40$ is not 140$... About Carenado

[hs118 707]

14 minutes ago, WotanUK said:

Take the Do228, which high end developer has that even on the radar...nobody. 

A great truth, for sure, unfortunately. An iconic and important aircraft.

[YukonPete 586]

9 hours ago, ms2 said:

Avsim friends

I'm a little dispite by reading a lot of topics about Carenado aircrafts because I'm very happy with some of their products as the D228.

On avsim, it is a little borring song: " Carenado is less in programmation, Oh Ye..."  You are absolutely right, and else ? To repeat that again is less in interrest...

New readers, as I'm, prefert finding solutions to resolve some inperfect avionnics. Thanks, to the avsim "elite" that have that in minds.

 

In a little community of simmer-friends ( a part, pilots in the real life), I asked 3 questions.

1) How many Carenado Aircrafts have you in your fleet ? ... R: From 3 to nearly all addons.

2) In yours prefered aircrafts have you a Carenado aircraft ? ... R: except one, mostly is yes

3) are you ready to paid 100$ more for each Carenado addon to have a perfect avionics ? ... R: mostly, No

Is it representative of the simmer world ? I think probably that the silent majority is no so far of this community.

 

Perhaps that the level of programmation is less for all the addons from all editors based on the sim autopilot from fs or p3d.

Concern Carenado, I find the newer products beter, with the time... 

The best addons, I have as the majestic of a2a products, are based on external programmation out the sim... This explain the difference of price between a Carenado and a very well done pmdg product as the 747...

with a kind regard to the very interresting avsim communauty

Mark

ps: I propose to each one to make a self test with those 3 questions... ;-)

 

Sorry to hurt your feels but Carenado aircraft are terrible. If you enjoy them good for you. I have been stung one to many times buying Carenado aircraft with terrible systems that never get patched properly. I have purchased a number of excellent aircraft from other developers for around $50 so don't spill that " it's $40 not $140." garbage.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I think one problem is a lot of developers ignore the GA market, there's just not enough variety out there.  Many of the alternative GA aircraft have been out for several years with no major updates.  A lot of developers concentrate on jets or tprops, but not many piston aircraft of contemporary vintage.  If Orbx Lancair IV-P ever gets updated for P3dv4 I'll get that, fine aircraft, fills a niche not often filled in our hobby.

John

[ms2 184]

9 minutes ago, Cactus521 said:

I think one problem is a lot of developers ignore the GA market, ther

Precisely the sense of mine topic, Perhaps some ones don't want always long hault in jet. Flying in vfr and appreciate the ground scenery in a beautifull 3d cockpit is real pleasure for me and a lot of casual (sic) simmers.

I accept the classification of middle level quality for Carenado but never as bad product. I have a lot of other addon's that I forget as bad product.

The problem is productions well done for fsx are no more diponible for p3dv4... And Carenado take the market before the other.

Some editors don't want rewrite in 64 bits their excellent addon's because most simmers prefert to stay in fsx.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

27 minutes ago, ms2 said:

Precisely the sense of mine topic, Perhaps some ones don't want always long hault in jet. Flying in vfr and appreciate the ground scenery in a beautifull 3d cockpit is real pleasure for me and a lot of casual (sic) simmers.

I accept the classification of middle level quality for Carenado but never as bad product. I have a lot of other addon's that I forget as bad product.

The problem is productions well done for fsx are no more diponible for p3dv4... And Carenado take the market before the other.

Some editors don't want rewrite in 64 bits their excellent addon's because most simmers prefert to stay in fsx.

P3d is gaining more traction as people upgrade and see the performance improvements over FSX, plus the bug fixes.  FSX has reached its limits although aircraft add-ons are still good for the sim, especially from some of the heavy iron makers like PMDG.  Photoreal scenery is the biggest improvement with FSX, although many prefer autogen over photoreal.  But photoreal scenery renders better in P3d, with no stutters or dynamic blurries to speak of.  However my first photoreal project in XP11 really stunned me when I saw the finished results, had no idea it would turn out so well.  OrthoXP is amazing and a gift to the Xplane community once you get over the install hurdles, since there's a couple of ways it can be installed.  I prefer my solution of putting python in the same folder as OrthoXP, having everything together there in one place.  Once I did that OrthoXP just kind of took off on its own, easy to use.  I am only doing two projects with it, one my completed Phoenix metro scenery, the other my in progress SF Bay area scenery.

John

[hs118 707]

4 minutes ago, Cactus521 said:

...my first photoreal project in XP11 really stunned me...

John,

Another cool thing happening in XPlane is the Reality Expansion packs for Carenado and default aircraft. The Carenados in XPlane are already more functional than their ESP/FSX/P3D equivalents and the Reality Expansion packs take them to a study level sim.

Would love to see that kind of mod for Carenados in P3D.
 

 

[John_Cillis 2,406]

15 minutes ago, Henry Street said:

John,

Another cool thing happening in XPlane is the Reality Expansion packs for Carenado and default aircraft. The Carenados in XPlane are already more functional than their ESP/FSX/P3D equivalents and the Reality Expansion packs take them to a study level sim.

Would love to see that kind of mod for Carenados in P3D.
 

 

I haven't purchased any add-ons for Xplane since I mainly fly the 172 and from time to time the Cirrus.  I don't see any new Carenado aircraft on the horizon that I will purchase, my suite is pretty much complete in P3d since they allowed me to reinstall my FSX purchases there, saving me at least the $300 I originally invested for FSX.

John

[ms2 184]

Must be said... Yes, customers of Carenado have access to v4 of their addons without spend a little money... This is one of the best news from the developers with the incomming of v4... 90% of Carenado evoluted on 64bits rapidely.*

A simple "thank you" from me to Carenado team... I sincerely think that they work very hard in the last days... Without ask a little penny....

Sure, I do not spit in mine  soup ;-))

Mark

* thank you to all developpers who do the same...

 

[John_Cillis 2,406]

2 minutes ago, ms2 said:

Cactus, it seem to be a bug in avsim post because I don't posted twice...

best regards

Mark

Sometimes happens.  BTW, what is your favorite Carenado aircraft?  Do you also buy Alabeo products?  I like the Mirage the most, followed by the TBM 850 that has near jet cruise speeds.  On youtube there's some good TBM 850 posts if you want to experience a flight from the pilot's perspective, you can get a good feel for how ATC works with GA aircraft in the flight levels.

John

[hs118 707]

1 hour ago, Cactus521 said:

I haven't purchased any add-ons for Xplane since I mainly fly the 172

Just released is a Reality Expansion pack for the default 172. Likely I will be picking it up. The new 172 is beautiful in XPlane.

[ms2 184]

Cactus,

I'm a in the real life a Beechcraft fan, in sim mine prefered are now the 90 and the least 350i... Fast with the easy to use "pro line" avionic. ... only take care for landing speeds....or motors burnings. I'm preparing with a friend, before instructor on AG aircrafts, a world tour with the 350i.

The Pa31 is very well. The caravan I and II, the same.

The D228 is a fantastic aircraft well equiped, long range (I flying twice on it in the real life...)

In a Ag club, I use the 172 or the centurion to show procedures and checklists for touch and go... ( but  a2a for preflight round)

And to dream on orbx sceneries simply the money... Slow and easy.

I don't like aircraft based on garmin 1000, the mouse is unable to rapidely tuned the datas... but have no problem to fly all analogics aircrafts...

For hard core flights on commuter of jet, there are no Carenada addons ( a other level of addons) the used are the Dash 4/800 and the 320.... (Now only in v3).

For the oldies:  the B17 or the 195 for fun.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

10 minutes ago, ms2 said:

Cactus,

I'm a in the real life a Beechcraft fan, in sim mine prefered are now the 90 and the least 350i... Fast with the easy to use "pro line" avionic. ... only take care for landing speeds....or motors burnings. I'm preparing with a friend, before instructor on AG aircrafts, a world tour with the 350i.

The Pa31 is very well. The caravan I and II, the same.

The D228 is a fantastic aircraft well equiped, long range (I flying twice on it in the real life...)

In a Ag club, I use the 172 or the centurion to show procedures and checklists for touch and go... ( but  a2a for preflight round)

And to dream on orbx sceneries simply the money... Slow and easy.

I don't like aircraft based on garmin 1000, the mouse is unable to rapidely tuned the datas... but have no problem to fly all analogics aircrafts...

For hard core flights on commuter of jet, there are no Carenada addons ( a other level of addons) the used are the Dash 4/800 and the 320.... (Now only in v3).

For the oldies:  the B17 or the 195 for fun.

A different mix from what I fly.  I have the Alabeo DA40 and DA42, their Tomahawk and the Cardinal.  On the Carenado side I have the Citation 525, Premier 1, Phenom 100, TBM 850, Malibu Jetprop, Malibu Mirage, C210, C337, Commander 114 and a few others.  They all cover certain speed ranges--400kts plus, 300 kts plus, 200 kts plus, and 120-160 kts plus.  Allows me to pick an aircraft based on intended start and destination, I usually pick flights between one and two hours.  My favorite route is from the SF Bay Area to Reno, the SF Bay Area to LA, and LA to Phoenix.  I fly over MSE scenery for VFR navigation.  When used with Carenado aircraft, it really brings the sim to life.

My setup is new, my system one month old, replaced an old 2.33 GHZ system with FSX that crashed for two reasons, Windows Update not installing properly and a cpu fan failure.  It awaits restoration for archival purposes, so I can recover some VB projects I had been working on.  I bought my system at Frys Electronics, a chain here in the states that has Megastores, two here in Phoenix where I live with one being just up the road a bit.  Their salesperson helped me pick the right system, I insisted on one with an Nvidia card, I've preferred them over Radeon's since my only experience with a Radeon was poor several years ago.  The card I have ended up being perfectly matched for my system, it does not choke on 3d applications.  Google earth for instance just screams with super fast updates.

John

[JYW 2,980]

1 hour ago, Henry Street said:

Just released is a Reality Expansion pack for the default 172. Likely I will be picking it up. The new 172 is beautiful in XPlane.

...and it's strikingly good, with the REP !    You won't be disappointed.   It often amazes me, as a 'hardcore simmer' for 15 years, that one of my favourite and most used a/c in XP11 is a default aircraft!!  (albeit with REP).   I personally enjoy it more than the A2A C172 in P3Dv4, as the VC is nicer and it feels more like the C172s I've flown in the real world (especially on approach and landing).   That's just personal preference though.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

7 minutes ago, JYW said:

...and it's strikingly good, with the REP !    You won't be disappointed.   It often amazes me, as a 'hardcore simmer' for 15 years, that one of my favourite and most used a/c in XP11 is a default aircraft!!  (albeit with REP).   I personally enjoy it more than the A2A C172 in P3Dv4, as the VC is nicer and it feels more like the C172s I've flown in the real world (especially on approach and landing).   That's just personal preference though.

The C172 in XP11 is a pleasant surprise, as detailed as payware, evolved from previous versions of Xplane.  Once trimmed it simply flies hands off, with subtle corrections for heading.  Since I like GA, the 172 just fits nicely with my flying preferences.  Can't wait to try it out over my Bay Area photoreal when it's done in a couple of hours.  I had to redo the project, for some reason OrthoXP4 forgot the destination directory, but since it runs in the background, no real worries.  When done I will have my two favorite regional areas done in photoreal, without autogen since that's the way I prefer it.

Flight Unlimited 2 was my first photoreal flying experience in a sim, although it was low res and no add-ons were available, it predicted what was to come by almost a decade.  It was a fun little sim, wonder how many members here have flown it. 

John

[signmanbob 592]

10 hours ago, Chock said:

stark contrast to Carenado and Alabeo, where they put stuff out a prolific rate which has sloppy or lazy attributes, and leave things like that whilst moving on to producing more of the same instead of addressing the existing problems with things they have taken money for. And whether it is 40 Dollars or 140 Dollars, that is a very poor attitude for a business to have.

Disliking a company policy like that is nothing to do with an elitist attitude, it's to do with not liking poor customer service and products which are not up to scratch. Nobody with any sense will deny that Carenado and Alabeo products look great, but being sold a good looking product which has faults, which are often not rectified is not nice.

Hello Alan,

I agree with you here.  I do buy a lot of Carenado and Alabeo products because, for me, most of them fly ~ok~ and they look absolutely awesome.

I only wish that they would put the same effort into the systems and flight dynamics that they put into the visuals, and sell them for twice as much.

Carenado and Alabeo are textual artists, and masters at that.

I would love to see them get tied up with Flightsimware for the systems and flight dynamics, but that probably would never happen.

 

Bob