Hi,

A short while ago I bought the Fokker 50 and it is a nice aircraft.
However the cockpit graphics imho do not match the normal quality we get from Carenado. It is a bit of a gray mass so to speak.
Looking at the S340 screenshots/videos, the S340 cockpit looks much more realistic and vibrant.

Pilots having both ( Bert? ), is my observation correct? Which one do you like the most, also system wise?
I'm on the fence to buy the S340 as well.

Egbert

 

Edited April 28, 20188 yr by Egbert Drenth

The 340 cockpit is very inviting.. it seems more roomy than the F50.

And yes, it is little bit less drab than the F50.

As for systems, I have not really had a chance to test it all, but having the GTN 750 in the panel, rather than between the seats is more appealing IMHO..

Edited April 28, 20188 yr by Bert Pieke

Oki thanks!

Bought it and installing as we speak.
It appears to be V1.1 (2018-04-27)

Hi

I note you mention v1.1

Has there been an update?

Struggling to get the GTN 750 into the panel

xxd09

V1.1 is the current download, but getting a GTN into the panel was working before, if you run the F1GTN exe in the S34 aircraft folder.

10 hours ago, Egbert Drenth said:

Hi,A short while ago I bought the Fokker 50 and it is a nice aircraft.
However the cockpit graphics imho do not match the normal quality we get from Carenado. It is a bit of a gray mass so to speak.
 

Wouldn't that be because the real F50 cockpit is a bit of a gray mass as well ?..... 😊

The Carenado S340 VC looks a bit more sophisticated compared to the F50 VC but that's exactly true for the real cockpits as well, isn't it. ( a typical case of typical dutch "doe maar gewoon dan doe je al gek genoeg.. ; -)

Personally i love both these new Carenado products, IMHO more than worth the money. I wouldn't mind if they'd continue on this heading : i.e. Embraer 120, Dornier 328, ATR42, Short 360, usw.

 

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Javiz said:

Personally i love both these new Carenado products, IMHO more than worth the money.

Come on now.  There are far too many bugs for the money.  The price nears actual study sim costs, but the products fall far short.

The only exception to this I've seen is the S550, where everything works out of the box.

2 hours ago, Javiz said:

Wouldn't that be because the real F50 cockpit is a bit of a gray mass as well ?

Hahaha, can't argue with that. 

7 hours ago, Greggy_D said:

Come on now.  There are far too many bugs for the money.  The price nears actual study sim costs, but the products fall far short.

The only exception to this I've seen is the S550, where everything works out of the box.

I agree with this......

Carenado does not give any support or answer to posts of problems, there are a lot of bugs in the SAAB340, it even seems that they update the installer without telling people, the price tag nears study level sims but their aircraft are far away from that point.

Edited April 29, 20188 yr by Bentree_

Odd.  People keep saying the price is comparable to "study level sims" ... literally every study level sim i have has cost me hundreds of dollars, whereas pretty much every single basic aircraft add-on that I have which is not study level has cost between 40 and 60 bucks.  I think a lot of folks are getting confused as to what a study level sim is.  These Carenado aircraft are falling exactly into the price point I'd expect for an entertainment level add-on for P3D.

Edited May 4, 20188 yr by Faelandaea Dravin
Spelling Corrections

2 hours ago, Faelandaea Dravin said:

literally every study level sim i have has cost me hundreds of dollars

Name them.

I personally have never heard of "study level sim" but found an old topic in our Hangar Chat -

I was able to find a Wiki definition of System-level simulation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System-level_simulation but not "study" level simulation.  I suspect these are the "cream of the crop" in regards to flight simulation that simulate the real aircraft the best?  Just asking.

 

@JIm - Pretty much nailed right on, yes.  For entertainment games like FSX, P3D, X-Plane, etc., "Study Level Sim" is mainly slang for an aircraft that has complex systems, and all such systems are simulated and handled.  Their capabilities often go beyond what the base simulator was designed for, so the aircraft has independent code of its own which makes the aircraft pretty much a simulation in itself, using the flight simulator for pretty much nothing more than scenery.   A prime example of this is PMDG, of which all of their aircraft are considered "Study Level" due to the depth of their aircraft simulations.  All of their base aircraft for such simulations are between $100-$200 each.

In the turboprop department, the Majestic Simulations Q400 is also on par with a study level aircraft, but only if you get the "Training" edition, which is Euro 121.99.  There is an entertainment level version of it for 60 bucks, which some folks will TRY to argue is study level, but that version is highly dumbed down on features, which makes it not study level.  Even that version is 60 bucks.

That is why I literally sit here and chuckle when people try to say that the Saab is "priced at study level prices" .... I know add-on aircraft for P3D very well, and I can assure you that there is no "study level" plane available for any entertainment level flight simulator for less than $100, period.

Hi Folks,

Wait for sales - I picked up the Majestic Pro for less than $50.00... Although I did have to shell out a few more bucks when I moved to 64 bit...

Regards,

Scott

Funny how these discussions always focus on the definition of "study level". For the OP, it might be better to get an idea what you can do with which airplanes and what you cannot do. I would identify the following categories.

Category 1: The most in-depth simulations enable you to simulate failing systems according to the aircraft's operational manual. These planes tend to be expensive (>$90). As far as I know, this category includes PMDG Boeing aircraft, Majestic Q400 Pro (the Training, which is to be published, offers a more things, but the Pro already covers a lot of failures), FSL A320 and FSL Concorde X.

Category 2: models that enable you to simulate normal operations according to amplified checklists, and all normal systems work and need to be operated properly to avoid in-flight problems. This includes Aerosoft DC-8, Leonardo Maddog MD 80, Aerosoft CRJ and TDFi Boeing 717, for instance.

Category 3: models that enable you to simulate normal operations according to amplified checklists. Most buttons work, so one can go through the checklist, but many systems are actually not implemented. Hence, if you make a mistake, such as not turning anti-ice on, it will not have an effect on your flight. This is the category in which most Carenado airplanes can be placed.

Category 4: models in which a concise checklist can be simulated. CLS DC-10 would be an example. One can do the main operations during a normal flight, but most details are not simulated.

Category 5: models that mainly use default instruments and don't go beyond the things you can do with default airplanes.

I personally almost never simulate failures. Hence, there is no practical difference between category 1 and 2 for me. I would guess that people who are passionate about "study level" would only consider planes from category 1.

Peter