• Carenado FA50 EX FSX/P3D


    Chuck_Jodry-VJPL

    Carenado has released their FA50 EX for FSX & P3D v2, v3, v4

    Special Features
    Version 1.0
    Full FSX, P3D v2, v3, v4, and Steam compatible.
    Updatable database – AIRAC cycle 1601 (January 2016) included*
    Optional Winglets.
    Flexing wing effect (wingflex).
    Improved Proline 21.
    VR ready.
    Wing flex animation.
    Real start up procedures.
    New interior reflections materials.
    Real FA50EX engine sounds, aural warnings and sound systems.
    New specific clickspots and switches sounds.
    Real flight dynamics.
    Cold and Dark start option.
    Volumetric side view prop effect.
    Takeoff run and landing real rolling movement effect.
    Custom brakes sounds on taxi and landing run.

    Features
    Original autopilot installed.
    HD quality textures (4096 x 4096).
    Customizable panel for controlling windows transparency, instrument reflections and static elements such as wheel chocks and sights props.
    Real behavior compared to the real airplane. Real weight and balance.
    Tested by real pilots.
    Realistic night lights effects on panel and cockpit.

    NOTE:
    This aircraft does not have a 2D panel.
    *You don´t need to have a subscription with Navigraph because this package installs a January 2016 Navigraph database which has all the information you need to perform a flight. But if you want to keep your database up to date you will need a subscription with Navigraph

    Included in the package
    6 HD liveries.
    1 HD Blank livery
    FA50 Emergency Procedure PDF
    FA50 Normal Procedures PDF
    FA50 Performance Tables PDF
    FA50 Reference PDF
    FA50 Overhead Panel Layout PDF
    RTU Manual PDF
    Recommended Settings (FSX and P3Dv4) PDF

    FA50 EX



      Report Article


    User Feedback




    Didn't see PBR listed as option for P3D V4.4?  Odd, I know Carenado do PBR for XP11. 

    Rob.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Why are the comments sections for these news items always squeezed into a column only one third the width of my screen? How do I correct that?

    As for the plane, it looks great! My one question would be.....how functional is the FMS?

    Edited by Christopher Low

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Beautiful plane textures-poor avionics 

    Flysimware version poor textures-modern avionics 

    Cannot decide -flying the Wilco version!

    xxd09

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

    Why are the comments sections for these news items always squeezed into a column only one third the width of my screen? How do I correct that?

    As for the plane, it looks great! My one question would be.....how functional is the FMS?

    +1 concerning the column!

    Edited by DrumsArt

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hmm, the comments section is being displayed normally on my home PC. Maybe my work PC is trying to tell me that I should be working, not surfing flightsim forums!! :laugh:

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    9 hours ago, xxd09 said:

    Beautiful plane textures-poor avionics 

    Flysimware version poor textures-modern avionics 

     

    You hit the nail on the head there. I really wish some company would produce premium-quality bizjets. With all the people buying the flawed ones now, you'd think there'd be a market for it.

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I will be taking a hard look at the new Eaglesoft business jets once they are released for P3D v4.  I am hoping that they will provide a good combination of graphics and systems.  I will still probably purchase the Carenado FA50 once they release a v1.1 or v1.2.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    11 hours ago, xxd09 said:

    Beautiful plane textures-poor avionics 

    Flysimware version poor textures-modern avionics 

    Cannot decide -flying the Wilco version!

    xxd09

    I think it's unfair to call FSW textures poor as a blanket statement. Recent planes especially are definitely on the right side of the line separating cartoon graphics with realistic ones. If you have to stick to a one word description then at least average fits the bill. Give me brains over beauty any day on a damp foggy night when you want to get to minimums safely! 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hello,

    Has anyone noticed if the Weather Radar is working on this aircraft, P3Dv4.4 , as none of their other aircraft does??

    Thanks to anyone who can answer this!!

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 7:46 AM, xxd09 said:

    Beautiful plane textures-poor avionics 

    Flysimware version poor textures-modern avionics 

    Cannot decide -flying the Wilco version!

    xxd09

    I know this is about the Carenado version of the plane but I have to agree with you regarding the comment about Flysimware.  Those guys could be so much better if they just upgraded their textures.  Every time there is a sale for 50% off their products, even at half price I end up talking myself out of buying their products.  Their textures remind me of the back in the days Abacus models.  Just horrid!!

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    5 hours ago, iflygary said:

    I know this is about the Carenado version of the plane but I have to agree with you regarding the comment about Flysimware.  Those guys could be so much better if they just upgraded their textures.  Every time there is a sale for 50% off their products, even at half price I end up talking myself out of buying their products.  Their textures remind me of the back in the days Abacus models.  Just horrid!!

     

    I am with you here 100%

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have the Lear the Grumman and the Mitsubishi. I am very fussy with gfx. All of these planes are fine. Older planes sure the textures are not so hot but calling all of them crappy is not fair at all. The new Falcon looks nice too.. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    8 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

    I have the Lear the Grumman and the Mitsubishi. I am very fussy with gfx. All of these planes are fine. Older planes sure the textures are not so hot but calling all of them crappy is not fair at all. The new Falcon looks nice too.. 

    I don't think we're implying that their models are "crappy", I think it's nothing more than passing our opinions.  I'm not a developer and could never do it. Actually let me not say never, but let me state it better by saying, I've chosen not to do it.  There are developers that choose to put the time, effort, and money into developing models that are as realistic as possible.  A2A is a prime example of that. You get the look, the feel, the sounds, the total immersion factor.  Are their models more expensive?  Absolutely they are! But you get what you pay for.  I was only stating that Flysimware could be so much better if they decided to invest more into the LOOK of their models.  Maybe they don't have the resources to do so, and that's fine.  They are appealing to a certain "user" in the flightsim world.  Just as A2A is and just as Carenado is.  Some developers appeal to a broader market.  That's where I think A2A shines.  Others such as Carenado and Flysimware appeal to a more defined market.  You know that with a Carenado plane you will get an aesthetically pleasing model that will definitely be beautiful to look at and "sit" in, but all of the systems probably won't work as in real life.  With Flysimware, the systems may be spot on, but forget about having eye candy.  Ultimately, it boils down to buyer choice.  I just chose not to buy a model that looks as bland as Flysimware, whereas for you it's probably not that big of a deal.  Thank God for choices. :)) 

    Edited by iflygary
    grammar

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, iflygary said:

    I don't think we're implying that their models are "crappy", I think it's nothing more than passing our opinions.  I'm not a developer and could never do it. Actually let me not say never, but let me state it better by saying, I've chosen not to do it.  There are developers that choose to put the time, effort, and money into developing models that are as realistic as possible.  A2A is a prime example of that. You get the look, the feel, the sounds, the total immersion factor.  Are their models more expensive?  Absolutely they are! But you get what you pay for.  I was only stating that Flysimware could be so much better if they decided to invest more into the LOOK of their models.  Maybe they don't have the resources to do so, and that's fine.  They are appealing to a certain "user" in the flightsim world.  Just as A2A is and just as Carenado is.  Some developers appeal to a broader market.  That's where I think A2A shines.  Others such as Carenado and Flysimware appeal to a more defined market.  You know that with a Carenado plane you will get an aesthetically pleasing model that will definitely be beautiful to look at and "sit" in, but all of the systems probably won't work as in real life.  With Flysimware, the systems may be spot on, but forget about having eye candy.  Ultimately, it boils down to buyer choice.  I just chose not to buy a model that looks as bland as Flysimware, whereas for you it's probably not that big of a deal.  Thank God for choices. :)) 

    Perfecly reasoned and fair argument. Except... I stand by my case its simply wrong regarding FSW latest models. I am NOT the guy who is happy with less than feeling I am in the plane. Until I got the Lear 35a I owned every PMDG jet and several A2a planes including the Connie plus some Real Air planes. I would not even touch anything less than these high level add-ons. It took a YouTube video of the Lear to finally convince me and then I added mods to perfect the plane. The Mitsubishi looks fine too but I thought the sounds were below par so even though I purchased it I only flew once and then deleted it so yes I am THAT much of a perfectionist. I even wrote a mini review warning people about the sub par sounds on this site (I work with recording audio so I know what's good and what's fake) The Grumman looks, sounds and acts great like the Lear. All other planes yes you can criticize gfx. 

    Of course A2A and PMDG can release superior products but they have a full team working on each part of the plane. Accusim is wonderful and it ALMOST makes it hard to use any other plane once you've used it knowing you can go full throttle all flight and not damage your engines. 

    So once again I AM the picky guy and because of this I endorse the FSW Lear and Grumman as worthy in enough areas to not have the spell of immersion broken. In fact after the 737 ngx the Lear is my fave aircraft of all time. 

    To conclude I understand where you are coming from exactly but think it's just not right to apply to every single FSW plane. Especially as they are making the effort to address the cockpit texture issues people like yourself have had each new plane release. 

    Oh I forgot the freeware C47.. I also fly that as it counts as a wonderful top notch plane. 

    🙂

    Edited by sloppysmusic

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Very nicely put Sloppymusic.  I think we each have certain nuances that just have to be in place for each of us.  Sound is one thing that is HUGE for me as well.  Hence this will bring me back to Carenado aircraft. That has always been an area of improvement for them along with some of their systems.  In any event, it's nice to know we have a hobby that allows us to explore all of the different facets of flight simulation.  Happy flying!!😊

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    8 hours ago, iflygary said:

    Very nicely put Sloppymusic

    Thanks man...mutual respect is assured 😄

    For some reason I cant upvote/like posts anymore..wonder if AVSIM changed a forum setting or its just me....

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 1/4/2019 at 3:13 PM, eslader said:

    You hit the nail on the head there. I really wish some company would produce premium-quality bizjets. With all the people buying the flawed ones now, you'd think there'd be a market for it.

     

    That's been the crux of the story over so many years of FlightSim.  From what I've seen (not officially heard or otherwise), Gulfstream basically flat-out refuses to get behind the concept, so that's out of the question.  As for Bombardier (??)  Not sure, haven't heard or seen.  Agreed on the Dassault side of things.  Can't seem to get the whole package together in one shot.  Wilco is just about the better of the three, however, if once you've been exposed to working on the real thing (Any Falcon Epic EASy flight deck), it's a real let down on the avionics, totally.

     

    As far as a market, they'd have us in for sure, but my observation, anyway, is the FlightSim community is majority driven any and every other direction except corporate jets.  Carenado being a nice exception to the rule, however we're talking more of the large cabin category.  That market is severely under-served.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    3 hours ago, Ken Smith said:

    That's been the crux of the story over so many years of FlightSim.  From what I've seen (not officially heard or otherwise), Gulfstream basically flat-out refuses to get behind the concept, so that's out of the question.  As for Bombardier (??)  Not sure, haven't heard or seen.  Agreed on the Dassault side of things.  Can't seem to get the whole package together in one shot.  Wilco is just about the better of the three, however, if once you've been exposed to working on the real thing (Any Falcon Epic EASy flight deck), it's a real let down on the avionics, totally.

     

    As far as a market, they'd have us in for sure, but my observation, anyway, is the FlightSim community is majority driven any and every other direction except corporate jets.  Carenado being a nice exception to the rule, however we're talking more of the large cabin category.  That market is severely under-served.

    I'd be happy with a decent VLJ. Xplane has one, but then you have to deal with the frustrations still present in that sim. But anything smaller than a DC-9 is pretty hard to find if you want it to look good and be accurate.

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    19 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

    Thanks man...mutual respect is assured 😄

    For some reason I cant upvote/like posts anymore..wonder if AVSIM changed a forum setting or its just me....

    I can't "like" it either but it's all good!!  It's nice to be able to share our opinions here and in the end we all agree to disagree!!  Good stuff for sure!!:biggrin:

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 1/4/2019 at 4:46 AM, xxd09 said:

    Beautiful plane textures-poor avionics 

    Flysimware version poor textures-modern avionics 

    Cannot decide -flying the Wilco version!

    xxd09

    Analog is "modern" to you? Nevertheless, in some aircraft I prefer analog.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    No but had this plane (Wilco) installed already-wanted to move to a more advanced model but now stuck-buying both (Carenado and Flysimware versions) does not appeal!

    xxd09

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 1/4/2019 at 6:46 AM, xxd09 said:

    Beautiful plane textures-poor avionics 

    Flysimware version poor textures-modern avionics 

    Cannot decide -flying the Wilco version!

    xxd09

    I believe that this Falcon 50 is the best bizjet that Carenado has offered to date.  The avionics seem to be very good to me.  I can put my flight plan in the FMC and add my altitudes and the autopilot does a very good job at following everything.

    The textures are so beautiful that I feel I'm sitting inside a real Falcon 50 cockpit. I can look around and everything looks so real.

    The flight model is excellent.  When I disengage the autopilot this Falcon 50 flies and handles beautifully.

    I can go manual early in the approach and do a beautiful landing.

    I am very impressed with this Falcon 50 from Carenado. It's a real keeper!

    I also have the Flysimware Falcon 50 and it works great with the Flight1 GTN, but Carenado's Proline system is very good.  Maybe it doesn't have all of the features of a real Proline, but it has enough to be very enjoyable.

    Flysimware's Falcon 50 does not have "modern" avionics.  It uses the Flight1 or RXP GTN (or GNS) and only has older style avionics without that, although I do like that it works so well with so many different combinations of addon payware avionics.

    Carenado's Falcon 50 does have modern Proline and Collins avionics that work very well. 

    This Falcon 50 is the best that Carenado has offered to date, in my opinion. I'm very pleased with it.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now