Alabeo comments?

[Lewicide 6]

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

[tommygavin2 8]

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

 

[YoYo 374]

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).

 

[YoYo 374]

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

Good model for low and slow.

 

 

 

[JimmiG 244]

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.

[TerribleT 0]

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.

[FDEdev 955]

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.

 

[TerribleT 0]

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!

[FDEdev 955]

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.

[TerribleT 0]

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.

[69Yanks 33]

I see in the texture folder that there is a copilot face. I do not think there is a selection for one. Am I correct?

 

 

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

On 2/22/2017 at 5:32 PM, Chock said:

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.

A lot of truth spoken there.  I have mixed feelings.  On the one hand, nearly all of their airplanes are light versions.  On the other hand, where would we be without Carenado and Alabeo making GA planes?   They've kept it up while hardly anyone else has.  Cessnas, Pipers, Beachcraft, Mooneys.  There are several that I'd pay for a 2.0...C337...Malibu Mirage (take out the autorudder!...make the ground radio work)...TBM (if they'd make a steam version)...and some others.

So, I don't buy many but I do keep my eye out for a good one when it appears.  And I am thankful for the good ones.

[FDEdev 955]

Autorudder on the Malibu? Why not uncheck autorudder in the FSX menu if that's the case? No autorudder on my version.

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

6 hours ago, polizei said:

Autorudder on the Malibu? Why not uncheck autorudder in the FSX menu if that's the case? No autorudder on my version.

It's not an option.  Some Malibus had the auto-coordinated rudder built in and that's what they modeled.  Some Malibus didn't.  It's alright but it *could* have been an option.  Would have been nice.  It's a really nice airplane to fly, the FDE is really, really good, the views out the side are beautiful.  I'd also like to see that second transponder replaced with a DME. 

As an aside, I think people are getting bored with all the bugs and, perhaps, the things never fixed.  Maybe their sales are good but their forums seem quieter. 

[iflygary 17]

On 3/5/2017 at 0:30 AM, Gregg_Seipp said:

A lot of truth spoken there.  I have mixed feelings.  On the one hand, nearly all of their airplanes are light versions.  On the other hand, where would we be without Carenado and Alabeo making GA planes?   They've kept it up while hardly anyone else has.  Cessnas, Pipers, Beachcraft, Mooneys.  There are several that I'd pay for a 2.0...C337...Malibu Mirage (take out the autorudder!...make the ground radio work)...TBM (if they'd make a steam version)...and some others.

So, I don't buy many but I do keep my eye out for a good one when it appears.  And I am thankful for the good ones.

Greg I agree.  Carenado/Alabeo does in fact present us with a double edge sword.  They have given us more options that any other GA designer out there.  It's nice to have so many options.  However, because they make so many, so fast, they do cut corners on their systems performing accurately.