1 minute ago, DJJose said:

Do you remember when I suggested to another member to wait because something special was coming soon?

I was trying to recall just yesterday who dropped that little hint. It has been a while since we have seen this kid of excitement over a GA release. I have been whinning for years about a new modern plane by a creditable DEV like one might see at the local dealer. Looks like I may have lived long enough to finally see it happen.

Is it me or do you guys think that Carenado re-uses sounds from their other fleet? Aside from this, do not expect Carenado to give you a realistic G1000 and their FDs leave a lot to be desired. There are still bugs on many of their older aircraft that will never be addressed, and we all remember the performance in their initial SR22 release.

For those reasons I now stay away from Carenado. Pretty airplanes with not so good system modeling.

2 hours ago, DJJose said:

Is it me or do you guys think that Carenado re-uses sounds from their other fleet? Aside from this, do not expect Carenado to give you a realistic G1000 and their FDs leave a lot to be desired. There are still bugs on many of their older aircraft that will never be addressed, and we all remember the performance in their initial SR22 release.

For those reasons I now stay away from Carenado. Pretty airplanes with not so good system modeling.

I have not bought anything from Carenado for years but in the earlier years I believe they shared a lot of sounds.  I really wish people would stop buying the unfinished junk they release.  Then maybe they might think about releasing a somewhat finished aircraft.

2 hours ago, DJJose said:

Is it me or do you guys think that Carenado re-uses sounds from their other fleet? Aside from this, do not expect Carenado to give you a realistic G1000 and their FDs leave a lot to be desired. There are still bugs on many of their older aircraft that will never be addressed, and we all remember the performance in their initial SR22 release.

For those reasons I now stay away from Carenado. Pretty airplanes with not so good system modeling.

I think you have to remember that Caranedo aeroplanes are very definitely 'built to a price' and squarely targeted at people more concerned with looks than systems realism, and that in itself is no bad thing as a product ethos so long as you're genuinely doing that rather than being either sloppy or lazy. I'm actually quite a fan of some of the 'cheap and cheerful' developers such as Virtualcol, as things like that have other merits, such as usually a very high FPS and the ability to just 'jump in and go' without fussing over too much cockpit set up. It's worth remembering too, that this sort of flying is probably what the vast majority of flight simmers do, for if it were not, companies such as Abacus would have gone down the pipe years ago, yet they are still alive and kicking.

We tend to get a skewed view of what every flight sim user wants, by hanging around Avsim, a place where people go apoplectic with rage if the PFD on their Boeing 737 sim is 1mm too wide. These are not the entire cross section of flight simmers by any stretch of the imagination.

So, where I find fault with Caranedo is not in the fact that their avionics aren't that great, or even that they aren't that great at simulating turbine engines, after all, avionics can easily be swapped out if you like and it's unreasonable to expect a full whistles and bells G1000 included in a 25 quid add-on anyway, and there are other developers out there who make decent turbine simulations if that is what people want in particular. No, it's the sloppiness which is often present in their releases which I object to, and the fact that they tend to ignore these issues when buyers complain about it and instead move onto banging out the next product ASAP. One error which I reported right when it was released, which is on their Cessna C441 Conquest II (technically that's an Alabeo product, but we all know that's basically Caranedo), which went on sale right at the start of 2017, so, getting on for two years ago, has still not been addressed. Even worse, I actually  corrected the error myself and offered them the file which did that, for free, and they still couldn't be bothered to sort it out.

There is certainly less chance of there being less realistic engine and avionics modeling on their simpler aeroplanes, so I do rate things like their (and Alabeo's) Piper Tomahawks and Pawnees etc, but when they start doing things with fancier engines and complex glass cockpits, we're definitely out of their comfort - and to be fair, also pricing - zone. but that is still no excuse for sloppiness, which is nothing to do with working to a budget in terms of development time, it's simply laziness and poor/no beta testing.

I had to laugh at the 'how Caranedo beta test things' spoof someone put on this thread, as I am willing to bet it's no spoof at all, but what they actually do. You could stick me in the cockpit of a Concorde simulator and claim it was 'tested by a real pilot', which would be true, so long as you never mentioned I was certainly not a Concorde pilot.

With all that said, I'm quite happy with their new DA62, it is what it is, but I daresay I'll be happier still with what I assume will be a more serious and detailed treatment of it.

And to those who are saying they've been waiting a long time for a serious GA aeroplane, I'd advise them to check out A2A's PA-24 Commanche 250, which does the most convincing sideslip of any FSX/P3D simulated aeroplane I've come across, and is comparable in cruise speed to the DA-62 if performance is your requirement not to mention their new 'Doctor Killer', which is also worth a look.

Edited September 29, 20187 yr by Chock

Well now, those who missed out on the years of RealAir can now find out what is possible. Hopefully not having both original members of the team can be overcome. Great news! I kept thinking there might be some sort of return from them.

1 hour ago, Chock said:

and squarely targeted at people more concerned with looks

You're points are all well taken and I do not intend to detract from them in any way. But, I think Carenado's dominance in the visuals arena are being challenged and have even begun to fall behind many developers. The Milviz 310R Redux is one that I find very good and better than most Carenado offerings particularly in the VC where it counts most.

More to the point, comparing Sean's DA-62 screenshots with Carenado's it appears that the Vertx offering may clearly win in the visuals department as well. In my GA hangar at least the days of Carenado/Alabeo dominance are rapidly disappearing.

Something that will bear watching at least.

Jesse

Edited September 29, 20187 yr by JesC

Quote

Vertx has portrayed the DA62 product as a high-quality simulation with unmatched clarity and animation smoothness in the G1000 PFD, something that some developers seem to struggle in being able to perfect.

The Vertx G1000 certainly looks nice!

If the G1000 is as fluid & clear as they promise then I'll definitely buy it.

On 9/28/2018 at 10:43 AM, PaulFWatts said:

As mentioned on FSELITE

This plane looks stunning and promises a lot in terms of the Avionics.

Based on the quality of my previous purchases from RealAir (and hoping that Sean continues the excellent work) this will be a Day1 purchase for me.

 

 

I'm with you on that one Paul!

There is an excellent DA-62 for X-Plane which i've been flying for some time.

I am sure the plane will look gorgeous and fly well too.. But I am curious about the completeness of the G1000. If it does not use the Garmin's G1000 Trainer, what is the functional Gap between this G1000 to the Trainer? I'd be interested in that. That would be real useful. 

 

Building a G1000 from scratch would take more time and effort than building any GA aircraft. And IT would need to be built as a module so you can use it on many other types of aircrafts to spread the cost of G1000 to other aircrafts.

 

 

Edited October 2, 20187 yr by Manny

1 hour ago, Manny said:

And IT would need to be built as a module so you can use it on many other types of aircrafts to spread the cost of G1000 to other aircrafts.

Thats a good point and exactly what I expect to see.

2 hours ago, Manny said:

Building a G1000 from scratch would take more time and effort than building any GA aircraft

I agree with you, but relying on the Garmin trainers is also fraught with problems, such as the navaids database constantly going out of date. Look at the time gap in the GTN database. It was stuck at  AIRAC 1611 until the 1803 version was just released. If garmin keeps up that level of progress, it will be 2020 before we get a GTN trainer with a current AIRAC.

I guess that the real question is whether the  Vertx G1000  unit will be updated by a Navigraph subscription (maybe I missed that when I watched the review video). The beta testers must know how this works.

12 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

(maybe I missed that when I watched the review video)

Which review video?

2 hours ago, shivers9 said:

Which review video?

I know that was mean of me. My sarcasm was obviously lost on the audience.

53 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I know that was mean of me. My sarcasm was obviously lost on the audience.

LOL!! payback will be hell. I thought I had missed something.🤣