A Plea to Carenado/Alabeo

[Bob650 31]

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. 

 

True enough Gregg, there are certainly enough legitimate complaints about the same model being done over and over. And you can count me as one who would buy a Flight1 TBM. In a heartbeat. Hey, I never said I wasn't part of the problem. :rolleyes:

 

You have any idea how many Carenado products I've purchased? A lot.

 

Like Scott, for me it's a love/hate relationship.

 

-Bob

[Guest BeaverDriver]

@Scott - <LOL> Boy, are we on the same page on the "getting so close" bit . Couldn't agree more. And yes, I too have a whack of their machines (that "love/hate" relationship seems pretty common here), so like Bob650, I too am "part of the problem". Thanks for your comments, they are most welcome .

[jfri 42]

 

 

Well, better damage modeling would be welcome, but it's hard to do in FSX (getting it accurate, at least)

 

Why would that be difficult ? A2A seem capable to do it. For the Beaver monitor the engine settings and if they are to high to long trigger a failure.

[CrownCityMisfits 58]

I own about 90% of the C/A library and will sign my name to the OP's petition. But honestly the biz jets don't interest me that much, so it seems in the future, I am more likely to purchase the Alabeo branded aircraft.

 

I tend not to judge the motives and decisions made my developers, but rather vote with my wallet. If I get burned on a purchase, it's usually because I failed to research, or impatiently made a day-1 purchase (which I do often.)

 

I will continue to support their products nonetheless.

 

And my first choice for a Beaver would be A2A, second, Aerosoft. Wasn't a Beaver Extended in production?

[Guest tymk]

 

 

Why would that be difficult ? A2A seem capable to do it. For the Beaver monitor the engine settings and if they are to high to long trigger a failure.

 

Well, but A2A are hardly comparable to C/A in their approach, are they? A2A are aviation enthusiasts first and foremost, and they have both very experienced pilots and aircraft maintenance engineers on staff (or as consultants). They don't do FDEs based on third-party accounts, they fly/rent the planes they model and record everything. And, even they had to go through a rough teething period with their first proper GA offering (the C172).

 

As has been said, I wouldn't trust C/A to a good job on maintenance/damage modeling, considering that they can't seem to be able to code a transponder properly to display four digits...

 

Just to be clear, by far the biggest share of my virtual flying time is the Carenado C152, and I also spent quite some time in their C172, F33A Bonanza and C210. However, I gave up on them some time ago, just too many of those simple bugs that simply get ignored every time. Then I gave in to the temptation with the CT206H and got burned again, so... add me to the love/hate group. Sorry for the rant, but I believe you need some solid competence base in order to even consider venturing into the more advanced areas of simulation.

 

Tym

[JimmiG 244]

@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.

 

I actually think C/A have the necessary resources already to put out complex aircraft of high quality while at the same time working on simpler aircraft under the Alabeo brand. The problem is they are using those resources to push out aircraft as quickly as possible under both brands rather than on refining and improving the quality of their releases. What they need to do is slow down, test things properly and make sure all the required features are implemented and working before release, and then provide support and patches for the full shelf-life of each product. The Carenado "add-on factory" is like a sweatshop for FS addons.

 

Look at the rate at which they are putting out new aircraft compared to companies like RealAir or A2A. If they spent a few more months on each release, many of the silly mistakes such as reversed switches could be avoided, saving resources spent on creating service packs down the road. They would still be releasing aircraft at a rate of 2-4x that of their competition.

 

The big "problem" is that their formula actually works. People buy their products because they look amazing and are easy to fly...and because they come out at such a high rate, there's always some new exciting release to look forward to, which keeps the cash flowing into the company.

[davenicoll 104]

I wholeheartily agree with you Beaverdriver...

 

Hopefully Alabeo seem to be taking up the baton from Carenado in regards to the simpler GA aircraft. I am sure they have a Cessna 207 on the Horizon.

 

Your list of aircraft I would love to see modelled and got as close as possible to the real thing given the simulators limitations.

 

I'm not to bothered about it being released with a list of bugs as once the general public get hold of it they are the best beta testers there are..plus a lot of RW pilots on that particular type are only to willing to help.

 

What does concern me is that not a lot of notice is taken of all faults reports (My opinion) and almost complete non activity in interacting with their customer base via these forums or any forum for that matter..surely somebody from C/A must monitor them.

 

Dave

 

PS Don't forget there is an aftermarket sprang up around these GA planes with regards to sound sets.. 

[~Craig~ 10]

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

 

/\ /\ /\    This!

 

:smile:

 

 

When they get it right, their planes are great.  An example of thsat in my opinion is their Malibu PA46-350P;    it is up there in my top 6 aircraft, that inclues PMDG, A2A, etc.  Conversely, I absolutely detest their turbo-prop offerings - the FDE is just dire.  Turbo-props are of course hard to manage in the real world, but the ON/OFF nature of Carenado's turboprop power delivery makes handling these aircraft (especially on the ground) pretty miserable.

 

I also would never touch any of their aircraft that contain their "G1000" for the exact reasons mentioned.   If I was a G1000 aircraft, I don't want a toy one that contains about 20% of the functionality.    I want F1 style, with 90+% of the functionality.

 

Haven't touched their biz-jets;   not while they has no IAS control (other than fudging the FSX default autothrottle!).

 

So yes, whilst I am not suggesting they change their business model to suit my preferences, I certainly only buy the aircraft types that BeaverDriver described in his OP.

[HighFlyer310 21]

People continue to buy their overpriced garbage, so why should they change their standards? They wrap fancy textures around half @$$ default functionality and then have the nerve to charge 35-40 bucks for that? It's not about being prideful in their design, it's just carbon copy one product after another and watch the cash come in.

[Guest JustanotherPilot]

Beaver you have expressed what a lot of us think, however as far as Carenado -  go this is water on a duck's back, they just don't take it in. They are resistant to suggestions and ideas. They rarely reply to emails, press releases are vague and infrequent. It is if they lock themselves in a vacuum, surfacing every now and then to release a product then return inside.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

So yes, whilst I am not suggesting they change their business model to suit my preferences, I certainly only buy the aircraft types that BeaverDriver described in his OP.

 

Truly, it boils down to that.  If they make money and, at least occasionally, make a good, if not great, airplane then you just have to let them do their thing.  We can get all upset about it...or just pass and wait for the good one. 

[Les Parson 99]

About 40 responses to 'A Plea to Carenado/Alabeo' and not a single response from the company.

 

Is that accurate or have I overlooked a company response?

[CrownCityMisfits 58]

I see that many people have issues with Carabeo's lack of communication, which appears to be a problem. That can be very frustrating, and borderline unprofessional. However, the only time I tried to contact Alabeo support, they responded by email within 24 hours, and solved my problem within the next 24 hours. I bought the C195 on day-1, and found that the plane was unflyable with damage enabled. I went back and forth with them to solve the problem, which ended when they sent me a new aircraft.cfg.

 

That doesn't take away from the fact that it was broken upon release  :mellow: , but in the end, I was satisfied with the level of support. Most importantly, I love the plane. That goes for all of the Alabeo aircraft in my hangar, and most of the lighter aircraft released by Carenado.

[kiki 89]

That´s the way it goes.

 

Do you still remember this: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/447943-whatever-happened-to-realair/

 

There Rob Young of RealAir answered: "As the many registered customers who have emailed me this month and received extremely prompt replies will know, RealAIr Simulations is doing just fine, although I have this week taken a short holiday, and have supported our customers every day but not quite to the normal level of checking and replying to emails four times a day, everyday, including Christmas, Easter and other public holidays for the past twelve years."

 

Custom service at it´s best!

 

Well, I do believe that Carenado/Alabeo is reading all this and will give us answers in words or with their future releases. 

[Flying Penguin 44]

People continue to buy their overpriced garbage, so why should they change their standards? They wrap fancy textures around half @$$ default functionality and then have the nerve to charge 35-40 bucks for that? It's not about being prideful in their design, it's just carbon copy one product after another and watch the cash come in.

 

QFT.  Very much my perception of the Carenado business model unfortunately.