Taxiing the C441 Conquest

[Tango777 4]

20 hours ago, polizei said:

@Tango777 

I understand why Carenado/Alabeo aren't taking part in discussions in this forum anymore.

I don't know a single company that reacts that quickly to bug reports and most of the time issues an initial patch within the first days of release.

Once this patch with the most important fixes has been released they apparently concentrate on their next projects but are consider fixing remaining issues at a later date.  

Don't see anything wrong with that.  Especially es the 441 and the 228 can be taxied nicely with their speed/condition Levers fully forward.

I said that it was the support forum on Alabeo's website, not this forum, and they (Alabeo) ignore customers on their own website.

Some problems are very basic. Why not fix some basic problems that many consider to be minor problems before releasing new planes (Tri Pacer and Chieftan) that already require a SP just 1 week after releasing them according to the people that bought them? Alabeo did not release the C441 just a few days ago, I believe they released it back in November which is over 3 months ago.

However, I learned the hard way that the customer's are Alabeo's beta team. A beta team would have caught many of the basic problems with the C441, especially the engine condition levers problem that many of us do have, prior to release.

Alabeo's claim that a turbo prop in FSX cannot have a gpu is now just silly to me, but frustrating at the same time because that is the biggest piece of nonsense in the hobby of flight simming about a specific addon from a developer themselves ever sent to me. Then when someone kindly gives them a youtube video of PMDG's J4100 to show them that turbo props can have a gpu in FSX, along with another turbo prop addon in FSX, Alabeo ignores you from that moment on. What support...Ignore customers when they correct a developer's e-mail.

There are 2 developers that I know of and they have made outstanding turbo props for FSX. Both are extremely realistic with a good learning curve and one of them is $10 more than the C441. And don't worry, the gpu works just fine in FSX contrary to Alabeo.

[KenG 492]

PMDG does a tremendous amount of custom programming to make their products work closer to the real aircraft. Carenado / Alabeo do most of their programming inside of the FS environment using xml. Thus when they state something cannot be done, they mean they can't do it within the limits of the default FS code. Unless you can program in .xml and prove them wrong with code, then forget about it. 

Comparing Carenado/Alabeo products to PMDG products is like comparing a Sopwith Camel to a Boeing 777. 

 

[FDEdev 955]

@Tango777  I'm not aware of an additional Alabeo or Carenado forum? Do have a link?

As Ken mentioned, Carenado/Alabeo are doing  their best within their and standard FSX capabilities.

I'd rather have a patched interesting GA plane every few month than a study-level sim every few years.

But hard core simmers are definitely not Carenados/Alabeos target group.

However I have to agree that it's incredible frustrating to see how they manage to screw up even the most basic items and even if we are talking about basic FSX SDK functions, how sloppy they are.

Concerning the fact that their's still no patch for the 441 and 228 condition levers, it's no wonder as I haven't read a single review on the net where this is being mentioned.

[softreset 33]

5 hours ago, polizei said:

Concerning the fact that their's still no patch for the 441 and 228 condition levers, it's no wonder as I haven't read a single review on the net where this is being mentioned.

That's the part that blows my mind. I watched something like 20 hours of YouTube videos on the DO 228, looked over numerous reviews/blogs/forums (both English and non-English) and within 10 minutes of using the product for the first time... was like... wait a second this isn't right.

What's interesting though, as I've since been corresponding with some people is that even identical in-sim scenarios of the same aircraft (weather, location, weights) that the aircraft will respond differently. Still though it seems odd that every reviewer/streamer/blogger has a working as expected aircraft and the people who visit AVSIM don't.

[Tango777 4]

6 hours ago, polizei said:

I'm not aware of an additional Alabeo or Carenado forum? Do have a link?

When you log into your account on Alabeo's website you can view what other customers have posted in a type of forum, but that was back in early January when I logged in. They also have a knowledge base but it is not worth searching because there is little content on their own C441.

 

11 hours ago, KenG said:

Thus when they state something cannot be done, they mean they can't do it within the limits of the default FS code.

Then they need to clarify their language because they e-mailed me, "GPU alternative is not an option, as the simulator didn't recognize it on a turboprop engines."

11 hours ago, KenG said:

Comparing Carenado/Alabeo products to PMDG products is like comparing a Sopwith Camel to a Boeing 777. 

As a 1 time buyer of an Alabeo addon, my only point is that if someone wants a truly realistically programmed sim of a turboprop, all anyone has to do if they want to is spend $10 more than the C441.

1 hour ago, softreset said:

Still though it seems odd that every reviewer/streamer/blogger has a working as expected aircraft and the people who visit AVSIM don't.

I read an article on another FSX forum, and unfortunately I forget the name of the website's forum, but they said that Alabeo has 1 or 2 guys that hand out amazing reviews about their products prior to their release or just 1 day after the release and then they send the reviews to multiple FSX website forums. Have no idea how accurate or truthful that is, but that is what I read and people backed him up on that forum.

 

Coming from a 1 time only buyer of an Alabeo addon, the big question is this: How many planes have they released with problems all of the way up to the C441 without releasing an update or SP? The last plane released that has had an update is the C172 RG Cutlass. According to their website there has been 12 releases since the C172 RG and there are not any updates on their website for any of these 12 planes between the C172 RG and the C441 that I can see. So the followup question is: Are these 12 planes without any need of a SP or update?

[RichieFly 728]

I have this A/C and, yeah, it's really frustrating to operate.

I think: if only they could fix these items, it'd be great. I guess that's not in the cards.

As far as turboprops; I hope PMDG updates the Jetstream 41 for use with P3D, that they (or Majestic or Milviz) do a Convair 340 and/or a nice King Air, and thank goodness for Majestic and their Dash 8.

 

[FDEdev 955]

3 hours ago, Tango777 said:

1.Then they need to clarify their language because they e-mailed me, "GPU alternative is not an option, as the simulator didn't recognize it on a turboprop engines."

2.As a 1 time buyer of an Alabeo addon, my only point is that if someone wants a truly realistically programmed sim of a turboprop, all anyone has to do if they want to is spend $10 more than the C441.

3.I read an article on another FSX forum, and unfortunately I forget the name of the website's forum, but they said that Alabeo has 1 or 2 guys that hand out amazing reviews about their products prior to their release or just 1 day after the release and then they send the reviews to multiple FSX website forums. Have no idea how accurate or truthful that is, but that is what I read and people backed him up on that forum.

4.Coming from a 1 time only buyer of an Alabeo addon, the big question is this: How many planes have they released with problems all of the way up to the C441 without releasing an update or SP? The last plane released that has had an update is the C172 RG Cutlass. According to their website there has been 12 releases since the C172 RG and there are not any updates on their website for any of these 12 planes between the C172 RG and the C441 that I can see. So the followup question is: Are these 12 planes without any need of a SP or update?

1. Why? What they answered you is correct. If you start hacking FSX internals, that's something completely different.

2. Flightsimming is about immersion as well and the ugly VC textures of the flysimware 441 are an immersion killer for me. Again both companies aim at different customer groups. 

3. Why are the reviews all different then? And why don't the reviewers on their youtube channels complain?

4. Seriously?  So maybe you still have v1.0 from the 441 because you are looking at the update section for an update.  They simplified the update procedure years ago.

Just re-download your package.  The 441 was released on the 9th of November and the first service pack was already released less than a week later.

 

 

 

[Tango777 4]

1 hour ago, polizei said:

1. Why? What they answered you is correct. If you start hacking FSX internals, that's something completely different.

2. Flightsimming is about immersion as well and the ugly VC textures of the flysimware 441 are an immersion killer for me. Again both companies aim at different customer groups. 

3. Why are the reviews all different then? And why don't the reviewers on their youtube channels complain?

4. Seriously?  So maybe you still have v1.0 from the 441 because you are looking at the update section for an update.  They simplified the update procedure years ago.

Just re-download your package.  The 441 was released on the 9th of November and the first service pack was already released less than a week later.

 

 

 

Okay. I like immersion and other people do not, and that is fine.

I answered your first 2 questions about Alabeo's so called forum.

As for me, I thought there would be some realistic immersion based on Alabeo's website that says "Realistic behavior". I bought it and learned my lesson the hard way. It's not made for someone like me. In this forum I asked if there are any planes made by Alabeo/Carenado that people would recommend, and I received 1 mediocre review about 1 other Alabeo/Carenado plane, and to me that really says alot.

If the reviews are different, then why are there no complaints in youtube? I just typed in "Alabeo cessna 441 review" in google and 4 videos came up with only 2 having a person talking. One guy's only complaint was about the sun visor. The other review had nothing to do with aircraft systems as it was all about how shiny the plane is. If you know of a good video review with substance, please post the link and I will watch it.

My mistake for buying it, not my kind of addon.

I say the following respectfully so please do not take this out of context: You and I will never be on the same page regarding what Alabeo told me in support tickets that I have posted here, and that is fine, even though Alabeo told me in another e-mail that it is, "impossible for any turboprop aerplane in FSX to have a GPU". I sent them a youtube video of another turbo prop in FSX with a gpu and that is when they quit responding with me even though I kindly asked for an answer to the video I sent to them. Alabeo is not correct on this issue but you agree with them, and that's fine as well.

I don't want to know what it was like before the first SP. They are still missing the mark on basic stuff. I have version 1.2 by the way. But remember you complained the following just earlier today:

13 hours ago, polizei said:

However I have to agree that it's incredible frustrating to see how they manage to screw up even the most basic items and even if we are talking about basic FSX SDK functions, how sloppy they are.

Keep in mind that other people on this forum here in Avsim have the same problems that I have. Complaints are legit. All you have to do is read other people's posts in this thread alone. Read the post just above your post by RichieFly.

So, polizei, let's agree to disagree. Back and forth like this gets people no where. You seem to like Alabeo's C441, so enjoy it.

I'm sorry you seem to highly dislike my opinion but differing opinions are part of life.

[FDEdev 955]

I don't 'highly dislike' your opion at all.

You love to mention that you are a  1 time only Alabeo buyer and it's pretty clear that you will not fall into the Alabeo/Carenado trap again so I don't understand why you waste your time in these forums. Why not ask Alabeo for a refund and stick to the planes you like ?

Posting here over and over again will neither change peoples opinion about Alabeo/Carenado nor will the way Alabeo/Carenado build, market and sell their planes, change.

Concering RichieFlys comment;  'really frustrating to operate' isn't very specific.

 

 

 

[KenG 492]

13 hours ago, Tango777 said:

As a 1 time buyer of an Alabeo addon, my only point is that if someone wants a truly realistically programmed sim of a turboprop, all anyone has to do if they want to is spend $10 more than the C441.

 

If you want truly realistic then that is not Carenado / Alabeo. They are known for simplistic avionics and systems. The flysimware C441 is many times better in this regard.

Carenado/Alabeo are also known for making a few updates then calling it good enough. They don't do service packs on products months or years old. They started doing 2.0 updates for a short time and then abandoned that quickly. 

The video reviews normally are very poorly done. I suspect it is more about seeing how quick someone can get a video on the net versus quality of the review. To truly review a product means you need to spend lots of time with it. Try it out in various scenarios and flip every switch and push every button. It also takes lots of research. I recommend avoiding reviews that don't come from reputable Flight Simulation sites known for honest reviews. Unfortunately, they are becoming less and less these days. 

[Tango777 4]

Who said the following quote?

On 3/2/2017 at 10:42 AM, polizei said:

Concerning the fact that their's still no patch for the 441 and 228 condition levers, it's no wonder as I haven't read a single review on the net where this is being mentioned.

[Tango777 4]

10 hours ago, KenG said:

To truly review a product means you need to spend lots of time with it. Try it out in various scenarios and flip every switch and push every button. It also takes lots of research.

I would do an honest and very detailed review but only hardcore simmers would find it helpful.

[FDEdev 955]

@Tango777 

Don't understand your question concerning the 441 and 228 condition levers.

Concerning a 'honest and very detailed' review; Why would you do a detailed review for hard core simmers for a product that's not even aimed at this group?

BTW, how many RW hours do you have in the 441 or in Garrett powered turboprops? 

[stans 702]

22 hours ago, KenG said:

If you want truly realistic then that is not Carenado / Alabeo. They are known for simplistic avionics and systems. The flysimware C441 is many times better in this regard.

Carenado/Alabeo are also known for making a few updates then calling it good enough. They don't do service packs on products months or years old. They started doing 2.0 updates for a short time and then abandoned that quickly. 

The video reviews normally are very poorly done. I suspect it is more about seeing how quick someone can get a video on the net versus quality of the review. To truly review a product means you need to spend lots of time with it. Try it out in various scenarios and flip every switch and push every button. It also takes lots of research. I recommend avoiding reviews that don't come from reputable Flight Simulation sites known for honest reviews. Unfortunately, they are becoming less and less these days. 

Spot on!  As the owner of 4 Carenado/Alabeo aircraft (Seneca II, Baron 58, Navajo, and Chieftain) I can agree with this and I will further add that Carenado's early releases actually seem to have fewer issues than their newer releases, but they have a long history of not fixing issues.

[Tango777 4]

10 hours ago, stans said:

Carenado/Alabeo are also known for making a few updates then calling it good enough. They don't do service packs on products months or years old. They started doing 2.0 updates for a short time and then abandoned that quickly. 

That explains things.

Thanks!