38 minutes ago, JYW said:

+1

Except the C182 which is below mediocre.

I can't really consider the word respect when thinking about Carenado, due to the number of aircraft I've bought with them* that have had glaring bugs, that were not updated, then abandoned.   They rush planes out, they have many bugs, they do 1 or 2 patches (that rarely address all of the bugs) then move on.  It's a conveyor belt. Lovely textures, but they never push the boundaries or innovate. Every aircraft is formulaic.  They all (mostly) fly "like a Carenado plane".   I'd pick pretty much any developer before them, but if they release a plane that interests me, that no-one else has developed, I will buy it, and accept the shortcomings.

 

*across 5 different sims - the first Carenado product I bought was their C182RG in FS9, in 2004.

To me, about 1 out of every 10, or so were good.  The rest, not so good.  I bought the Seminole and as long as I don't use the autopilot, it's good...but I like taking airplanes on long cross-countries and on VATSIM where decently working equipment is a must.  *Sigh*.

I just don't know if their business model will work in MSFS. They can't be fixed anymore by anyone but Carenado and they are not good at that.  I, definitely, wouldn't buy one until I saw reviews and, even with that, I'd be very cautious.  As you say, since they crank them out so fast, it can be years...many years...before you see anybody else make one.  Maybe in MSFS we'll see some other devs come in.  The good news is that, in X-Plane, we had Hotstart make the TBM900 and Aerobask make the Phenom 300 and, even after Carenado released the same planes, the new versions both were extremely popular, beautiful airplanes.  So, maybe devs won't be put off by a "Carenado" version.  If you make a great airplane people will buy it.  To me, even P3D is still starved for good GA/corporate aircraft.  I'm sincerely hoping that won't be the case for MSFS.

2 minutes ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

I just don't know if their business model will work in MSFS. They can't be fixed anymore by anyone but Carenado

They can't?  So take the Phenom 300 for example.  One could use the aftermarket G1000 (early Phenom 300's) or G3000 (current Phenoms) with this airplane.  Right?   Or is Carenado not allowing for aftermarket GPS units in their MSFS aircraft?  

I'm genuinely asking because I don't own any of them in MSFS.

I own their P3D Phenom 300 and it is all right with Bert's mod, but in MSFS, can people not use the, for example, PMB GNS530 with the Carenado Piper Seminole?

 

2 minutes ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

and they are not good at that.  I, definitely, wouldn't buy one until I saw reviews and, even with that, I'd be very cautious.  As you say, since they crank them out so fast, it can be years...many years...before you see anybody else make one.  Maybe in MSFS we'll see some other devs come in.  The good news is that, in X-Plane, we had Hotstart make the TBM900 and Aerobask make the Phenom 300 and, even after Carenado released the same planes, the new versions both were extremely popular, beautiful airplanes.  So, maybe devs won't be put off by a "Carenado" version.  If you make a great airplane people will buy it.  To me, even P3D is still starved for good GA/corporate aircraft.  I'm sincerely hoping that won't be the case for MSFS.

Does "Aerobask" regularly update their products?  Do they program systems well?  Do you think they might release a Phenom 300 for MSFS at some point? 

3 hours ago, Ron Attwood said:

I reckon there's a lot of faux dissatisfaction with Carenado because it marks people out as superior simmers. 

Pretty much what I've been thinking/suspecting all these years.....

Cheyenne III, Golden Eagle, And the ATR were my fav aircraft, Even better with Bert's GTN mod and also Ryan B. The Mooney is my only gripe in MSFS because it is still not updated. But they are great aircraft.

I have the C-182, Mooney and Arrow, but I do not use any of them anymore, the Mooney was perfectly ok, but there are better options available today.

4 hours ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

Do people respect Carenado more than they used to?

So it looks like the answer to your question is: Some do and some don't. 🙂

Edited September 14, 20214 yr by Ron Attwood

Honestly I think their work ethic and business practices are just the same as before.  But their planes look so nice in the new sim it can be hard to resist.  As long as you know you aren't getting an A2A addon, you won't be sad with what you get.  One downside is that the users cannot "fix" their planes due to them hosted for sale on the Marketplace.  The files people normally need to address issues are locked in the .fsarchive and other DRM files.

I'm not buying any more planes from Carenado. The Mooney has been unusable since SU5 because you can't turn the fuel on. It can't be rocket science to fix it but they haven't bothered. All the other developers of third party planes I have bought fixed their products within days.

2 hours ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

To me, about 1 out of every 10, or so were good.  The rest, not so good.  I bought the Seminole and as long as I don't use the autopilot, it's good...but I like taking airplanes on long cross-countries and on VATSIM where decently working equipment is a must.  *Sigh*.

I

The autopilot in the Seminole works fine, no problems at all. 

2 hours ago, Mace said:

They can't?  So take the Phenom 300 for example.  One could use the aftermarket G1000 (early Phenom 300's) or G3000 (current Phenoms) with this airplane.  Right?   Or is Carenado not allowing for aftermarket GPS units in their MSFS aircraft?  

I'm genuinely asking because I don't own any of them in MSFS.

I own their P3D Phenom 300 and it is all right with Bert's mod, but in MSFS, can people not use the, for example, PMB GNS530 with the Carenado Piper Seminole?

 

Does "Aerobask" regularly update their products?  Do they program systems well?  Do you think they might release a Phenom 300 for MSFS at some point? 

I can only say that Carenado used the X-Plane G1000 in their PA46T Meridian and it was a disaster.  The G1000 worked but the keyboard was borked.  And there were a lot of bugs.  Basic stuff.  So, if that's their history of using a stock nav system, they still found a way to mess it up badly.

I owned the P3D version from Carenado and the X-Plane one is far better.  Not perfect but, a pleasure.

Aerobask does support their products.  They turn over a good airplane that has some issues...most of them fairly minor and then start fixing for a month or two...tweaks, improvements.  Then they do another update after a year.  They're active on the forums as well.  They're a good team.  Would they do the Phenom in MSFS?  Time will tell but it's my sincere hope they do.  

There are several other GA developers on X-Plane that do excellent stuff.  Hotstart, Torquesim,  GA is thriving over there and my feeling is that FS2020 would be an even better platform once the API fills out and as the Garmin and Collins systems iron out.  

I seem to be the odd one out here. I liked Carenado planes in P3D. They were really pretty and you could move most switches in the VC. Hence, you could pretend to follow an amplified checklist, even though missing a step was inconsequential. I grew tired of this after a while, but I had good fun with a plane before that happened.

By contrast, I don't care for their airplanes in MSFS at all (I have the C182 and the Seneca, but rarely fly them). The reason is that the default airplanes are already good looking, and while one can move more switches in Carenado planes, the system depth is similar to default planes as well. I also dislike that one can only buy their planes in the market place, i.e., I cannot tinker with configuration files. Since in MSFS most airplanes are pretty, just making beautiful models does not appeal to me anymore.

Peter

17 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

By contrast, I don't care for their airplanes in MSFS at all (I have the C182 and the Seneca, but rarely fly them). The reason is that the default airplanes are already good looking, and while one can move more switches in Carenado planes, the system depth is similar to default planes as well. I also dislike that one can only buy their planes in the market place, i.e., I cannot tinker with configuration files. Since in MSFS most airplanes are pretty, just making beautiful models does not appeal to me anymore.

Peter

 

I flew the Mooney a fair bit until the JF PA28s came out.

It was reasonable,  the FM was a bit "generic" and it lacked character but it was generally OK.  Apparently it is now broken. but between the P149, the JF Warrior II,  Rob Young's Bonanza, the Grob and the various JF Arrows I have more than enough low wing piston aircraft to keep me happy.  I just use the Mooney for AI pilots in Aerofly these days. 

I was tempted by the c170 but had the impression the flight characteristics of the c140 were better so got that instead with no regrets.  The c140 still has a few issues to sort out with sound and some electrical options but it flies beautifully and landings are a dream.

 

5 hours ago, Mace said:

Does "Aerobask" regularly update their products?  Do they program systems well?  Do you think they might release a Phenom 300 for MSFS at some point? 

Aerobask is incredibly hands-on. They communicate on the (XP) forums and are always issuing over-the-air patches and improvements to current products. 
Unfortunately for us the Ice Age will return before the develop for a Windows-based sim platform. 

It is not an issue of respecting them or not but as a customer to have confidence that will deliver what one wants from them.

I had the Alabeo Waco and the Carenado 337 in early FSX and that was enough for me to forswear them for the rest of my time in this sim and P3D. 

What I have read so far from users in MFS has not changed my mind. The only aircraft which seems to gather a positive consensus is the Seneca which does not interest me much.

Now, our expectations in matter  of aircraft are different, that does not make some of us  snobs and others nitwits. Please ?

 

 

22 hours ago, Mace said:

Does "Aerobask" regularly update their products?  Do they program systems well?  Do you think they might release a Phenom 300 for MSFS at some point? 

Aerobask have indicated they have no plans to develop for MSFS for at least the next few years. They have a stack of development projcects for XP11, and are also developing a Falcon 8X, fully licenced by Dassault for internal simulation use. It's a shame as they are the best of the best in XP11 at this time (for GA) IMHO.  Although, I still use XP11 as well as MSFS, so either way I'll be happy. 🙂