First impressions

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

3 hours ago, Treetops45 said:

There is a lot of enthusiasm for the Golden Eagle in this forum.

I am curious about what it has that generates the enthusiasm, when compared to the Alabeo C441 Conquest II, which is bigger & quicker.

T45

Couple of things.. the Golden Eagle was produced by Flight1 for FS2004 (FS9) and had many loyal fans, myself included.  It is a bit of a cult airplane..

Secondly, a luxury piston twin is a really nice airplane to fly, hence the popularity of the Piston Duke and the C421.

Lastly, Alabeo got this one right.. the cockpit is a pleasure to sit in with useful  instruments in all the right places.. and the airplane handles very nicely..

Edited June 20, 2018 by Bert Pieke

[Treetops45 1,081]

50 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Couple of things.. the Golden Eagle was produced by Flight1 for FS2004 (FS9) and had many loyal fans, myself included.  Is is a bit of a cult airplane..

Secondly, a luxury piston twin is a really nice airplane to fly, hence the popularity of the Piston Duke and the C421.

Lastly, Alabeo got this one right.. the cockpit is a pleasure to sit in with useful  instruments in all the right places.. and the airplane handles very nicely..

So even if one has the Alabeo 441, the GE is sufficiently different to warrant  purchasing😊

T45

Edited June 20, 2018 by Treetops45

[scottb613 1,186]

Hi...

Honestly - only you can make the perceived value judgment - going from a Turbine to a Piston is quite a bit different - especially if you try to fly both realistically... I currently own the Piper Cheyenne II (Whamil's Mods) and the Cessna C310R from Alabeo/Carenado - I enjoy them both a great deal - but they fly different missions with different routes using different procedures... The variety is what keeps FS interesting...

Bert's seal of approval carries quite a bit of weight with me...

Regards,
Scott

Edited June 20, 2018 by scottb613

[Treetops45 1,081]

Short 1st flight.

Very nice hand flown & well behaved on approach.

A keeper.

T45

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Hit shift-enter a few times until you see a bit of the nose.. according to a real world C421 pilot on this forum, that is what you would expect to see..

Edited June 20, 2018 by Bert Pieke

[Guest]

On 20 June 2018 at 9:32 PM, Bert Pieke said:

Hit shift-enter a few times until you see a bit of the nose.. according to a real world C421 pilot on this forum, that is what you would expect to see..

Bert,

Thanks for all your inputs over the years.

One thing; I use Track IR and I have to set the pilot's head position in the aircraft.cfg.

Could you give me some coordinates to set it at a realistic height - I too, consider the default position is too low.

Cheers!

[HawkDsl 50]

I like the plane.. not too slow.. but the sound is just terrible... so I'm working on a remix with the Alabeo sounds.

 

If you know a little about sound files, everyone should get a free editor to "normalize" all the inside engine sounds (any file without an "X" in the name) to about 80%. Alabeo's sound files are clipping 100% gain, and that is just noise.

 

Watch this video for real sound. Pay attention to the pilot as he reduces the props. I'll post my version when complete. We can't get this with the stock Alabeo sound set, but at least the prop reduction can be more accurate.

 

 

[Les Parson 99]

5 hours ago, HawkDsl said:

I like the plane.. not too slow.. but the sound is just terrible... so I'm working on a remix with the Alabeo sounds.

 

If you know a little about sound files, everyone should get a free editor to "normalize" all the inside engine sounds (any file without an "X" in the name) to about 80%. Alabeo's sound files are clipping 100% gain, and that is just noise.

 

Watch this video for real sound. Pay attention to the pilot as he reduces the props. I'll post my version when complete. We can't get this with the stock Alabeo sound set, but at least the prop reduction can be more accurate.

 

 

That would be a great accomplishment if you're able to correct the prop sounds (ala Milviz C310). Andi's flight dynamic improvements are a big step forward; I just wish the FF could be a bit more accurate. 

[rightseat 277]

I'd love to see a remix of the sounds get shared. Thanks for the effort! 🙂

[onduty 5]

Waiting for more realistic FF, too! Perhaps someone with the required skill....

 

Tamas

[AndiKunzi 62]

Unfortunately, fuel flows can‘t be accurate for both cruise and take-off (and for idle, either), as long as the leaning algorithm is not corrected in P3D and FSX:

https://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6317&t=129867

For cruise power, the fuel flows are accurate. For all high power / enriched or full rich settings (take-off + climb), FFs are way off.

Edited July 6, 2018 by AndiKunzi

[violingineer 2]

Well looks like both my angry comments were removed on this C421. I am not all lovey-dovey on this one from Alabeo:

1) FPS is bad for the complexity of this aircraft. Does not compare to similar VC's: Titan (even with the Avidyne) and C310 to name a few, where the 310 gets 60fps in most situations on my 5 year old 3570k 4.0 ghz machine, The titan will get 55fps, and this C421 gets 50fps. That's comparing all in the same scenery on the ground, same runway, full sliders ultra, autogen range low, default Eglin airfield, traffic 10%, and same forward facing zoom level. (Apples to apples.)

2) The RXP GPS-swap out tool blanks out the GPS and audio selector on the VC interior model. This has to be a bug. I'm upset because this is the first Alabeo plane to use this swap specifically for RXP GNS v.2. The swap tool employing a blank 3d gps area for the RXP was a nice way for me to add ANY developer's GPS to an Alabeo/Carenado interior - especially Baytower GPS, because he made it readible from higher zoom levels.... (even my own versions of Carenado GPS530 that I have tweaked to include TAWS abilities.) So I'm miffed that it has a nice big fat black 3d emptiness where the GNS530 and audio selector below were in the default Alabeo VC interior. Wonder if anyone else sees this?

3) Something negative that this C421 has in common with the Carenado Navajo, and I believe the Aztec, and all Fly Sim Ware products: you turn on the GNS530, and frame rates lose 5 fps. I have tried swapping GPS's on these birds to no avail. It has to do with the interior model itself interacting with a dynamic screen underneath it. It is a bug because this does not happen with most other Carenado products.  Stuff like this happens on a few other planes with G1000, but typical not for the G530.

4) The WX radar (lightning detector in real life) is default powered on in this plane. It is the source of about 3 fps drop, so I like it off. It is default off in all of their other planes, so why default on here?? I quickly commented (//) that gauge out.

Do not try to educate me on FPS, as I'm probably the world's expert on testing VC's and FPS. I know XML, and know how to mod gauges/textures/LODs/scenery/clouds/trees to improve FPS. So, my opinion on this 421 is that Alabeo dropped the ball on what would have been an amazing plane--as its visibility is great, the capabilities, everything it has going for it, yet FPS cuts it out of the picture for me. $35 wasted.

On those notes:

List of Alabeo/Carenado planes with my seal of approval for FPS in P3dV4: and surprisingly one that was good is now bad:

I'll use 60 fps as the standard below, given my system is set up to be right at the threshold of taxing on the best of these planes: the list does not include any Car/Ala plane that does not have the latest modern landing lights. As the Baron for sure takes the win of the best plane ever for flight simulator, but alas, Carenado hasnt updated that one (I wish) and maintained the modability/non-3D option of the VC in their latest releases ...soap box wish list off... Anyhow:

M20R - 60fps everywhere in LITE version; by far the most default FPS with best graphics, lighting, flying, and even you can mod it  with the GPS swap out and the GEM being a swappable/modable gauge.

Saratoga - 58-59 fps, older but still the best on my list for FPS vs eyecandy, usually runs maybe 1 fps slower than the M20.

C310 - 59 fps, this one has improved on my system with P3dV4. the LITE version is very appreciated, and runs great.

Malibu Mirage - 60 fps. solid. (The steam gauge version, not the jet prop)

Seminole - 57 fps. Good but has some stutters, if you swap the G600 for the G500 the frames improve in the EFIS version to about what the steam version is. Great plane, just wish they had a LITE version.

Jetprop - 53 fps - this one has degraded on P3dV4, used to be 59 fps, used to be as good as the steam gauge (non turbine Malibu) version in both FSX and P3dV3. The jetprop's G500 still gets better frames over the G600 in the seminole and seneca. Easy swap too.

C404 Titan - 52 or 57 depending if you turn the Avidyne to a non taxing screen, or off of course, it gets decent rates.

C421 is about 50. With the WX off and the GPS on. With both the WX off and the GPS off, now I get about 59. So something is definitely up with the interior VC and the GPS, as the GPS itself isnt a resource hog

And if you swap the respective Carenado Attitude, and HSI in the PC-12 and S550 for the default Beech Kingair's, I get 58fps for both planes! Both have improved in v4.

Finally, I do not subscribe to the interior model file size as being a predictor of VC FPS. Some are quite large with great FPS. Has more to do with how many inefficient polygons and unnecessarily adding 3d objects (switches etc) that do nothing on the plane. Which I find unforgivable.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by violingineer

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

50 fps = bad... 

I am surprised at the performance level you expect, you must indeed have some system..

As for the GPS, I have selected the GTN 750 version, and it performs very nicely..

Something to consider if you want to enjoy this airplane  

[FDEdev 955]

40 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

50 fps = bad... 

I am surprised at the performance level you expect, you must indeed have some system..

For 'normal' flying I'm getting a silky smooth experience with 40fps although sometimes even 30 can be just barely high enough).

For aerobatics with high roll rates, fast heading changes etc. 60fps is IMO required to maintain the same  'perceived' smoothness.

Edited September 13, 2018 by J35OE

[violingineer 2]

For Carenado planes with steam gauges I expect default aircraft performance---what else does the C421 have to do that is so taxing on a modern processor? Since a few of their builds they've managed to do it with the same gauges, see above, why can't they achieve it everytime for at least the same caliber gauges? Answer: Quality control. Nothing new here.

Anyhow, I demand 60 fps because this simulator is 35 years old.   I also demand 60 fps because when you pan (and I pan all the time) in the VC, it looks like an 80's game if it is anything less than 60fps. yes 30 fps is ok looking and appears smooth with standard slow maneuvers ....if your head is stationary; But after you get used to 60 fps, 30, 40, 50 look like garbage (to me). I could play 30 fps all day long on a very complex addon, and my processor is 5 YEARS OLD--and I'm not touting I have an awesome rig, mine is totally budget.   Before you say BS...  I have a 3570K at 4.1 ghz, bout the same as modern processors, just less cores.  Most of P3d is still blind to more cores. I have the funny feeling that I'd get maybe a 5 fps boost if I upgraded to the latest 8700K build, actually 7700K runs at stock 4.2hz, so I would rather get one of those, but again, after 5 years I'm only 0.1 Ghz slower.....  !!!!!

Finally, other developers have done a lot more with less impact on frames. Majestic is ridiculously paradigm changing, yet no one has followed suit with the way they are handling their gauges and calcs. For instance, after 4 years+ ? of development, Aerosoft CRJ is pretty bad frame rates. The paradigm for most developers is 30 fps. WHY?  Demand more from products.