Anyone have the Carenado Do 228?

[kneighbour 32]

 I notice that Carenado have converted the Do228 over to X-Plane now and that it was released a short time ago. There only seems to be 1 video of it on Youtube, so pretty hard to get a good idea of it. Has any one here tried it out?

It seems a nice plane to fly on FSE, and it looks good, but am somewhat wary of buying Carenado aircraft, so would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

[Glenn_C 135]

I have seen a few Twitch streams where people have been using it and it seems to be quite good. Even Rush at Aerosimgaming was quite positive about the flight model. The cockpit textures also seem quite good. 

https://go.twitch.tv/videos/186790086

https://go.twitch.tv/videos/187316310

 

[kneighbour 32]

Thanks! Good news. Will check out those links.

[Susu986 76]

1 hour ago, kneighbour said:

 I notice that Carenado have converted the Do228 over to X-Plane now and that it was released a short time ago. There only seems to be 1 video of it on Youtube, so pretty hard to get a good idea of it. Has any one here tried it out?

It seems a nice plane to fly on FSE, and it looks good, but am somewhat wary of buying Carenado aircraft, so would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

I'm interested in this bird too, finally a plane with steam-gauge controls, where the GPS only gets a minor a part. I know I belong to the smaller camp of people, but I prefer aircraft without GPS (or an a/c where the GPS is not prominent), and I'm eagerly waiting for them to make the C172 Cutlass II X-plane 11 compatible. That was my favorite aircraft under FSX, and would buy it on day 1!

[kneighbour 32]

Watched one of those Twitch channels (Aerosimgaming) and the guy did a brilliant job of tearing the plane to bits. Knew his stuff totally. Seems like the usual Carenado stuff - looks good but not the best anything else. There were so many things wrong/faulty it was pretty laughable. I think if Carenado fixes all the issues it could be a good plane. I have been watching the FF A320 stuff this week, so perhaps I am used to things being a bit more realistic at the moment!

It seems an update might be coming out shortly. If they fix a few of the most glaring problems, then it might be ok to buy.

[StefanH75 23]

1 hour ago, kneighbour said:

Watched one of those Twitch channels (Aerosimgaming) and the guy did a brilliant job of tearing the plane to bits. Knew his stuff totally. Seems like the usual Carenado stuff - looks good but not the best anything else. There were so many things wrong/faulty it was pretty laughable. I think if Carenado fixes all the issues it could be a good plane. I have been watching the FF A320 stuff this week, so perhaps I am used to things being a bit more realistic at the moment!

It seems an update might be coming out shortly. If they fix a few of the most glaring problems, then it might be ok to buy.

I would not take this guy too serious. He probably knows wich option in planemake is doing what, but does he really know the real DO228 flight dynamics? Do you, do I? I would say no. There is already a statement by Thranda, that Planemaker settings are overwritten by the SASL plugin: https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/131644-carenado-do-228-announced-for-x-plane-11/&tab=comments#comment-1273093 However, there are some issues acknowledged by the developers and they will be fixed.

[Glenn_C 135]

1 hour ago, StefanH75 said:

I would not take this guy too serious. He probably knows wich option in planemake is doing what, but does he really know the real DO228 flight dynamics? Do you, do I? I would say no. There is already a statement by Thranda, that Planemaker settings are overwritten by the SASL plugin: https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/131644-carenado-do-228-announced-for-x-plane-11/&tab=comments#comment-1273093 However, there are some issues acknowledged by the developers and they will be fixed.

He is a licensed aircraft engineer and believe me he knows what he is talking about. I think he is also type rated for the 737-800 as simulator engineer.

[Ident 198]

To the OP, since you are also a FSE member, I find this plane to be a nice model for FSE use. In VR it looks great. In FSE it is a nice size hauler that is fast and STOL. Like many Carenado planes, I buy them for the eye candy and use in FSE and not for the features like say an A2A plane. 

[Jimmy RFR 406]

Dan's conversions usually get the nod from me. I find that the Carenado fleet in XP are much more polished than the MSFS originals.

It's worth noting that they kept the GTN bezel, which means that the RXP GTN will work in it.

Once the beta is over, I may pick it up.

[kneighbour 32]

5 hours ago, Glenn_C said:

He is a licensed aircraft engineer and believe me he knows what he is talking about. I think he is also type rated for the 737-800 as simulator engineer.

He certainly seems to know what he is talking about. And he actually 'fixed' a lot of the more obvious problems right there and then with planemaker. It made Carenado look pretty silly, to be honest. If he could do it so easily, why couldn't Carenado be bothered to do the same?  Some of the problems were obvious - like they had put some of the prop blades on back to front! You could even see the deicing boots on the rear of the prop. I won't go into details, but to be honest, I already have a couple of Carenado aircraft, and I was not surprised in the least. One of my concerns with Carenado is that they do not seem to want to fix problems with their models (in my experience) - very few updates ever come out. But we will see with this one.

It seems a very nice model for FSE - 21 pax is a very good number. There are not many planes of this type available in FSE to buy, but that might change. I am also looking for something to replace the STMA Pilatus PC-12 that I flew the most in FSE. I also like the mix of steam gauges, but I like a fair semblance of realism as well.

 

 

[kneighbour 32]

Just now, Jimmy RFR said:

Once the beta is over, I may pick it up.

Same here - as long as the main stuff gets fixed. But they never fixed the PC-12 which I bought on Day 1. I flew the STMA PC-12  a LOT, and was very disappointed with the Carenado version. They are expensive aircraft, especially considering the exchange rate to Aussy dollars, so I will see what happens.

[Paraffin 2,197]

4 hours ago, Ident said:

To the OP, since you are also a FSE member, I find this plane to be a nice model for FSE use. In VR it looks great. In FSE it is a nice size hauler that is fast and STOL. Like many Carenado planes, I buy them for the eye candy and use in FSE and not for the features like say an A2A plane. 

I'm another FSE pilot and that's how I think of Carenado planes too. I use them because they fit certain niche areas for cargo/pax in FSE where there usually aren't good alternatives for X-Plane, like the C208 Caravan or the Beechcraft twins. 

I admit I'll even use a Carenado model when another one has slightly better flight and systems modeling, but the Carenado version has better textures and lighting. Like the Pilatus PC-12, one of the two aircraft I "own" in FSE (the other is a Bell 412). The STMA version is probably better on a technical level, but the Carenado version just looks better in the cockpit. I spend a LOT of time staring at the cockpit in FSE, so that cockpit had better look good!

With the new maintenance fees system, I can't afford to "buy" another plane in FSE, but I might pick up the Carenado Do-228 for the occasional rental flight. I'm a fan of overhead wing, STOL twins for bush flying. The other models I have and rent occasionally in FSE are the Carenado Aero Commander, RWDesigns Twin Otter, and the MU-2. The Do-228 would fit right in there.

[avgaskoolaid 292]

I'm extremely happy with the Do228 in XPlane so far. Everyone needs to remember that "Carenado" planes in XP would be more accurately described as "Carenado/Thranda" joint productions. The Thranda development team really knows how to breathe life into Carenado's comparatively lackluster FSX/P3D addons. I have the Do228 in P3D and the differences are very noticeable. For example: the sounds are 10x better, the handling is noticeably more realistic, the engine behavior, especially in the beta range, is much better, and overall the plane feels more like a $40 product than its MSFS counterpart. There are still a few issues, though:

1) The tire rolling sound activates when the plane isn't moving. I removed this effect from the FMOD sound file and am using XPRealistic for my rolling sounds instead.

2) The passenger sound is too loud and has a very obvious loop. They will introduce an option to mute passengers in the next update. 

3) It's very, very difficult to slow the airplane down on final approach. With 1 notch of flaps, it seems to keep its speed to high and float way too much. The devs said a fix for this is on the way, and hopefully Aerosimgaming's modified flight dynamics will bring further improvements.

Overall, if you like bush/commuter flying, give this thing a try! It's far and away better than the MSFS version and is one of the best aircraft in its class in XP11. 

[kneighbour 32]

1 hour ago, hamoody said:

Overall, if you like bush/commuter flying, give this thing a try! It's far and away better than the MSFS version and is one of the best aircraft in its class in XP11. 

I am encouraged by your opinion of the aircraft. I tend more to the realism side, not the eye candy. And I do not mean slavishly true to the particular aircraft in every detail. But I want the gross details to be pretty close. For example, the first thing that hit me from the Carenado promo video is that the engines spool up instantly. This is certainly not the case in RL and detracts a bit from the immersion. Not a killer issue, but -1 point right there. The fuel cutoff/engine shutdown functions are more serious and problems in that vein concern me more. Your problems with drag/etc on landing are a killer for me. Pitch control also seems an issue. They will have to fix those issues before I buy it.

What always amazes me, and this is not a Carenado specific issue by any means, is that these aircraft can be developed for months, presumably tested day and night by someone - then I can do 1 flight and find 10 bugs straight up!  I am a software developer myself, so I do understand some of the issues. I have only ever bought one aircraft (the new Pipistrel Panthera) that to my eyes was (and still is) bug free. Perhaps also the 732. And I have bought a LOT of aircraft. Some aircraft are so bad they simply go back in the hanger and are never flown again.

And don't get me wrong - I understand business pressures and the constant need to generate income. I really liked what IXEG did - they brought out an aircraft and up front gave a list of things that were not working or were issues. Mind you, they have been awfully slow in bringing out any updates, but at least the idea was a good one. What annoys me is when you know no updates will ever come out and you have paid $50 for a plane you have flown only a couple of times. It becomes pretty expensive.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

1 hour ago, kneighbour said:

What always amazes me, and this is not a Carenado specific issue by any means, is that these aircraft can be developed for months, presumably tested day and night by someone - then I can do 1 flight and find 10 bugs straight up!

I always consider that any aircraft / helicopter is never going to be 100% perfect. What you're paying for is what the respective team of developers has been able to accomplish, with the realization that most teams are comprised of just a few individuals who are doing the best they can.

Testing on add-on aircraft is usually done on the goodwill of people volunteering their time in exchange for very little, perhaps a copy of the aircraft being tested - and is far from perfect in catching all bugs, especially bugs that might be only be considered to be a bug when compared to the real world aircraft.

Besides, we all have our acceptability limits and it differs from person to person, nothing wrong with that. But the more uncommon an aircraft is, the more I'm willing to flex a bit it being a perfect replication. I'd rather have a slightly imperfect Do228 than yet another 172...