Another rushed product. This time from Carenado!

[Dharma66 48]

If I buy this in the sim marketplace, where would I find the documentation?

[Chock 17,769]

1 minute ago, Dharma66 said:

If I buy this in the sim marketplace, where would I find the documentation?

Obviously it will be in a slightly different location on your PC, but this should help you pin it down from where it is on my system:

\\?\F:\WpSystem\S-1-5-21-2323705056-409578195-2989242969-1000\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache\Packages\Official\OneStore\carenado-aircraft-ct182t-skylane-g1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\Carenado_CT182T_Skylane_G1000\Documentation

Edited September 12, 2020 by Chock

[Dharma66 48]

1 minute ago, Chock said:

\\?\F:\WpSystem\S-1-5-21-2323705056-409578195-2989242969-1000\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache\Packages\Official\OneStore\carenado-aircraft-ct182t-skylane-g1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\Carenado_CT182T_Skylane_G1000\Documentation

Thanks!

[HighBypass 2,339]

10 hours ago, n4gix said:

...but usually a quick Ctrl-Shift-F4 will open the fuel petcocks and allow the fuel to flow!

FWIW - and I digress, but I had this issue with a freeware Pilatus PC-6 - turbine not lighting off..hmm.. rebooted FSX and let it load the default 172... petcock off.. AHA! I can see the problem! Now just Ctrl-SHIFT-F4 before start..sorted! Simples (Piglet's PC-6 doesn't appear to have that switch modelled.)

1 hour ago, Chock said:

If he had read the four manuals included....

LMAO!   Just one of the many BURNED! mic-drop comments from Chock regarding that review. One of AVSIM's own "influencers"! 

[flyerkg 62]

9 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

Not everyone is after a study level aircraft.  I really don't think they are as bad as they are made out to be, but some people seem to take great pride in having some kind of high level flightsim snobbery because not every button works as it should. 

I agree and have often said their is a level of complexity/simplicity for everyone. I'm not sure why there is a rush to indictment - The company has not mislead the original post or anyone else. 

Since the original post was a reflection of one individual's experience I think a lot of readers would be willing to assist if the post stated "I cannot start C&D..." and not rush to declare that everyone who bought the product Cannot start C&D... 

1 hour ago, desbean said:

"Another rushed product. This time from Carenado!"

 

Funny how a thread with this title convinces me I would like to have the product.

And the notion that it was rushed. I'm glad I don't have to manage the schedule of every flight sim product developer. 

Edited September 12, 2020 by n4gix
Removed unnecessary long quote!

[Chock 17,769]

To be honest, so what if you had to start it with Control+E? Which in any case, you don't. Would that really be a deal breaker?

If it was an F-111 or 747 or something, then yeah, but really, on a Cessna that's not exactly a buy/no buy deal. After all, there are plenty of fancy FSX/P3D airliners where you have to load a default aeroplane before the loading the fancy add-on aeroplane to get them to work at all.

Worth noting that I've not been averse to criticising some Carenado and Alabeo add-ons which have deserved that, but in the case of this C182T, it's actually now one of my 'go to' aeroplanes in the sim. Apart from, in my opinion, the notion that it would probably more fairly priced at around the 20 quid mark given there are many similar aeroplanes available by default, I think it's a very decent add-on.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Chock

[kerosene31 349]

I don't own this aircraft (yet), so I don't have an opinion on it.  I always find it a little odd when people compare a product out today with a future study level sim.  I've purchased Carenado products in the past for other sims and always knew what I was buying.  

One thing people don't always get is default avionics and systems usually means better framerates.  Study level sims usually mean at least some hit to performance.  The problem in FS2020 is that the default avionics are in pretty rough shape, but assuming they can patch them up to at least FSX standards, that's fine for me.  Will I buy a study level airplane when they come out?  Sure.  Those don't exist for FS2020 yet so the discussion is moot.  

What I want to know when buying this aircraft or not is if it is significantly better than the defaults.  That study level sim is a long way off, I need something to fly now.  Like this weekend now.  Are any study level sims even close to being released?  From the sound of it it seems like most are still working things out.  

I've seen youtuber opinions from "a great addon, worth every penny" to "terrible".  My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle (it usually does).

Edited September 12, 2020 by kerosene31

[Ricardo41 5,935]

I've bought plenty of Carenado planes in the past. I knew what I was (not) getting, so I never show up here whining and crying like Bambi about to be turned into Venison ragout. 

I'm hoping they port the PC 12, the Malibu Meridian, and the Phenom 100 and 300 over to MSFS. Instabuy for me. 

[jaydor 233]

OK I was one of the grisly-bears who downplayed this product.  But I had to put my money where my mouth is and bought it after the update. 

I have been pleasantly surprised as to how good it now is.  The external eyecandy is excellent [as per Carenado] the internal is excellent also.

It handles very well in my first test flight out of Tucson Arizona.  So I will no longer be knocking it, as Carenado has obviously been following the criticism and made a swift update.

Latest update log:

Fixed Flood Light effects.

Fixed stby altimetter baro setting.

Fixed Horometer

Fixed autopilot NAV mode

Fixed autopilot activation logic

Improved stall characteristics

Implemented tablet over pilot's yoke to set desired airplane flight condition

Implemented static elements

Improved stall alarm sound

Improved textures

Improved sounds

[hangar 658]

49 minutes ago, Chock said:

Being able to influence things works both ways; anyone who publishes videos which might do that should be aware of this, and be cautious to remain accurate in what they say.

Stating that a product doesn't do this or that and doesn't include this feature (when it quite clearly does if you read the instructions) then pronouncing because of what you incorrectly believe to be the case, that the product is not worth it, is not just making you look like a twonk, it is affecting someone else's business by misrepresenting their product. You can 'influence' yourself all the way into a loss of earnings court case with that kind of sloppy reviewing.

I completely agree with that sentiment, but we're not in a perfect world and this, all too often,  just isn't the way things work in reality.

This Youtuber is not a professional influencer getting paid by Carenado to create sales. He doesn't care if he scares people away from a product. I feel he is merely one of the few YT'ers, who although a bit sloppy and neglegent in his approach, is simply doing what he honestly believes in... sharing his own personal experience with a flightsim product with the hope that it might educate and help a few others. I also believe that when mistakes are pointed out to him he takes it seriously... not because he's afraid that some sales may have been lost but because he's afraid of misleading simmers one way or the other. in fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see him correct that fuel switch blunder he made.

He comes across as trying to be an honest reviewer who also makes mistakes...so people trust him, not because they think he doesn't make mistakes but because they think his intentions are honorable.

Again, Youtube and it's success is all about a group's perception of who and what they are watching... reality often doesn't play a role there. If you can sell yourself then you can find an audience, no matter what the agenda. So...with all the slime out there willing to sell their mother's under the table I find the smaller, honestly intended individuals more attractive...even if they screw things up here and there 🙂

Edited September 12, 2020 by hangar

[Chock 17,769]

21 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

What I want to know when buying this aircraft or not is if it is significantly better than the defaults.  

There is one thing it is a bit better at than the default aeroplanes, and here it is pictured below.

In the default aeroplanes of the Standard version of the sim, the closest alternative to the Carenado C182T, is the default G1000-equipped C172. The difference between the real aeroplanes is that the C182 is better for IMC since it is heavier and more powerful, and therefore penetrates a bit better in poor conditions. There are other technical differences such as the aerofoil and load capacity, but basically that's the deal. So in a sim this might not matter as much as it would in real life, however what does matter in a sim, is readability of the instruments, especially at 1080 resolution, and you can judge for yourself off these pics. Personally I've found that it is a bit easier to maneuver the cockpit viewpoint in the Carenado 182 than it is in the default 172, in order to get a usuable viewpoint with good clarity on the PFD, which I think is a bit more readable in the payware 182. Not by much, but by enough to be an improvement worth having. Note too that the whiskey compass is more readable in the Carenado 182 as well:

Default 172:

Carenado 182:

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Chock

[hangar 658]

Isnt the Carenado pic zoomed in a bit more than the default plane's pic? Look at the much wider field of view out the window on the C172...it's more difficult to read because it's zoomed out a bit more I think.

I really do have a pet peeve with how difficult it often is to always know what zoom setting we're at in the sim as the cam window often lies. They need to put in a data output display like FSX used to have.

Edited September 12, 2020 by hangar

[Chock 17,769]

9 minutes ago, hangar said:

Isnt the Carenado pic zoomed in a bit more than the default plane's pic? Look at the much wider field of view out the window on the C172...it's more difficult to read because it's zoomed out a bit more I think.

Nah, because of modeling differences, they're about as close as you can get them to one another. I sreengrabbed one, pasted into a paint program and tabbed back and forth to the sim with the other aeroplane loaded in to do as good a job of matching things with a good pilot position as possible. But even if that were not so, what is undeniable is that the whiskey compass colours make it more readable, as is the case with the PFD's colours.

This is hardly surprising when we consider that the one thing Carenado is famous for doing well, is visuals. It was literally the first thing I noticed about the Carenado 182 when I bought it. It is noticeably easier to read the instruments and this is why it has become a 'go to' aeroplane for me.

If it sucked, I'd say so, and not because it is trendy to slag off Carenado, but just for being honest. The fact is, it doesn't suck; it's a very nice add-on aeroplane and the above is one of the reasons why.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Chock

[Republic DC9 234]

I own this plane and like the updates, but still find it tends to lurch and wing dip side to side and generally is hard to keep straight on the runway after landing vs. other aircraft I’ve flown - this might even be realistic, having not flown a real aircraft.

Other than that I love it, very nice!

And I hope we can buy that lovely Mooney soon too.

Steve

[Chock 17,769]

1 minute ago, Republic DC9 said:

And I hope we can buy that lovely Mooney soon too.

Steve

I guess this is kind of the proof. I too will grab that Mooney when it is available, and I guess the fact that people who have bought their 182 tend to be saying the same, is illustrative of whether they feel that buying the 182 was worth it.