Just zeroing in on the stall. How in world can you stall any airplane when flying at Mach 0.70? Isn't that the recommended climb speed for your altitude change. duh? This isn't a Cessna, all jets require speed to work properly, that is why the charts are included.

 

Just a thought. Gotta run for now.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

Its all about angle of attack you can stall going 500 knots.

No... and for some odd reason I thought they did the XPr... my bad on that.

 

However, if the correct thrust level is in the .cfg file... and the aircraft doesn't fly correctly, that means the vast majority of the FDE is waaay off.

Its all about angle of attack you can stall going 500 knots.

Well for me I couldn't get it to climb at 100fpm at FL330 without the airspeed dropping rapidly. No way is that accurate, not at 24000lbs of weight.

If Eaglesoft had released the exact same product, complete with all of these issues... the global meltdown in these forums would have been in epic proportions. So I find this protectionism for Carenado hilarious.

 

Carenado released a product at a price point that has been used for rather advanced products. Their product is anything but advanced. One could forgive that... if what they did model was done correctly.

Protectionism? It seems like every time Carenado releases a plane this forum bashes it.

It seems like every time Carenado releases a plane this forum bashes it.

 

Deservedly so!  Carenado has earned this as a result of their business practices.

 

Reviews and forums everywhere ought to be crucifying them like they did CaptainSim.

Hey guys, we are in Public Beta 1... lets see what the RTM version (aka SP2) looks like before we crucify anyone.. :unsure:

Hey guys, we are in Public Beta 1... lets see what the RTM version (aka SP2) looks like before we crucify anyone.. :unsure:

 

Dunno about you but I paid RTM price...

Ed's right on this point about the FDE, but it's only partially Carenado's fault.

 

FSX, as some of you know, has incorrect IAP use when calculating thrust at altitude. Inverse Air Pressure Ratio is used, instead of Inverse Air Density Ratio (the way FSX/P3D calculate thrust vs altitude).

 

To cut a long story short, if the max CN2% is kept at, say, 100% N2 vs altitude in the coding for all altitudes, the actual thrust you'll generate in the game is about 70% of what those engines would really generate at about 40,000 ft.

 

For this reason I've used a thrust scalar of 1.3 - so at altitude you should generate about real world thrust. Of course this means at sea level you'd expect to generate 130% of the real world thrust. It means you should takeoff with 94% N1 as your maximum instead of 99% N1.

Were the 50's ever used on the 850XP?

No. The Hawker 850XP does in fact use the 5BR version. That's not to say that the Carenado emulation of it is anywhere close to accurate. Obviously FSX has limits in the degree to which a r/w jet engine can be modeled, but the Carenado version's performance is way off target.

 

The 50R powers the Hawker 900XP (and some Dassault Falcob 900s). Perhaps the 50R is available as a retrofit for the 850XP, but every 850 I have ever worked on has the -5BR.

It seems like every time Carenado releases a plane this forum bashes it.

Nah, the (forum) world isn't that dark. Most parts of this forum post constructive things and suggestions plus some user made fixes for some of the Carenado shortcomings.

 

Another part then makes up the interested readers and thankful users of mentioned mods while a small percentage.. buys planes against any logic since their posts and membership duration point out that they should have known exactly what's happening with a 1.0 Carenado release.

 

Hats off to Bert pointing this rather ^_^  fact out more eloquently.

 

Forgot to add, for the OP (and others): Perhaps head over to Carenado's support site for either reporting your concerns and/or wishes for a refund. Seems like the most reasonable thing to do, helping both sides.

I have a few questions for the folks who don't like this plane. Its Carenado you shouldn't have expected systems modeling to the level of PMDG so why do you complain when the systems aren't modeled to that level?

 

As far as I can read it, the problem is not really to do with "systems modelling" that's available with the product - it's about things are are supposed to be there, not working.

 

Eg.... a working autopilot, that doesn't shoot through altitude in FLC mode.

 

A lot of people love to say "It's a Carenado, how could you have expected complexity?!" but for a lot of disappointed users here, the issues don't seem to be about feature set or complexity, but the usual ream of bugs on what you DO get as per what appears to be Carenado's usual lack of a beta testing regine ........ or perhaps any testing at all.

 

 

As for the autopilot if I need to climb or dive I just hit the vs button and set a new alt in the window and it works everytime.

 

Clearly, you are Carenado's exact demographic.  

 

 

I seem to like them and I'm a real world pilot with turbine time....

 

Ok, I'll say it ..... based on your videos posted of the Hawker, I do honestly find that quite difficult to believe.   You made so many very basic faux pas in those videos.  Sorry.

 

 

  To be fair, I sometimes feel like they cannot win: Even when they issue a service pack, this very action receives criticism

 

I dare say because, with most service packs (thinking PMDG here), we see further development and the fixing of nuance bugs that just make what was already a good RTM release, even better.

 

With Carenado, the reason I think people are cynical about the Service Packs is because they shouldn't even be necessary.    They address such basic concerns (such as an autopilot not working), that people tend to see it exactly as Bert suggested above;  we're all beta testers on the first release version.    And that doesn't seem right.

 

I'm no fan of Blackbox Simulations, or Captain Sim, but at least where they haven't finished a product, and haven't tested it yet, they release as a 0.X version and make it clear that the release isn't a final v1.0 RTM version.    Carenado clearly do not test their products, but put them straight to market with some (increasingly) unaccpetable bugs.

 

How excited can you be about a Service Pack that fixes such basic things, that should have been tested and corrected before RTM release?

How excited can you be about a Service Pack that fixes such basic things, that should have been tested and corrected before RTM release?

I don't know.

 

Sticking to the context, I would expand the question to 'how eager should you be to buy 1.0 then?'. :mellow:

 

Does it make sense to you to head for the shop at release day when you are perfectly aware that initial bugs might include very basic items? Interesting phenomena for sure.

I would expand the question to 'how eager should you be to buy 1.0 then?'.

 

Does it make sense to you to head for the shop at release day when you are perfectly aware that initial bugs might include very basic items? Interesting phenomena for sure.

 

I agree entirely!  There's a certain insanity involved here - I'm not being personal or talking about individuals here - I too have been guilty of it many times.  I knew the Citation II would be a mess on release, but I so wanted a Citation II that I took the irrational option and purchased at release, before the 2 service packs that made the aircraft quite a bit better but still very shoddy in some areas.

 

As I said in another post earlier, because of our habits with this developer, Carenado have perhaps learned that there are virtually no consequences to the way they release (and do not test) their products.   Lot's of bugs = people still buy one day 1 !

 

Until we resolve this, they will only get worse...... especially as they continue to progress into the field of ever more complex aircraft.  

Does it make sense to you to head for the shop at release day when you are perfectly aware that initial bugs might include very basic items? Interesting phenomena for sure.

 

It is not ethical to release knowingly buggy products.  Period.  I might be slightly less irritated by it if they at least warned you and did what Craig said, releasing 0.X versions.  But only slightly.  As an IT professional myself (applications development), I cannot find Carenado's way of doing business anything but unprofessional.

 

There's so many planes with less complex systems that need to be done yet that'd be right in their wheelhouse.  I'd really like to see them return to their roots, but I guess that's not going to happen.  It is time for me to part ways with Carenado after being a loyal customer for nearly a decade. 

There's a certain insanity involved here

  You name it, Craig. I would however like to point out that, while being guilty in the same way as many others (of buying 1.0 versions), I do occasionally make use of the refund requests and Carenado/Alabeo did receive those from me in the past.

 

This is to say that severe 1.0 mishaps do not end up being accepted. Well, with the rest of the planes, I tend to develop a laid-back attitude of course, which means that SP2 + user fixes is good enough or even great for me. (JetProp anyone?)

 

So the one true recommendation regarding Carenado could well be: Wait for SP2! B) (before you buy) 

 

It is time for me to part ways with Carenado after being a loyal customer for nearly a decade.

Seems like a reasonable decision to me, William.

 

If you ever return, perhaps check out their X-Plane releases which tend to end up being much more reliable (concerning the basic systems) than the 1.0 FSX/P3D ones. Various factors involved of course, but it's the outcome that counts.

 

 

So the one true recommendation regarding Carenado could well be: Wait for SP2! (before you buy) 

 

Exactly.

 

If we all did this ......... Carenado would stop releasing the products until they were in a true RTM (what we're calling "Carenado SP2") state. :smile: