Sign in to follow this  
newtie

Alabeo comments?

Recommended Posts

Hi all-

 

Just saw the PA22. Looks nice. Anyone want to share experiences with their purchases?

Looks like Carenado stuff but don't know if looks = functionality with them.

 

Cheers,

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

From the Carenado/Alabeo stuff I've got, which admittedly ain't that much (three maybe four in total) it's a bit of a mixed bag. Generally speaking most people say the same thing about their stuff as I would, i.e. very pretty models but not always great in terms of flight modeling or systems modeling.

 

It's not always true though, some are very good, for example, I have one of Alabeo's Crop Dusters (forget which one, or even where I bought it, but it is somewhere lol) and that is good as far as the flight model goes and it is a very nice 3D model too, although admittedly, it's not exactly the space shuttle in terms of avionics, so it'd be difficult to arse that aspect of it even if they wanted to, but as I say, it flies really well and looks stunning.

 

On the other hand, I recently bought their Cessna C441 Conquest II, and the flight model (and particularly how it taxies), is nothing short of attrocious. It's a beautiful 3D model, but I literally flew it twice (or tried to) and I've not touched it since, instead using the far better FlySimWare C441, which isn't quite as pretty as the Alabeo model, but at least it flies right and has realistic systems modeling, excellent in fact.

 

So I'd say it is a bit of a dice roll with Carenado/Alabeo, and by that I mean you are literally gonna have to roll six times to be in with a shot at getting what you want, and that's not good. I've heard many people say they ain't great at patching stuff either, nor exactly stellar when it comes to responding to tickets.

 

What all that means is that I'd really check out some of the reviews and comments in their support forum if you are considering one of their products, because as noted, some are really good, but a lot of them are all show and no go, and you evidently can't bank on problems being corrected rapidly either, which is a shame because they are undeniably great at 3D modeling and texturing, I don't think anyone would dispute that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like Alabeo for the simple aircraft, like at AG Truck, biplanes, etc. They are so darned pretty.

 

Indeed the flight model and systems lack, according to the pros, on the more complex Carenado and Alabeo aircraft. I don't have real-world flying experience so I cannot judge.

 

Again, they are so darned pretty to look at. Spectacular VCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Alan. I'm thinkin' I might hold off.

 

Cheers,

 

Well, don't let just one person's opinion put you off, especially if it is mine lol.

 

Like I say, check out their support forum here on Avsim and if you see lots of people protesting about an issue and no responses from the developer about it, you'll know it's a problem potentially, if on the other hand there isn't much to complain about and no obvious complaint threads because of that, it probably means it is one of the good ones, and as I say, it's not like there aren't any good ones, for example, that crop duster of theirs is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echoing Chock's comments on the Conquest, I worked with this aeroplane for five years and excitedly bought it upon release. Visuals were superb, system modelling was poor. What really killed it for me were the sounds. They didn't sound anything remotely like the Garretts on the real aeroplane, and it really killed the immersion for me. I explained this to Alabeo, who understood and kindly agreed to a refund. I then spent the money on the Fly Sim Ware model and though the visuals are not the same standard, it is made by a company with experience on the Conquest and it really shows.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PA22 is a simple aircraft, so it should at least be a good fit for Alabeo/Carenado. When they try to do something complex like a G1000 it always comes crashing down due to bugs, lack of functionality etc.

 

Would be interesting to see how it compares to the Lionheart version. With that, you get more variations (including tailwheel version), but the texturing and modelling might not be quite as good, judging by the screenshots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A RW ex Tri Pacer pilot just posted on another wellknown flightsim website that the Alabeo version looks nicer and also flies nicer than the Lionheart version.

(Haven't come across an Alabeo/Carenado plane with a bad or unrealistic realistic FDE in the last few years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a simple and enjoyable small plane! Ideal for a short VFR hop. Quite immersive, due to beautiful interior and exterior graphics and a nice sound!

The build in GPS is not really usable (didn't show a map or usable navigation data for me), but that's not too bad in a VFR setup. The flight model is believable and somewhat demanding, at least with some wind being present.

It's slow, it's beautiful, it's fun to fly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they're looking into the two side cockpit/panel spotlights not being visible externally, the dome & panel light switches not working independently and the Shift+2 (Control Windows), selection of either 'VC windows' and/or 'Instrument reflection' having no effect (in FSX).   Not taken her up yet but no doubting the usual superb quality texturing  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't integration per se, but it's an easy enough DIY. In VC 2 Change the alabeo 430 to the RXP 430 in VC2.   You have to shift it over a bit, change first position number to "-10"


[Vcockpit02}

Background_color=0,0,0

size_mm=512,512

visible=1

pixel_size=513,513

texture=$Panel_1

 

gauge00=rxpGNS!GNS430, -10, 0, 512,256,UNIT1.VC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely buy anything for the MSFS side anymore, but I may just pick this one up. This seems more in line with the older Alabeo releases that I've quite enjoyed and the price point is very reasonable. We'll see.

 

Slightly on the fence because I will absolutely buy this one for XP when they convert it for that platform - the Carenado / Alabeo releases always seem to be quite a bit improved when they make it over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought it

You can get map and info on the Alabeo 430 by clicking on the first group of text on the lower right of the unit (default/map I think)

The features control bug is annoying but will probably be fixed.

My only real complaint is the lack of Rxp integration

Don't like the generic/Alabeo/Carenado  430/530 s

Ummmmmmm Bert  pleeeease :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

What is this "UNIT1.VC" stuff for an RXP unit?

Sorry Bert, my mistake.  I actually had flight1's 430 installed and changed it to the rxp.  Forgot to delete that part.

 

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 8:44 AM, tommygavin2 said:

There isn't integration per se, but it's an easy enough DIY. In VC 2 Change the alabeo 430 to the RXP 430 in VC2.   You have to shift it over a bit, change first position number to "-10"

 

 

[Vcockpit02}

 

Background_color=0,0,0

size_mm=512,512

visible=1

pixel_size=513,513

texture=$Panel_1

 

gauge00=rxpGNS!GNS430, -10, 0, 512,256,UNIT1.VC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23.02.2017 at 2:44 PM, tommygavin2 said:

[Vcockpit02}

 

Background_color=0,0,0

size_mm=512,512

visible=1

pixel_size=513,513

texture=$Panel_1

gauge00=rxpGNS!GNS430, -10, 0, 512,256,UNIT1.VC

Hello,

Could You be so kind :)  and will add more info how to add GNS 430 of Flight1 ( http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=f1gns ) to Virual cockpit of Tri Pacer + screenshot how it looks (I havent it)? I'd like to see it. Im owner GNT 750/650 only.

This settings looks like for RealityXP gauge I think (RXP, not F1 as You describe before).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of my pictures btw. if someone thinks about this model. 3D modelling is awesome! 

Good model for low and slow.

AlabeoPA2_awarnrr.jpg

AlabeoPA2_awsqxnx.jpg

AlabeoPA2_awarpqh.jpg

AlabeoPA2_awsqhwh.jpg

AlabeoPA2_awsqpra.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's the visibility out the sides, in your opinion? With many high-wing aircraft like the C206 etc, you almost have to have TrackIR or you can't see anything under the wing except what's directly underneath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adjust your eye height from within the sim to suit the various flying states, that's what you have to do in real life with small high wing aircraft -seat up aor down, back or forward depending on takeoff, climb, cruise, descent or landing.

Apart from the various comments above about things that don't work, lights too bright, etc., I have adjust the config file to reflect reality with:

(a) W&B (only very bold pilots would put adults in the back or 100lb in the bags);

(b) engine cylinder displacement and compression ratio as per Lycoming specs;

(c) fuel capacity as per Piper specs for PA22-160.

Back up you aircraft.cfg file and replace with these where appropriate if you want to try it, A2A Accufeel also makes them work better:

station_load.2 = 140, -2.30,  0, 0, //-1
station_load.3 = 140, -2.30,  0, 0, //-1
station_load.4 = 50,  -3.80,  0, 0, //-2

cylinder_displacement= 80 //93
compression_ratio=     8.5 //6                     
                
[fuel]
LeftMain  = 0.0, -2.5, 1.5, 18, 1,    //16   
RightMain = 0.0,  2.5, 1.5, 18, 1,    //16

Otherwise, beautiful model to look at and fun to fly when adjusted in the above minor ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's strange as my cfg file shows only a single male pilot (190lbs) in the plane. No one in the back and no baggage.

Altering the position of the station loads, especially fore and aft isn't a good idea because FSX and P3D don't calculate the moment arm correctly which means for a realistic FDE you can't simply use RW numbers.

Concering engine data. The important values are defined in the air file not in the cfg file. So if the FDE is ok, changing anything in the cfg file might change the actual engine behaviour/performance.

But concerning the fuel capacity fix you are correct.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry mate, I put a 180lb pilot and a 180lb co-pilot in as well.  Most GA aircraft are built to, and operate at, max load and I have been doing this to FDE since FS98 with an immediate improvement in aircraft handling both on the ground and in the air.  RW numbers do work if they are modified according to the developers CoG and entries made in the cfg file will override those in the air file.  You can also modify the CoG if you wish but it is a bit complex. If the developers make a good model you can do this. Carenado and Alabeo make good models.

Again engine corrections in the FDE override the air file and if you do this for this aircraft you will be pleasantly surprised at how it conforms to POH performance and develops the power that it should at higher altitudes than sea level.

Anyway, if you try it and like it well and good, if not delete and use your original config.

Have fun in FS at all times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let me re-phrase it.  The moment arm calculation might be 'theoretically' correct but the effect it has on pitch stability etc. isn't.

A good example is the Carenado B1900 which doesn't use RW numbers at all, but if loaded tail heavy (e.g. only the aft baggage compartment) she becomes really unstable in pitch.

Data in the cfg file not always simply overwrite' data in the airfile. Like in case of the engine sections in the air and cfg file they rather complement each other. 

Btw, can't remember to have ever seen a PA22 IRL with 4 people on board and personally I do prefer if the cfg loadout matches the visual loadout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First two lines I left out in my original post concerning this aircraft:

station_load.0 = 180, 0,  0, 0,
station_load.1 = 180, 0,  0, 0,

Generally I should state my FDE amendments via cfg file are only done for tricycle undercarriage piston engine aircraft usually with default MS datum point 0,0,0 based on the center point of the aircraft wing chord line laterally, vertically and horizontally, (but some very good developers do use RW datum points and COGs).  I only do it for aircraft for which I have POH and some operational experience so that the aircraft will perform and be balanced according to the POH charts and W&B envelope in a fully loaded state as this is what those charts reflect if you read the fine print. Mind you the POH are individual to each aircraft as manufactured but they're usually all in the same ball park except for special builds which Carenado/Alabeo sometimes model.

Taildraggers are not worth trying to adjust as developers have to fool MS to make them work (my hat's off to them).

Turboprops are also not worth doing owing the MS peculiar simulation of the engine power, torque, thrust, etc., (hence the above B1900D comments and my hat's off to developers again here).

Jets I don't even think about LOL.

I've seen and been in a PA22-160 with two adults in front, two kids in the back, couple of bags and fuel to suit the W&B envelope - very delicately balanced and require very good operational technique!

Hey, but whatever turns you on is good in the sim is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this