kiwikat

That is absolutely stunning Mr. Scimone!It is starting to hit me that we will be getting a 737 s**n!This will easily be the single biggest aircraft addon release for FSX yet. I wonder if it will be even bigger than REX's initial release?

Funny you would mention that. PMDG's VC's look a lot more realistic to me than the Duke's or any of Realair's. It looks like its never been used before and it has that usual realair shine to it that I've never been able to figure out. They aren't shiny like that in real life! The J41 and MD-11 on the other hand look like you could sit right in them and fly away.My frame rates in the Duke are only marginally (if any) better than the MD-11 or J41. Sometimes I wonder why the Duke gives me the FPS it does. It isn't really any more detailed than any other plane I have. I once looked at the drawcalls and they were abnormally high. Maybe that has to do with its less than stellar performance.Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on Realair or the Duke. I love their Spitfire and fly it quite often. The FPS impact of the Duke just pushes me away from flying it much. It is actually kind of sad because it is one of only a couple planes that has a 3D modeled RXP GNS430W. It is also one of the only decent twin engine prop planes made for FSX.

That looks really neat Bill! :(Only suggestion is that maybe the Beechcraft in the front could be a little brighter red color so it sticks out a little more. But maybe it sticks out more in-game. I've found that screenshots aren't great at showing colors and lighting.

To be honest, I don't see what Realair would add to a project like that. I think PMDG has all the talent they would need to do an awesome GA project. They've got awesome flight modelers, systems modelers, model modelers (lol), texture artists, and support staff. What else would they need? (Besides the will/time to make a GA plane...) :(

Pfft.It wouldn't hold a candle to PMDG.

I would also love a baron. A turbo baron would be even cooler. :)

Do it!FS Genesis mesh is easily among the best environmental addons. I don't know what I'd do without USA mesh. :(

Here are my last tweaks... I hope carenado releases official patches soon!First off, for those who have them:[lights]light.0 = 3, -1.4, -15.4, 1.7, Fx_shockwave_navred,light.1 = 3, -1.4, 15.4, 1.7, Fx_shockwave_navgre,light.2 = 5, 5.2, 0.0, 0.39, Fx_shockwave_landing_light_small_xenon,light.3 = 2, -1.0, -15.2, 1.6, Fx_shockwave_strobe,light.4 = 2, -1.0, 15.2, 1.6, Fx_shockwave_strobe,light.5 = 1, -9.6, 0.4, 3.325, Fx_shockwave_beaconh,light.6 = 10, -2.0, 0, 2.50, fx_vclightefetresAnd the rest:[weight_and_balance]empty_weight = 2125 //Don't remember originalempty_weight_pitch_MOI = 3500 //4100empty_weight_yaw_MOI = 4000 //4500[flight_tuning]pitch_stability =1.05 //1.0roll_stability =1.05 //1.0parasite_drag_scalar =0.95 //0.8elevator_effectiveness =0.85 //1.25[propeller]thrust_scalar=1.0 //0.8[Flaps.0] drag_scalar = 1.8 //2.4

You can definitely change it to the RXP 430, just not the 530. You need to add the knob-less model folder into your F33 folder. Since I don't have it in front of me right now, say it is called model.noknobs. You will need to go into the aircraft.cfg file and change each line that says "model=" to (for this example) "model=noknobs". You will have to do this for each fltsim.# section. I think there is 5 or 6 by default.That should do the trick.Now night lighting is another story. At night, the old knob locations and old screen will be lit up. I simply blacked out the knob and screen light on the respective .bmp file.

Isn't that just in the PMDG forum?There are tons of people who don't sign their posts...

LOL just hit full flaps. It is like throwing out full wing spoilers, reverse thrust, full flaps, slats, landing gear, and opening all doors at the same time.Just kidding... maybe... :( Where is a Carenado patch? I sure hope there is one coming soon.

Gee I'd hope you could get off the ground on a 2700 foot runway when the plane's ground roll is 1000 feet... If it took the whole distance that's way too much!You were flying it heavy so it makes sense that it took more than the 2400 feet it took me and the posted 1000 feet amount. However my plane wasn't anywhere near as heavy and it still took almost as long for the rear wheels to get off the ground. I'm not talking about the 50 ft. length.If you increase the propeller thrust you have to increase parasite drag to make cruise speeds more realistic. A couple of us have done this with our tweaks.

I couldn't even get the back wheels off the ground until 2400 feet. That is most definitely wrong.

The PNW scenery absolutely obliterates my computer. I'm not really sure why. The FTX AU ones hardly hit it at all.I've been having no problems with the Bonanza crashing FS.

You've got experience with a different model with a (much) less powerful engine. I've spent several hours looking on various websites, talking to other bonanza pilots, forums, manuals, and other pdf's and pretty much everyone but you says that the Carenado one is wrong. Though I've not flown in one in real life, I've seen hundreds over the years and none struggled like this one after takeoff.I've seen RL takeoff figures anywhere from 1000 feet to 1500 feet. Still, that is nowhere near the 2500 feet that you get with the Carenado defaults. Surely something is wrong. The pitch stability is awful, and my tweaks help fix that, but it still seems exaggerated some. As someone said somewhere (I don't recall who), the controls feel spongy. Incorrect MOI values are making it feel too spongy. I need to spend more time working on them tonight.I hope Carenado is spending as much time as we are on a patch...

I wonder the same... I volunteered to beta test the Bonanza MANY times but they never accepted my help. Instead we are left to fix their problems after release. At least until they start pumping out patches...Here are my changes:[weight_and_balance]empty_weight = 2125 //2183? I forgot to save old valueempty_weight_pitch_MOI = 3500 //4100empty_weight_yaw_MOI = 4000 //4500[flight_tuning]pitch_stability =1.05 //1.0parasite_drag_scalar =0.9 //0.8elevator_effectiveness =0.9 //1.25elevator_trim_effectiveness =0.9 //1.2 Controller related, probably do not need this line edit[propeller]thrust_scalar=0.95 //0.8[Flaps.0] drag_scalar = 1.8 //2.4

This one's got 285 HP and should be able to take off in less than 1500 feet for sure. I've made some edits and its pretty decent now. I think I'll stop playing with it and enjoy it until they release some patches.

I got the default GPS to turn on but I immediately replaced it with the RXP GNS430W. :(

The default model has the 3D knobs on it but they include other models without them so you're fine.I'm not sure if the 530 will work or not. I'd have to open it up in FSPS. I'm at school now so I can't do that :\

It is just the default one changed around a little bit. That's why I got the RXP one installed asap!

Any ideas how I can tame the trim with my X52 pro? It seems this is more of a controller issue on my end than an issue with the plane.

If you just want the GNS430 in there I can give you the cfg for it.I use FS Panel Studio by Flight1 to install my RXP stuff in Carenado Aircraft.

I guess I'll be the first one to point out things I found unrealistic or just plain wrong.1) The takeoff distance is way off. This is probably the worst thing. Everywhere online says a takeoff run of 1000-1250 feet is realistic for the F33. The best I can get is 2400.2) The flaps cause far too much drag. I've had to reduce the flaps' drag scalar by .6 and it still isn't right. 3) The plane is way too sensitive on the pitch axis. It feels more like an aerobatic aircraft than GA. The roll and yaw axis are fine though.4) The elevator trim is also too sensitive. It is very difficult to trim the aircraft properly because of it.I'll add to the list if I find anything else.If you guys can fix the flight model errors, we'll have a real winner on our hands. Visually it is the best Carenado plane yet. I also like the soundset.

Because you are quoting me, I think I will quickly comment a little further.The pitch axis is far too touchy and effective. The few fixes I made makes it much more believable and more in line with the other control surfaces. Full flaps is also way too draggy, but reducing the flaps' drag scalar by .4 seems to have improved that quite a bit.I'm really enjoying the plane and would happily recommend it to anyone. I'm enjoying it even more after I made a few changes in the cfg and added the RXP GNS430W.Thanks a ton Carenado!!! :(

Thank you for that excellent video Mr. Womack! There are many ways to go about painting Carenado aircraft. I've been using other methods that produce similar results.It is always nice to see how others do things. I'll give it a try when the Bonanza is released.:(I'm curious how you go about lining up the fuselage stripes and the tail. I'd certainly welcome a video about some more of your methods!