tttocs

PM Bert for his version of the combined mods so WAAS approaches display glideslope properly and make sure you've got LinkGPS=On in your RXPGSP.ini and you should have good functionality in the G500s. With the mods I have in place, there's no difference for me between the Mirage and JetProp, other than that the JetProp uses a 530 and 430, which definitely improves things. Scott

Absolutely true, however I think the biggest problem is beta and how well it is (or should I say isn't) implemented in the standard FSX T-prop model. I think that both RA with the T-Duke and Bernt Stolle on the JetProp did the best they could with what they had. I wonder if someone who has the F1 KA could comment. I know they were supposed to do a much better job with implementing beta, which should allow much more realistic taxi control. How well did they do? Gregg, do you have the Bert/Bliksimpie mods for the G500? I have no problems with the G500s on the JetProp, but I've been running their combined mods for so long I forget what the defaults look like. Scott

If nothing else, a switch/control diagram would really, really help. I remember how frustrated I was with their first KA release (the C90) due to this very issue. I found great information online for procedures and checklists, but spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to figure out where all the referenced switches were to run my checklists. Scott

OK, that's one sale - and that's the point. You're looking at it from a personal "I really want it" perspective, while Orbx has made a business decision. Look I understand an individual wanting it, but I have no doubt that JV and Orbx have looked at this extensively from the business perspective and have decided that the ROI simply isn't there for them. It's not a matter of "getting off their butts", it's a matter of looking at the investment involved, the number of butts required vs the number available, and the return they believe they'd get short, medium and long term, and then deciding to continue their focus on other platforms based on that analysis. Simple as that. What's not to get? Orbx' skill sets, and the tools and libraries they've built are all centered around 1 core platform. Making a move would require developing a different skill set, different tools and new libraries. As it is, they're having trouble getting all of their existing stuff ported to P3D, the platform they're already committed to for the future. I rather expect that the bulk of their installed base would howl in protest if they diverted efforts to yet another, and completely different, platform. Their "butts" are obviously already heavily committed, if not over committed. Frankly, I think XP will be best served by continuing to support a new generation of developers, schooled in XP and committed to and focused on that platform. And like others here I don't think it's lack of Orbx-style scenery that's keeping FSX/P3D users on their platforms. It's a whole laundry list of things - some perceived and some real. A solid PMDG release could potentially open, if not floodgates, at least a substantial flow of new users, but Orbx? I really don't think so. Scott

I have to agree with Martin on this. If anything, I find the JetProp a bit easier to control in taxi than the T-Duke, and others have mentioned similar, though this is likely due to single vs twin reasons as much as anything. Not knocking the T-Duke, as I think this is a universal issue for Turbo-props in FSX other than the Q400 which, of course, works outside of FSX flight dynamics. Scott

It was. I don't know if the fix ever made it into the general releases as it wasn't part of a service pack, but after a long delay (and lots of carping by many of us) they finally fixed it in a specific patch which addressed only this issue. Even though you didn't buy directly from Carenado, you should be able to coax the fix out of them with an email. I know others have. BTW, you bring up a very good point about the lighting. Carenado's night lighting is usually classic Carenado - ie, it looks superficially very pretty but is often not very functional. I'm not much for night flying (nor was I when actively flying IRL) but when I do fly at night, it's generally not in a Carenado plane. Scott

You're a lucky man! Enjoy. Scott

Couldn't agree more. Also not judging, but instead offering advice... contrary to your (the OP's) statements, there are many things in life you can't have no matter your resources. If you expect otherwise, you're definitely going to be frustrated. A lot. Maybe I've been around too long, but I'm continually stunned at what we DO have. That doesn't mean I think things are perfect, or that I don't wish for better this or better that. Just sayin' - take the long view and think about how far things have come. And realize that there is still significant progress being made. Scott

Isn't it just. I've gone in there with the A2A 172 with no problems, but met some trees with the C210 - that whole "50' obstacle" thing. A 310? Outside my FSX skillset, I guess. When it comes to the shorter stuff, I'm a better RW pilot than I am a sim one I'm afraid. Yeah, that was s'posed to be a funny. My cockeyed way of saying nice work and thanks. I've already DL'ed it. Scott

A 310 into Vashon? You're a braver man than I! Hey - nice paint. Any idea where I could get that? Scott

But again - it matters a lot where you fly. The default US mesh is very good in FSX, so if you fly primarily in the US the differences will be minor. If you fly in Canada as well, you'll see a much greater improvement. And if you fly in, say, Africa or South America, you'll see substantial improvements. Scott

Please don't take this the wrong way, because 1) the 337 is one of my favorite sim planes as well, and 2) If you're enjoying what you did then that's all that matters for you, but... If you're getting 2,500 to 3,000 FPM climb rates then your turbo-conversion has somehow gone awry and into fantasy territory. The 337 has neither the HP nor the aerodynamics to be a strong climber. IRL both turbo and non-turbo 337's are still 210 HP/engine planes and are not rocket ships under any circumstances given their weight and configuration. At sea level and standard conditions, performance will be very similar in each model with a very slight edge to the turbo-charged variant. It's at altitude that the differences become significant, as is always the case for turbo-charged engines as compared to their normally aspirated versions of the same HP rating. While turbo-charging CAN be used to increase HP, that's not what's been done with the Continental TSIO-360 used in the 337 as compared to the IO-360. Just sayin'... ^_^ Scott

Ah, there you go being logical Glenn. (In other words, yeah - I don't get why it got moved either. Sure seems like an FSX discussion to me.) Scott

Rob, that's got to be some of the best advice I've seen. Well said! Scott

No question that the F1 Mustang was an innovative plane very much ahead of its time when it was released, and still holding its own amongst the best all these years later. BTW, I also run a modest system and can generally fly the Mustang without difficulties into all but the more serious frame-eating areas. Oh, and if you weren't aware of them, definitely try out the "High Sierra Edition" liveries. There are several different complete interior packages to choose from - all beautiful. Scott

Raises hand! I won't say that I didn't at least consider buying the Carenado TBM, but never seriously. Ditto the Phenom, much as I'd love to have the plane. But as I pointed out in one of the Phenom threads, it's hard for me to take the plane seriously when much of what makes a Phenom a Phenom (and much of what makes it single pilot certified) is either not implemented or is implemented so incorrectly that it can't be taken seriously, no matter how sexy the textures or the performance numbers. Glenn, a good post. While I disagree with some of your points, specifics and conclusions, the spirit of the post is definitely on point. I think the frustrating thing for many of us GA guys is how close Carenado sometimes comes to making truly excellent planes. They get so much right on so many of their releases, and then go so wrong implementing complex aircraft with simplistic feature sets (and almost non-existent docs) or continuing on repeating many of the same silly mistakes over and over again (yes, Gregg, I'm thinking of the downright stupid and almost unusable ADF tuning issue among other things). Love/hate definitely describes my relationship with Carenado and their products, which is why I still buy - but very cautiously and very occasionally. Scott

Note also that v2 of the Turbine Duke is imminent and will support GTN 750/650 integration as well as RXP 530/430. If the original to V2 for the Turbine Duke is as good as it was for the B60 Duke then we're in for a real treat as an already excellent plane gets even better. But yeah, the Legacy is a no-brainer at half price. Scott

Hang in there Phil. We'll all be keepin' a good thought for you, man. Scott

Hi Juan, No. You'll find quite a bit of variety in terms of how most approach procedures are laid out. Take a look at the KGXY VOR-A approach, for example, and you'll see that if you're coming from the south you'd fly to the VOR (GLL) as your IAF then outbound on a radial with a procedure turn for course reversal, but if approaching from the north, the IAF is defined by a radial and DME distance from the VOR, and you don't actually cross the VOR until late in the approach. Now take a look at the KBZN VOR/DME 12 approach. Note the only time you'd actually cross the VOR at all (which sits next to the runway on-field) is if you were flying the missed approach. Hope that helps, Scott

I was just about to correct you and say that Arezone only had a Seneca II set, but I checked again before shooting from the hip and... That set JUST released (on 9/3) and wasn't available when I bought the Sky set or I would've gone that route. Man, by the time I get through buying sound sets, I'm going to have a lot invested in this plane, but I don't know how I can resist. In for a penny, in for a pound I guess. Thanks for the heads up! Scott

Iain, I think that's a bit unfair, as there is clearly a great deal of effort in some of their releases, and the texture modeling alone is generally superb and obviously a product of skill, care and effort beyond just a few weeks. People forget that there are some things they do well - and others they simply don't and oversimplify the buy/don't buy decision. I choose my purchases pretty carefully and especially so with Carenado, but I still do buy some of their releases as I have a number of their planes that I quite enjoy flying - most notably the 337 and the recent Malibu Mirage - that are very enjoyable with perhaps a tweak or two. Not without a flaw here or there, but enjoyable and accurate in the areas that matter to me. So, when Carenado do a new release that appeals to me, I try to judge as to whether I think it's the kind of plane that they can execute reasonably well. Planes like their recent Phenom are pretty much a no-brainer thumbs down for me, as the systems involved are more than I think Carenado have either the skills or desire to execute well. Others? My hope for the Seneca was the same that I'd had for the Malibu. It's a simple enough plane and included RXP support which always helps. I also knew that with Bert's G500 mods, the JetProp worked quite will with RXP, and Bert had committed to taking a look at the G600 as well, so I expected the avionics wouldn't be a huge issue. Unfortunately that's not turned out to be the case, at least so far, given the number of other shortcomings. Nevertheless, it was a plane I wanted and it was worth the calculated risk. With a SP and hopefully some further adjustments mixing and matching sound, this could still be an OK plane. Scott

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm guessing you're nowhere near that age now, so this is an easy thing to say. There are people in their 70s and then there are people in their 70s. We don't all age at the same rates, for a host of reasons. Way back when I was a young stud in my early 30s, I met a gentleman in the middle of nowhere working (if I recall correctly) as a seasonal ranger in the backcountry of Canyonlands NP in Utah. For those not familiar, Canyonlands is a very large, very rugged, mostly backcountry National Park. The backcountry trails are remote, challenging, unforgiving and are for the most part routes, rather than what you'd think of as developed trails in more gentile national parks, going up narrow rubble and quicksand choked canyon bottoms, over slickrock sandstone canyon walls and back down repeatedly. This gentleman worked backcountry patrol, routinely hiking long miles day after day in this challenging terrain. He was 72 when I met him. He was also fitter, more athletic and mentally sharper than your average 30 year old. He became a role model for me, as I vowed to do everything I could to try to be just like him as I grew older. Don't know if I'll get there or not, but I'm only a decade removed from that mark and still hangin' in as a physically active and mentally involved individual. In 10 years, I plan to celebrate my 72nd B'day hiking the rough trail where I met this gentleman. Yes deterioration of faculties is an issue as we age, but we all have to be cognizant of our limitations - regardless of our age. That doesn't mean we should indulge in blanket ageism and dismiss those who are still fully capable just because of their age. Absent more information, please don't dismiss this as "some old guy who should've stopped flying long ago". Scott

The better wx programs really don't eat many cycles in and of themselves - and I say this from experience with current versions of ASN, Opus and REX. mjrhealth has it exactly right - what eats frames is the cloud complexity that can be generated by any of the better programs, so you'll find you'll need to tune whatever program you use so that more complex cloud scenarios don't eat your system alive. Right now it's hard to beat ASN, BTW. Scott

Any upgrades you might be able to accomplish will be appreciated. Absolutely. Scott

Nothing wrong with self-promotion when the product is good, and this one is. I've had this installed for some time now, have flown into Straubel (Green Bay) a number of times as PIC IRL, and Anthony has captured it well. I use it with MS-Earth v2 Wisconsin. If you fly in the upper mid-west, it's not even worth discussing - get this. Period. And if I haven't mentioned it before - thanks Anthony! Scott