scottb613

FDE Input - Good - Bad - or - Ugly ?

Recommended Posts

Hi Folks,

OK - she is a sexy beast - looking for comments comparing the flight dynamics of this aircraft - to my favorite light twin in FS - the MilViz C310 (a Bernt Stolle masterpiece)... Obviously - this one is winning on the visuals and my MilViz version has been down hard in need of patches for a long time... Here's hoping they might be in the same neighborhood with FDE's...

Any input appreciated...

:wink:

Regards,

Scott

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

For a point on the milviz version, the plane have been done using a real model of a member of Milviz company. Recreating every aspect in the plane, the FDE it's done like you said by BS, but having tested and tested and tested the plane (some years ago I have been talked with BS over email about this plane and the FDE)  indeed one of the best FDE done for a Fs. 

On the other hand the alabeo version have crisp textures, details, eyes candy's, food for the eyes over the old milviz........ I don't think that BS it's still making the FDE for Carenado beo......  

So let's wait and see...............  The first looks on this 310..... 

Redgars 

RB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the Milviz, the fuel system isn't modeled correctly; that being with Cessna twins the "mains" being the tips tanks and the "Aux" tanks in the wings. The fuel flow on the LBS/HR gauge didn't seem to reflect the full range like it should. It handles ok, I suppose. I didn't like the engine sounds so I swapped them for the Sky Song version. The cockpit sounds are good; realizing all of this quite subjective. I'm not one to insist on the GTN 750 for everything with wings, so no comment (or interest) from me.

Overall, the screwed up fuel system is a non-starter for me. Nobody seems to care about this as there was no response to queries about the fuel system prior to release.

Les Parson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Les,

As big a critic I am of Alabeo/Carenado - - - if you do submit tickets - they do seem to respond - although it might not necessarily be the answer you want... I've submitted a bunch - LOL - I keep asking them to stop including that horrible Avidyne gauge and to add the REX Wx Radar... If it's wrong - just suggest we start getting tickets in early...

Thanks for responding...

Regards,
Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scott, as it's apparently inappropriate to say anything positive about Alabeo/Carendo planes in these forums I've sent you a pm ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

LOL - checking and thanks !

Hi RB,

Thanks as well !!!

:wink:

Regards,

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you could swap out the FDE and use Milviz if you have it. Some of use did that with Carenado Cheyenne II and the DA Cheyenne and it works great? Just a thought?

Cheers

Martin 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't sweat the FDE.  That's something that can be changed by the user quite easily, and changed to anything you want.  If you want the 310 to fly like the Space Shuttle, you can do it through the .cfg and .air files.  With Carenado or any other developer, about the only thing you can't change is the model.  Carenado makes really good models.  We gripe about their systems a great deal, but they are largely xml based.  So...if we don't like them, we can change them.  If Carenado used .dll files like many other developers, we'd be stuck with whatever we got.  Many of the Carenado system problems come not from their ineptitude, but from the limitations of the simulator.  They choose to code within the simulation without external engines.  That's why we get fabulous looking models for $35.   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this forum one can say something that like or not about a developer, this is not a dictatorship forum......  So if the alabeo threeten it's a bad plane for X or Y reason the best it's express The frustration......  

Swap the FDE it's not simply at all.....  There's a lines in the aircraft.cfg and the. Mdl......  For example the engines behavior can be used of Milviz to alabeo simply copy and paste the engine parameters of the archive...  w and balance too...  Speeds..  Etc...  

I'm happy with milviz three ten...  So pass on this crispy shine textured plane....  And just wait for the turbo Commander 690 Carenado....  (Commander lover) 

RB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without commenting on the ethics of replacing one manufacturer's FDE with another's, there are a couple of ways it may not be satisfactory. For example,  if the model origins are different  (and there's no reason the should be the same nor is there an easy way to alter this), then a straight swap just won't deliver. Also, if the designer has captured some aspect of the FDE in code rather than the aircraft.cfg and air files (I know for a fact that some Milviz aircraft use this technique), then those characteristics won't be maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it works with some planes better than others, depending on what you want to change. Luckily most planes don't need any mods to the FDE but a few do. TweakAircraft lets you connect the .air file with the .cfg, so if you make a change in the .air file and it needs a change or entry in the .cfg it highlights it. But would agree probably better to leave alone unless you really know what you're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, swapping .air files and .cfg parameters between models is usually a really BAD idea.  Although editing FDEs is definitely doable with the right tools... I would not exactly call it "easy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While blindly swapping files has little chance of being successful, editing .air and .cfg files is as easy as typing on your keyboard.  The .air files can be manipulated directly with AirEd or even better AirWizEd or AAM.  Knowing what to edit and what it all means is where easy ends and requires some knowledge of aerodynamics and engine theory.  If you have a degree in Aeronautical or Aerospace Engineering, it's pretty easy.  If you don't it's not so easy, but it is doable with some reading and research.  Aerospace Engineers like to make it look hard with terms like CDo, CLalpha, CYbeta, CMalpha, Dihedral Effect, and Spiral Mode.  AAM actually explains many of those terms as you peruse a particular FDE, and does it in layman's terms.  Having an aerodynamics background helps, but anyone can easily manipulate the files and with some diligence, do it in a productive fashion.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

I'm not the brightest or dumbest guy out there - most things in FS I've been able to figure out - modeling/texturing/scenery development - if not just from sheer will and persistence - - - I have spent some time editing air files and my experience wasn't easy... Change one thing - you need to load up the plane and test it in multiple flight regimes to insure it's all working as expected - many of the parameters are so interrelated... I spent countless hours trying to fix the MilViz B55 FDE as it definitely needed work - with some success but not getting what I really wanted... I was using Air Wrench along with the tools Bill mentioned... My hats off to those of you who have mastered this task - as the FDE makes or breaks a plane in my book... Bill - if you happen do the same for this as you did for the Cheyenne - please include me on that list as well...

Thanks all - for the responses...

Regards,

Scott  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

Figured I was due to bite the bullet - it's been a while - so I went all in... Tested for around 2 hours last night - some buyers remorse... While as always - the visuals are beyond criticism - the sounds seem poor and I don't care for them very much... While there may be many good things about the FDE - matching book numbers and such - the FDE in my humble opinion lacks "soul"... It just doesn't convey the feeling of flight the MilViz FDE does - I'll leave it to the more technical to critique in detail... I don't see myself getting a great deal of use out of it - your mileage may vary... Back to patiently waiting on the new MilViz C310...

Regards,
Scott 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scottb613 said:

Hi Folks,

Figured I was due to bite the bullet - it's been a while - so I went all in... Tested for around 2 hours last night - some buyers remorse... While as always - the visuals are beyond criticism - the sounds seem poor and I don't care for them very much... While there may be many good things about the FDE - matching book numbers and such - the FDE in my humble opinion lacks "soul"... It just doesn't convey the feeling of flight the MilViz FDE does - I'll leave it to the more technical to critique in detail... I don't see myself getting a great deal of use out of it - your mileage may vary... Back to patiently waiting on the new MilViz C310...

Regards,
Scott 

Scott, Very well stated; I'm with you in 100%. While I plan to stay with the Milviz C310 long term, I think you should be prepared to wait for the updated Milviz C310 for a very long time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Scott.....  Seems thats this is how the thing works with carelebo...  Lack of soul..  God words....  Hope the new milviz erase this bad taste.... 

Redgars. 

RB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the responses...

:biggrin:

 

I truly strive to be unbiased with my feedback... OK - I loaded it up again today for some pattern work - and - this time - I swapped out the sounds with those from the MilViz model - and it seems perhaps I may have been a bit harsh - LOL - it seems to fly "better" today... Can a decent sound set change our perception that much ??? The original sounds are still poor though - no question about that... I still prefer the MilViz FDE by far - but - if I didn't happen to have the MilViz model - I may have rated this as "decent"... LOL - I am comparing it to the best Light Twin FDE I've ever seen - after all... Anyway - I'll do some more testing and post any new revelations I may have...

Regards,

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

Messed around with this plane again this evening and I have to admit it is growing on me... Again - the biggest detriment is the sound package and once replaced - it's really stepped up a notch - again just shows how much other factors influence our perspective... I'm still going to get the MilViz but this just may fill the gap... The other thing I noticed about my initial testing is I didn't have my Chase Plane settings set the same - matching the settings helped a bit too... I'd certainly be interested in hearing others compare the two FDE's... It inspired enough confidence to buy the Cheyenne as well - increasing my Carenado/Alabeo stable from (3) to (5).... I'll continue testing - haven't tried any abnormal events yet - but I'll update this thread for those interested as I do...

Les - if you give me some verbiage for what the fuel tank issue is - I'll be glad to submit a ticket as well...

Regards,

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, scottb613 said:

Can a decent sound set change our perception that much ??? 

Definitely yes! IMO sound is the most underrated item in most flightsim add-ons. You are sitting in front of a small 2 dimensional screen with a tiny viewing angle and no motion but sound is 360deg and can be very realistic. Flightsimming has to do a lot with immersion and sound definitely plays a vital part.

Carenado used to have great sounds in the beginning (that's why I still like their 340 a lot) but the newer one seem to have a rather generic mix of available sound files.

An exception is their Seminole which is very nice, one the reason might be as well the (compared to newer Carenado planes) very nice sound set.

 

 However it's still an immersion and realism killer, and IMO one of the worst bugs that FSX and P3D don't simulate the sound of prop planes with constant speed props correctly!!!

 

Concerning the FDE. To me it seems to be slightly more accurate concerning cruise performance and handling than the Milviz 310.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, scottb613 said:

Les - if you give me some verbiage for what the fuel tank issue is - I'll be glad to submit a ticket as well...

I'm no expert as it relates to the FSX engine logic, but as I understand it, Cessna twin fuel logic is quite contrary to FSX in that in Cessna world, the mains are the tip-tanks and the aux tanks are those in the wings. Unless some magic is performed, as that done by Milviz for the C310, the standard FSX fuel logic will apply and thus a departure from realism. I can't locate the exact post but I believe Bill (N4GIX) described a clever process by using the term "External 1" and "External 2"  for the fuel system work the way it is supposed to. Hopefully, he can chime in here with more info.

Proposed service ticket logic:

Request:

Can Alabeo re-program the Cessna C310R fuel management system to reflect the tip-tanks as the mains (50 gallons) and the wing tanks as the aux tanks (31.5 gallons)? In addition, can Alabeo model the fuel system to only use fuel from the appropriate tank as selected and as previously described?  This change will correct the aircraft's fuel management system and significantly add to the realistic qualities of this aircraft. Thank you in advance for your attention to this important detail.

Good Luck Scott and thanks for all your efforts.

Les Parson

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

Makes sense - thanks for the response... Yeah - I recall the Seminole was VERY well received by the community and all things being equal - if the sounds were a notch above their normal - that explains a lot... I was truly surprised at how much they impacted my opinion - amazed really... One of my favorite biz-jets is the Flysimware Lear 35A (yet another major improvement being released this weekend for an old but truly fantastic plane - now THAT's support) - and if I recall correctly - they included a TSS sound pack with the model and it sounds so good... Looking back at my first post - I was a tad miffed while evaluating the 310 after hearing the sounds - which with 20/20 hindsight explains a lot... Had a good flight with this bird into Rifle CO last night - which I fully enjoyed...

Hi Les,

Thanks - I'll open my first Alabeo ticket and request what you posted with a strong suggestion that the sounds should be far better on a $35.00 product... Appreciate the help...

Regards,

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

Ticket submitted:

Quote

Hi Folks,

This is my very first Alabeo purchase...

Two issues I'd like to report:

1) Can Alabeo re-program the Cessna C310R fuel management system to reflect the tip-tanks as the mains (50 gallons) and the wing tanks as the aux tanks (31.5 gallons)? In addition, can Alabeo model the fuel system to only use fuel from the appropriate tank as selected and as previously described? This change will correct the aircraft's fuel management system and significantly add to the realistic qualities of this aircraft.

2) The sound set included is pretty bad - so much so - after loading the plane up - I was seriously disappointed and experienced buyers remorse - it affected my whole opinion of the product in a negative manner... Then I swapped out your sound set - for the old one I had on the MilViz 310 and it completely changed my whole opinion on your product... I like it now... The sound set is just as important as the model or FDE - the initial one included does not do your product justice - request you revisit that aspect of your product and look for improvements...

Thanks for your consideration...

Regards,
Scott

Regards,
Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FDE is very subjective. So are sounds.

But sounds are definitely what makes the experience more gratifying/soulful. That said, sounds are also the most difficult for developers to do right, and actually record well. To do the sounds right...   you have to record both channels separately for stereo, leaving all room or environmental acoustics and loop ticks/phasing/artifacts reduced as much as possible. Real Air did this the best with the Duke and Legacy. Most developers are very poor at this, Alabeo and Carenado are somewhat inconsistent...some planes are decent some are terrible. I'd say thats the case for their products in general...just inconsistent, except for the visuals...  but then again, they are inconsistent there too because sometimes they pay attention to the polygon count, and sometimes they seemingly dont care about it.   I respect a developer that considers FPS the most, followed by immersion. If it has one without the other I dont like the product.  Ant's does this well. Real Air almost does this well--the Duke and Legacy take some FPS hits..their older products were the best--Spitfire, SF260. Among the Alabeo line, their Saratoga TC is the best, good balance of both immersion and FPS.

That said, from the above discussion, what I really wanna know is does this 310 perform like the B58/A36/F33/V35 in terms of FPS? If not, I'm not interested.  Alabeo was started to be the "Lite" line from Carenado. The first 5-ish products have amazing FPS and visuals...take the Extra 300, Cutlass, great stuff. Lately though they have become bloated. I have be reading that this C310 has a "lite" VC or model, and hope that they are back to their FPS greatness. Comments? 

P.S.

Mil-viz 310 does the customizable gauge thing very well! Which I sorely miss on most modern developer's planes. Why cant WE choose what the avionics are? In the real world you get an STC, and throw in a Garmin if you want, throw in whatever radio/GPS/ADF/radar you name it. Developers should all include a generic light map feature (the driving issue why most dont do customizable panels anymore) that keeps the avionics bay non-discriminatory ;) And also include a flat 3D VC without knobs, so you can put in whatever you want. I miss this feature from the early Carenados!  I have heavily modified light maps on the B58 to fit my favorite freeware gauges, since you can remove the 3d knobs.

CARENADO/ALABEO PLEASE BRING BACK THE REMOVABLE 3D KNOBS FEATURE!!!

Half of the fun of the old FS games was that you could design stuff yourself--- if any of you remember one version of MSFS where they actually had a plane editor included (before GMAX)....  LONG LONG time ago.

 

 

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