rarely see speeds above 105 to 110 mph (95 - 99 kts).

 

@Dave - please re-read my last post again. We aren't necessarily advocating C/A only do GA machines. If they would learn to program and advance their level of expertise, all of us would be all for them doing both (a la Carenado / Alabeo). Unfortunately, praising their less-than-steller efforts just encourages them to continue to develop severely crippled aircraft, which might be fine for the simmer interested in a more "arcade" style of flying (and if that's what most people want, then you're at that point now and again, the majority should rule); but if you're into actual systems and a somewhat realistic experience beyond the purely visual, then you're hurting the cause. You are, of course, just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, so you won't find me condeming you for that. Just know that you are holding back the chances of the people getting full value for the money and something beyond just good graphics. The B1900, as nice as it looks (and it does look fantastic), is nowhere near modeled correctly for that type of aircraft (I do have it so I have something to go on there). FYI.

[Bob650 31]

@Dave - please re-read my last post again. We aren't necessarily advocating C/A only do GA machines. If they would learn to program and advance their level of expertise, all of us would be all for them doing both (a la Carenado / Alabeo). Unfortunately, praising their less-than-steller efforts just encourages them to continue to develop severely crippled aircraft, which might be fine for the simmer interested in a more "arcade" style of flying (and if that's what most people want, then you're at that point now and again, the majority should rule); but if you're into actual systems and a somewhat realistic experience beyond the purely visual, then you're hurting the cause. You are, of course, just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, so you won't find me condeming you for that. Just know that you are holding back the chances of the people getting full value for the money and something beyond just good graphics. The B1900, as nice as it looks (and it does look fantastic), is nowhere near modeled correctly for that type of aircraft (I do have it so I have something to go on there). FYI.

 

 

 

This. What good does it do to model a G1000 if it's nothing more than window dressing for the default GPS, which to date is all Carenado has accomplished? Again, Carenado is only a "decent developer" when it comes to graphics. Systems are lacking. Advanced nav systems are non-existent. Bugs are numerous. Yes, it's a valid point to say "if you don't like it, don't buy it". But as has been brought up in the forums a few times before, once the FS market gets saturated with any given plane, it drives other developers away from that particular model. A developer that might have some coding skills to do advanced models justice. And as BeaverDriver points out, we're still getting arcade style systems from Carenado but not at arcade prices.

 

Having said that, I will reiterate. I wish Carenado all the luck with the Hawker and I really hope they get the Proline to work. I'm highly skeptical to say the least, but if they pull it off, I'll be one of the first in line with my credit card ready to go.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

once the FS market gets saturated with any given plane, it drives other developers away from that particular model.

 

Certainly didn't scare Flight1 and Milviz away from King Airs, but, you do have a point.  Still, I bet there are a boatload of folks who would buy a Flight1 TBM. 

[tttocs 301]

Still, I bet there are a boatload of folks who would buy a Flight1 TBM.

 

Raises hand!

 

I won't say that I didn't at least consider buying the Carenado TBM, but never seriously.  Ditto the Phenom, much as I'd love to have the plane.  But as I pointed out in one of the Phenom threads, it's hard for me to take the plane seriously when much of what makes a Phenom a Phenom (and much of what makes it single pilot certified) is either not implemented or is implemented so incorrectly that it can't be taken seriously, no matter how sexy the textures or the performance numbers.

 

Glenn, a good post.  While I disagree with some of your points, specifics and conclusions, the spirit of the post is definitely on point.  I think the frustrating thing for many of us GA guys is how close Carenado sometimes comes to making truly excellent planes.  They get so much right on so many of their releases, and then go so wrong implementing complex aircraft with simplistic feature sets (and almost non-existent docs) or continuing on repeating many of the same silly mistakes over and over again (yes, Gregg, I'm thinking of the downright stupid and almost unusable ADF tuning issue among other things).

 

Love/hate definitely describes my relationship with Carenado and their products, which is why I still buy - but very cautiously and very occasionally.

 

Scott