Bug list DA42

[lzamm 143]

 

 

Aux tanks are being drawn before mains.

 

This is how the default fuel system in FSX works.  In defiance of all operational procedures I know about (and the structural reason for having wing tanks), the fuselage tanks are used last.  Making FSX do what it doesn't want to do is possible, but not easy.

 

Also, in FSX it's not possible to transfer fuel between tanks without resorting to FSUIPC or related trickery.

 

This is basically the difference between those manufacturers who put systems first, and those who put graphics first (to put it kindly). 

[louisdecoolste 12]

Understood. But think laterally. All they should have done is declare the main as aux, and the aux as mains.

 

Its the same shoddy thinking and sub-par beta testing that creates this error

 

ui_typerole="Single Engine Prop"

in the aircraft .cfg.

 

Along with the avgas error this didn't occur to the developer as incorrect? Take them outside and shoot them. Ten bucks off the correct purchase price, right there.

 

And the correct cylinder displacement for the 1.7 Thielert engine is 103 in³ not 90.17. This cannot be correct even if they modeled the later 2.0 litre engine. And the compression ratio is not 8.5, it's 18:1

 

Never mind graphics over systems. This is profit over basic accuracy.

 

They want this kind of money for this product, they'd better earn it.

 

Try this: The original 135hp DA42 never had a Flight Director. At least the two I flew for my twin rating never did.This was highlighted in the original post. 

 

So why is it there in this pre-NG version? Another ten bucks worth of inaccuracy. Now we're getting to the price point where this belongs. I'd like it as a 20 buck slightly shoddy piece of visual simulation. But I paid nearly double that.

[CoolP 283]

louisdecoolste, you have quite some good points regarding this plane and the policy behind it.

 

With some extra minutes of work (comparing this to the few minutes it sometimes takes for a user to tweak items), this release might have arrived as a much better 1.0 than it currently is.

 

Since the developer takes the time to research model details and create accurate graphics, those little details like the correct fuel type should be peanuts, literally, and would add so much value.

 

Well, back to the bugs. I was told that Alabeo doesn't necessarily issue service packs but just updates the main installer. So perhaps a fresh download already covers some items. I haven't checked.

[RW1 615]

Just Noticed today doing an evening flight seems Alabeo have forgotten the Alpha channel on the prop spinners and engine intakes in P3d v2.5, shows as black at night and creates stutters.

 

Rick

[CoolP 283]

I think this would add to the problems with the ice light in P3D. Cannot confirm since I don't run that sim but some posts back a user reported such items. FSX lights seem ok.

 

Rick, if you don't mind, write them a ticket so that they can react. :smile:

[iflygary 17]

When tuning the nav1 radio, the active frequency changes instead of the nav1 standby frequency. Nav2 tuning works fine.

This is an easy fix.  Just go to your Aircraft.cfg file and locate the  "[Radios]" section and change all "0" values to "1" and then save.

 

Gary

[~Craig~ 10]

^^^  good call, Gary.

[Flyfox 114]

I recently bought this Alabeo product, because I had been waiting for a decent DA42 for a long time already. And I must say: It's real fun to fly! Unfortunately, some of the bugs and issues mentioned are obviously not solved yet and I came across some more smaller or bigger errors and omissions. This is my current list which I sent to Alabeo as support ticket:

 

1. The rotating direction of the start switch and the rudder trim using the mouse wheel is reversed.
2. The annunciator message ""L/R ENGINE GLOW ON" is missing, although mentioned in the checklist.
3. The upper right button on the AP (the VS switch) shows "BARO" in the VC and "VS" in the 2D popup. Only VS is correct.
4. When during an ILS approach "APR" is chosen on the AP, it doesn't show "ARM". The PFD shows "APP" instead of "LOC" in white. When turning onto localizer, "ARM" on the AP should disappear and "LOC" on the PFD should turn green. There is no "GS ARM and no "GS"" indicator, neither on the AP nor on the PFD. Instead of white or green "GS" the PFD shows "PIT" in green when on the glideslope.
5. Finally, the backlight of the AP is missing in the VC. There is no chance to operate the AP at night!

 

Whoever has some solutions for some of these issues already is welcome to publish them here. And of course I will keep you informed about Alabeo's feedback.

 

Enjoy your DA42!

[louisdecoolste 12]

Sadly, you appear to have only recently discovered what we have suspected for some time about Alabeo wares.

 

Flawed software. Abandonware. Buyer Beware.

[Flyfox 114]

louisdecoolste, you completely misunderstood my message. I absoluteley enjoy this airplane, but fixing those little things will make it better. As long as we keep contributing there is always a chance to get a product improved. No addon is perfect from the beginning, most of them not even when they are mature. So, stop being so negative and bring your constructive proposals instead.

[louisdecoolste 12]

I stand by what I said and it is you who misunderstand. You are late to the party or else you would:

1: Have already seen that every issue you raise has already been discussed here, brought to the developers attention, only to be met met with a stunning silence after they've banked the money

and 

2: There is little prospect of these or the other issues being fixed by the user community as they don't have access to the real aircraft and the developers haven't responded to anyone who has raised these and related issues. If you had researched prior to purchase you might have chosen to keep the wallet closed, or leastways wait until it's in the bargain bin and worth what is paid for (currently I think most would agree, about 50% of what we actually paid).

 

I hope you get a positive reply. I fear you may be joining us in the abandonware corner. Let's all wish ourselves luck, as it seems corporate integrity and model fidelity are not this company's strong suit.

[Breeze 17]

Just scratched this off my buy list.  Hope the squawks get addressed.  Thanks for all the feedback.

[~Craig~ 10]

Just scratched this off my buy list.  Hope the squawks get addressed.  Thanks for all the feedback.

 

Don't do that at the account of louisdecoolste......  I've yet to ever see him post anything positive about anything!   Just read the dialogue above between him and Flyfox.  Clearly, no-one's viewpoint is valid if it disagrees with Louis'.

 

It's a great addon.  Consider the price.   And it does a heck of a lot more "right" than any of the recent Carenado releases do;  at significantly higher prices!

 

====================

 

Points of arrogance, conjecture, and projecting his views to everyone else, highlighted in red below.

 

I stand by what I said and it is you who misunderstand. You are late to the party or else you would:

 

1: Have already seen that every issue you raise has already been discussed here, brought to the developers attention, only to be met met with a stunning silence after they've banked the money

and 

2: There is little prospect of these or the other issues being fixed by the user community as they don't have access to the real aircraft and the developers haven't responded to anyone who has raised these and related issues. If you had researched prior to purchase you might have chosen to keep the wallet closed, or leastways wait until it's in the bargain bin and worth what is paid for (currently I think most would agree, about 50% of what we actually paid).

 

I hope you get a positive reply. I fear you may be joining us in the abandonware corner. Let's all wish ourselves luck, as it seems corporate integrity and model fidelity are not this company's strong suit.

 

So just to be clear;

 

1). Flyfox's views are irrelevent and invalid according to Louis - purely because he is 'late to the party'.  So only those who buy at release are entitled and capable of having a view then.... <_<

 

2). This addon is far from 'abandonware'.   Review the thread, and see how many other people are referring to it as abandonware, other than louis.

 

3). Louis suggests that 'most would agree' that this aircraft is worth 50% what it is offered for.  See any evidence of others having this view in the thread? ........ the aircart costs $34.95 (£23), so Louis is suggesting it should sell for $17.50 (£11.50).    

 

A pretty laughable suggestion really.     Louis clearly expects Level D Sim accuracy in this aircraft, for $17.50.     At the end of the day, the visuals are great, the sounds are great, the FDE ain't bad, and the systems - well they're not fabulous by any stretch - but they're adequate for the pricepoint and target audience of Alabeo aircraft.

[louisdecoolste 12]

I thank you for interpreting what I said. 

 

Albeit completely wrong. I wont bother expounding on the points you make as you are clearly happy with mediocrity. Value is such a personal issue. I like that you consider you have value for money. I don't like that you believe I should share your views as to what that entails. Especially when your views of my views do not reflect my views.

 

 

Lets examine the facts:

1: Aircraft released on 2 March. No patches, hotfixes or corrections made since.

2: Bug fix list created in this forum on 7 March. At the last count there are 35 bugs noted by the user base in this forum alone.

 

How many have been addressed? Not a single one.

 

Abandonware.

 

How many impact on the actual value of the product and its ability to simulate? At least 20.

 

As this is not a feature-laden aircraft with hundreds of points of simulacrum, it is reasonable to expect goods of merchantable quality. When a substantial proportion of those features are incorrect, improperly modelled or badly implemented AND it has been brought to the attention of the developer (using their chosen channel for communication) it is not only reasonable to postulate on the `value` of the so-called finished product it is necessary to inform prospective consumers what they are buying into.

 

I fly this aircraft in real life. I am not satisfied. Inherent defects aside, what I am dissatisfied about is the developers response - or rather the complete absence of any - moved on to the next piece of half-finished crap, they have. Moved on to developers who care, I have.

 

Informed opinion. Caveat emptor. 

[mars03 2]

Agree!!!

 

Martin