Vertx DA62 has launched!

[shivers9 1,174]

23 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I seem to be missing something on the Navigraph vs fsAerodata debate.  As i understand it, fsAerodata's updates to the P3D database use Navigraph data as its source, and in fact you have to have a paid Navigraph subscription to use the paid fsAerodata updates.  From fsAerodata's website (emphasis mine):

"Our source data is supplied by Navigraph, and is compiled and converted every AIRAC cycle. Each 28 days, a new dataset is ready in fsAeroData for download and installation into your flight simulator. fsAerodata concerns only the default FSX/Prepar3D database; all flight simulator addons and tools are updated via Navigraph’s FMS Data Manager directly.

The fsAerodata tool can be purchased as a 3-month license or 1 year license, this latter one valid 365 days from the date it was purchased. Additionally, you’ll need an active subscription to Navigraph, which is the provider of the source data to fsAerodata. At the download of each cycle, you’ll be requested to validate your Navigraph subscription."

So if an airport is missing in the Navigraph database, how does it then appear in the fsAerodata database which uses Navigraph data as its source?  As I read this, you are using Navigraph data which has been taken and baked into the P3D scenery bgls...but it's still Navigraph data.  Why then, would fsAerodata's solution, which is used in the DA-62, be any better or worse??

Regards

 

 

+1.....I wanted to ask the same question. I just could not come up with the correct words. LOL Thanks

[cavaricooper 2,614]

I am hoping (and emboldened by Sean's response in another post) that the Navigraph option will be pursued.  Additionally, I wanted to add that I sim at a LOCKED 24FPS.  From the latest PMDG offerings, to Real Air's decade old aircraft to Aerosoft/Octopus G's Annuschka, IT'S ALWAYS LOCKED AT 24 (thanks @SteveW).  I have noted NO performance issues with this aeroplane despite the acres of glass. The photos come from a 65" 4K Sony.

Seriously, I loved the prior poster's "List of Deficiencies" 1) None.  This will no doubt evolve into perfection, but I'd offer that it's fairly close now.  If you want to feel how GA electrons SHOULD fly- try this aeroplane.  Once you loose yourself in the undulating taxy, aerodynamic handling, circuits and bumps and single engine work, you will for brief periods forget you are not airborne.  That is perhaps the highest compliment I can pay.

C

Edited December 15, 2018 by cavaricooper

[rudi0310 82]

2 hours ago, Nyxx said:

Q What flight level does it fly up to( man you can tell I fly 737/A319's) and what speed can it do?

 

POH says 20000 ft pressure alt max. But this limit might be not primarily driven by performance limits:

I did a lot of test flights at 18000 ft and some at 19000 ft (ISA press and temp most time) in the South American Andes. Never had the impression the Vertx is "near its limits". Of course climb speed above 14000 starts to reduce somewhat. Cruise speed up to these altitudes is still abt. 190 TAS (ISA, prop <= 2200 rpm acc. to POH) (POH: 189 TAS @ 18000ft ISA). I even had a takeoff at 15000 ft (SPRF) in the first raw version of video part 2 regarding Hypoxia demo, but discarded it to shorten the video somewhat.

To climb to and cruise at such altitudes, there is not much to care about. Set max power (95 load % max. cont.), keep an eye at prop rpm (2200 max. cont.), switch oxygen on. The ECUs do the rest. If setting prop rpm to about 2194-2197 there might be no corrections needed during the entire climb (according to weather, TOW 1950 kgs set).

Of couse there are many interesting areas worldwide to cruise at high altitudes. For those looking for something new and having no problems about default airports, the very huge Andes area (ORBX scenery) offer stunning landscapes and nice autogen buildings.

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, Mitch24 said:

Can someone please explain why this plane is so special, it looks pretty but so do all of the other carenado aircraft.

You are of course correct that Carenado and Alabeo add-ons are generally very pretty, but I daresay you are also aware they don't always have the kind of flight modeling fidelity or systems realism to match those consistently impressive visuals. Thus any criticism leveled at them, or if not aimed at them, then the reverse opinion being aimed at competitors, typically stems from this. Having said that, their after-release support and patching of any problems or faults which subsequently show up is not known for being that great either, being a focal point of some additional criticism they receive, to the extent that their products, perhaps more than any other developer, are frequently the subject of end user fixes doing the rounds in lieu of the developer  getting around to addressing such issues.

This isn't always true however, there are some Carenado and Alabeo add-on aeroplanes which do everything pretty well, but as a general rule the focus of Carenado and Alabeo stuff is to make a good lookalike and not worry quite so much about the systems realism. There have been exceptions to this, for example their recent stab at simulating synthetic vision avionics, which works well, but that is rather an exception to the general way of things. As a result of this it is, generally speaking, true to say that simpler aeroplanes with normally-aspirated IC piston engines and traditional analogue instruments tend to be the ones which are among the best of Carenado and Alabeo's output.

Now having said all that, I am certainly not averse to advocating 'lite' simulations and inexpensive add-ons which don't go mental on the systems realism. These have their place too, and I am in no way snobbish about that, for example, I've got literally every single add-on which Virtualcol have made; their products are unashamedly inexpensive and simple and don't even look anywhere near as nice as Carenado and Alabeo ones either. But what they do nonetheless do, is come in at a cheap price, offer something fun to fly with great FPS, and critically, if there's an issue with them, it gets patched and the developer is helpful in responding to support queries.

With all this in mind, I did buy Carenado's recently released DA62 on the strength of also having purchased Alabeo's DA42, which I do like very much, but as much as I like both their DA42 and DA62, they do follow the philosophy I outlined above, so there are some glitches with them which need fixing and the avionics included with them, whilst reasonably okay, are in no way as complex as those to be found in the Vertx DA62, nor are their flight models quite so finely crafted and customisable as that of the Vertx DA62. It's also worth noting that the Vertx DA62 does match, and in many ways exceed, the visual beauty of the Carenado and Alabeo Diamond DA62 and Diamond DA42. Which means that for an additional five Dollars, it trumps the competition in pretty much every way it can. 

Now it remains to be seen how it compares in terms of support and any subsequent patches because the thing was only released in the past 24 hours and Vertx is a new enterprise with no history to base an opinion on in relation to customer support, but they would be hard pressed to be as lax as Carenado/Alabeo in this respect, so it's difficult to imagine that they won't be trumping them in this regard as well.

Beyond all this though, there is a level of expectation from Vertx which stems from its founder being part of what was perhaps one of the most well respected developers of old - RealAir - which is a development company whose products are still held up as being among the best examples of add-ons you can get for your flight simulator. So in the end the legacy of that experience is perhaps what matters most since it is difficult for a leopard to change its spots for bad, or in this case good; a very decent quality flight sim add-on will generally be nicer and easier to fly, it will likely have a flight model which tends to do what you'd expect it to do, because that is usually how the real thing is designed too and that was certainly true of many of RealAir's products and it seems the DA62 is continuing that legacy.

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Chock

[rudi0310 82]

58 minutes ago, w6kd said:

So if an airport is missing in the Navigraph database, how does it then appear in the fsAerodata database which uses Navigraph data as its source?  As I read this, you are using Navigraph data which has been taken and baked into the P3D scenery bgls...but it's still Navigraph data.  Why then, would fsAerodata's solution, which is used in the DA-62, be any better or worse??

Regards

 

 

That is the "trick". In a nutshell (might be inaccurate and incomplete) FSAerodata "uses" installed airports and actual Navigraph procedures. Best from both worlds. Works for the DA62 and most aircraft using standard GPS. There is a minor limit, newer procedures sometimes use 6-letter designators, P3D is limited to 5, as @jabloomf1230 explained in a somewhat lengthy but very interesting discussion regarding navdata sources. 73

Edited December 15, 2018 by rudi0310

[Flic1 976]

Is there a support forum for this yet?  I might be the only person so far having issues as my luck would have it!  I cannot even get electrical power to the aircraft. Turning on the Elec Master does nothing.  Also, setting different panel states in the config manager has no effect either.  I did happen to have electrical power in one instance when I loaded but then the engines would not start (following the manual for start). I tried uninstalling, re-downloading and a fresh install with no luck. Otherwise...it's a thing of beauty to look at...and that's about all I can accomplish right now!😕

[jalbino59 114]

Just wondering how my fellow users feel about the taxi modelling, in particular the power required to break away from a full stop.  I'm seeing about 40% power needed to get it moving.  Is this expected in this type?

Edit: Please disregard, answer is stated in the POH Before Taxi Checklist "Power levers... as required, max 50% if engine temps below green range". 

Edited December 15, 2018 by jalbino59

[cavaricooper 2,614]

I noticed that, however it’s within operational minima and if you don’t retard the power levers smartly, you speed up fairly rapidly.

C

[jalbino59 114]

18 minutes ago, Flic1 said:

Is there a support forum for this yet?  I might be the only person so far having issues as my luck would have it!  I cannot even get electrical power to the aircraft. Turning on the Elec Master does nothing.  Also, setting different panel states in the config manager has no effect either.  I did happen to have electrical power in one instance when I loaded but then the engines would not start (following the manual for start). I tried uninstalling, re-downloading and a fresh install with no luck. Otherwise...it's a thing of beauty to look at...and that's about all I can accomplish right now!😕

That's a tough one, did you install to the installer default location? 

[jalbino59 114]

1 minute ago, cavaricooper said:

I noticed that, however it’s within operational minima and if you don’t retard the power levers smartly, you speed up fairly rapidly.

C

Yes, thanks, you are correct. I also found the answer in the POH. 

[cavaricooper 2,614]

28 minutes ago, Flic1 said:

Is there a support forum for this yet?  I might be the only person so far having issues as my luck would have it!  I cannot even get electrical power to the aircraft. Turning on the Elec Master does nothing.  Also, setting different panel states in the config manager has no effect either.  I did happen to have electrical power in one instance when I loaded but then the engines would not start (following the manual for start). I tried uninstalling, re-downloading and a fresh install with no luck. Otherwise...it's a thing of beauty to look at...and that's about all I can accomplish right now!😕

As you have tried twice without result I would DISABLE any AV and try a third time using the default location for installation. You are entering your validation credentials?

HTH- fingers x’ed.... she’s grand!

C

[Flic1 976]

3 minutes ago, cavaricooper said:

As you have tried twice without result I would DISABLE any AV and try a third time using the default location for installation. You are entering your validation credentials?

HTH- fingers x’ed.... she’s grand!

C

Hi - Yes, AV  was off each time and I installed to the default location. Validation also is put in and shows up in the Config manager.  If I set 'cold and dark', it's as if the battery is dead as I cannot get any power to the aircraft.  If I change it to 'Ready for Flight' it loads up in a cold and dark state but I CAN get the electrical power on in this state....although it is still impossible to start the engines.  Odd one for sure and I'm running out of things to troubleshoot!

[shivers9 1,174]

If you are using FSUIPC then turn off the battery saving option and see if that works for you. I have had problems with that on custom coded aircraft before.

[jalbino59 114]

7 minutes ago, Flic1 said:

Hi - Yes, AV  was off each time and I installed to the default location. Validation also is put in and shows up in the Config manager.  If I set 'cold and dark', it's as if the battery is dead as I cannot get any power to the aircraft.  If I change it to 'Ready for Flight' it loads up in a cold and dark state but I CAN get the electrical power on in this state....although it is still impossible to start the engines.  Odd one for sure and I'm running out of things to troubleshoot!

I'm sure the answer is yes, but just in case, are you turning on the fuel pumps and engine master switches next to the each of the start buttons?

Edit: never mind, it  wouldn't help if you aren't getting any electrical power. Sorry. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by jalbino59

[pedwards 20]

I'm having issues also. I can power the aircraft electrics, but the engine master switches will not move?. Any ideas?