tttocs

Ryan, I'd be the last one to second guess your ATC knowledge. But an IF wouldn't be listed as a transition by the Garmin 430. You'd see vectors listed first, followed by the IAFs in alphabetical order, and then any transitions charted as part of the approach, also in alphabetical order. So in the case of the approach you referenced, you'd get, in order, VECTORS LEPWU RISPE SANTY SNS. The two IAFs would have IA next to them in red, indicating those were IAFs. Scott

Ryan is absolutely correct (edit: except for IFAFY). In the RW GPS, all IAF's would be listed, as well as the transitions and "vectors". Scott

I don't see anything obvious in the sound files or the .cfg, no. Figured it was something like that. Thanks. Scott

I broke down last night and bought the Arezone soundset from simmarket. 10 euros, so not a huge chance to take. So far, I'm pleased. Some specifics from my flight last night: Probably the biggest negative is the gyro sounds, which are a bit louder/whinier than the stock sounds, but that would be an easy change to make if I find it too annoying. The flap sounds also seem a bit short to me, but that may well be correct. In the neutral category, the startup sequence is just as abrupt as the stock set. No worse, but not substantially better either. On the plus side, gear sounds are much more distinct. At idle speeds on the ramp, the prominent sound is prop noise as it should be. It's distinct and quite nice. As the throttle is advanced, more engine noise becomes evident. And finally - the bass is back. Full power and cruise sound is really quite similar to the stock sound set - indicating that the stock sounds are fundamentally correct - there's simply more lower frequency sound there, which really addresses my fundamental complaint about the sounds. All in all, not spectacularly different, but almost everything is improved and I'm glad I took the (relatively small) chance on this purchase. BTW, not knowing much of anything about how FSX sound files are structured, could Gregg (or anyone else) explain what the xrpm files are normally for as opposed to the rpm files? Scott

To add to Rob's comments above - most developers are LOUSY human factors engineers, much the same as most writers are lousy editors. In my past life in product management, I recall the first time our newly hired human factors person had to work with one of our highly experienced development teams. War almost broke out, as every member of the team thought the new person was nutz. Nope, she was great, the problem was that the team - highly experienced and talented people all of them - couldn't think like their customers when it came to interaction with their technology. Their GUI's were a direct reflection of the underlying technology, rather than a users' view. Her user-driven designs reflected the users tasks, adapted to the technology underneath. That said, I'd note to the OP that almost every site I've ever used requires CC numbers to have no spaces or dashes. Many sites tell you this, but I think it's become such a de facto standard that it's often assumed the user is "in the know". In fact, I was quite surprised to make an on-line purchase the other day only to find that a site had actually added dashes to my CC number after I'd entered in the normal format. Anyway, glad you got things figured out, because for those of us who remembered you have to install before using, it really is beautiful. And the others figure it out eventually. :blink: Scott

See my comments above, but bottom line is I think so. And I don't like it. They're great in the real thing, as standard noise attenuating headsets cancel the highs and mids fairly well, but don't cut out the deep drone prevalent in most GA cockpits. They (edit: active noise cancelling headsets) help enormously in decreasing fatigue over time. They're one of the best things that ever happened to piston planes. In the sim, however, those same lows are part of what helps achieve some sense of being in a real plane. In the real thing, even though your ears aren't hearing the low frequency stuff anymore, your body still feels them. In the sim, take them away and we're left with nothing but the annoying buzz this sound set substitutes for cockpit engine noise. And finally as noted in an earlier response, the net result is a bit artificial anyway, given the level of wind noise you hear in the Malibu. Those noises would be all but eliminated by even good passive attenuating headsets as well. I agree that this is one of Carenado's better planes in some time, but it just didn't seem to capture much attention, hence the lack of repaints. For some reason, however, I do note that I haven't flown it that much, and not at all lately until Gregg got me thinking about it again. The v2 piston Duke is at least partly to blame for that, however. :-) Scott

Congrats, Mitch. If they gave out a yearly award for most enthusiastic simmer, you'd get that too. :lol: Scott

Could be wrong, but I don't think so. On the other hand, the donation asked for the whole upgraded package was, I think, $8. Scott

Well yeah, but... An IO360 wouldn't/shouldn't sound much like a TIO540 IRL, even accounting for what should be the quieter cockpit of the Malibu. Due in large part to Gregg's enthusiasm, I've dragged the Mirage out from the back of the hangar for a few flights and have some further thoughts on why I don't like the default sounds on this plane. If the goal was to emulate active noise cancelling headsets in the cockpit, (which seems to be the case, as all low frequency sound is missing) the fail is that the passive noise attenuation in such headsets would also eliminate wind noise which remains quite prominent. The net result is something that's neither/nor and completely uninvolving. Has anyone tried the Arezone soundset Gregg linked? My limited experience with aftermarket soundsets has not been positive, but I'd love to find something that brings this otherwise very nice plane to life. I don't care about outside sounds (which as Gregg notes seem OK to me), it's cockpit sound that matters. Scott

I didn't see any mention of Kauai, but perhaps that's somewhere down the road. It does look interesting, with autogen if you go the donationware route. Scott

The B55 also doesn't really support night lighting for the RXPs and night lighting in general is not one of its strengths, especially at dusk and dawn. On the other hand, the important part is handled, and that's compatibility with the 3D panel. Without that, you're in popup territory. In any case, any one of us can provide the necessary config info for the B55 and once that's handled, function is solid. That said, while the B55 is very nice especially if you have a thing for the baby Barons as I do, there's just more to the Duke with its complex sound and movement effects. And in real world terms remember, the B55 is a normally aspirated, non-pressurized light twin with no deice capabilities, while the Duke is an entry-level cabin class plane, turbocharged, pressurized and certified for flight into known icing. It's a significant step up from a B55 Baron in speed, systems, function and capability. Scott

As Ryan notes, the v2 piston model is just more refined in almost every way due to the added effects and refined textures. Piston twins are right in the sweet spot of what I like to fly, and this one is so good that I'm having trouble flying anything else these days. BTW, as for the rudder thing, well-modeled GA twin aircraft really do require a set of rudder pedals to fly realistically and that does seem important to you. Sure you can work around not having them, but only with compromises. In particular, you certainly can't do any engine out practice without a set. Scott

Yeah, I'm a bit mystified as well. I bought this, just as I have all of my (way too many :lol: ) Orbx sceneries with a simple credit card transaction. I didn't enroll in anything, nor have I ever done so with the Flightsim store. Hard to imagine how the process could have been easier. eWay is simply the CC processor they use for handling the transaction and you can create an account there and login if you choose for them to retain your CC info for easing future transactions, but you don't have to. I think you may be making this harder than it is. Perhaps a simple misunderstanding? Scott

Ticket already submitted. Scott

Confirmed the fuel selector does not work on the RG, and that the oscillations when changing RPMs weren't a one-time thing. That's gotta get fixed. Also can't use any buttons on the transponder other than the numeric and alt buttons. None of the others work. Otherwise still enjoy it. Just because I could, I flew an LPV approach last night. Worked out perfectly. Scott

This one is actually due to default FSX behavior. I was told by someone that this was a feature, not a bug, intended to accommodate those who don't want to mess with these kinds of "details". If you decide to mess with it, it works. If you don't, it defaults to benign behavior. Never been able to figure that one out either. This and the cabin pressure dial being so finicky are both direct carryovers from the JetProp. Nothing was changed. What the ground clearance switch should do is to selectively enable power to a single radio rather than the entire avionics bus, so that you could power it on without having to burn battery also powering everything else. It's not a huge deal, but it would be nice to see implemented. And yes, carryovers of existing problems are the sort of thing that sometimes frustrates about Carenado. Scott

Despite looking at the prominent "Stranahans" sign at Coors Field through many Colorado Rockies games, I still haven't tried it. Maybe I should, though I'm a Macallan single malt guy when it comes to Whisky (without an e in the case of good single malts). Scott

I wish I could say, but I just can't. I would agree with the text of the video from above about the gear and flap sound levels, however. I was definitely surprised when I put in a notch of flaps and could barely hear them with the engine at idle. Likewise with gear retraction and extension. Almost not audible above engine noise, and certainly no good thumps as you'd get with better soundsets. I didn't view from outside to note anything about synchronization so I can't say there. Some other comments from the video transcript... One of the many reasons I appreciate RXP integration is for performance reasons. As noted in my comments, I used my RXP 530 and frames were certainly no issue in that config. Didn't try without, as I'd never fly it that way. I'm not a frame counter, but I can easily say that there were no plane related framerate issues when used with the RXP GPS. Other comments: 1) Problems like this one are the kind I rarely notice because it's not something I'd do. Yep, it should be correct, but then again... 2) Can't comment as I use RXP. 3) See previous comments about sound. I'll add that I didn't note the background music with just the battery on, but perhaps my overall volume level was lower. I also didn't find looping effects to be noticeably better or worse than average. If you listen for it, you'll hear it, but I find that to be generally true on all engine sound sets. I had no clicking at any point during the flight, but have noted in the past that clicking can be induced on many planes under the right circumstances. This seems more of a performance and sound card issue, though certainly some plane's sound sets seem more prone to the phenomenon than others. 4) Hmmm. Don't recall a problem - will have to look again at this. As for things like functionality on the ADF and Transponder, these are all just as you'd expect from Alabeo/Carenado as alluded to earlier. Nothing more and nothing less. Yes, I wish they'd do a bit better on these (especially ADF tuning), but there's certainly no surprise that they're unchanged from previous efforts. And yeah - where did those ratings buttons go? I just used one this morning to rate a post funny, but now they're gone. Scott

I don't always drink beer, but when I do... craft beers for me, thanks. But that has nothing to do with these kinds of "oohh, scarey" pseudo-science articles. Scott

I'm remote so won't be able to view the video until tonight so I can't comment on what's said there yet, but a few thoughts after my first flight yesterday evening. This is a general impressions posting following a single short flight, not a review. You've been warned! <_< 1st, this is an Alabeo plane, so my expectations are set accordingly relative to systems and well-known FSX quirks. What this means in general is that if FSX generally does it, this plane will do it. If FSX doesn't, this won't. This isn't an A2A 172 nor is it intended to be, and I know this going in so I'm not going to criticize these things as though they're unexpected. I have real-world time in fixed gear 177s, but my memories of the plane are fairly old. That said, visually the plane does a good job of capturing the feel of being in the cockpit of a Cardinal. The overall feel is good, and at first blush (and I mean first blush, as I didn't look at specific numbers much in my short flight) performance seemed close to what I expected. There are a few anomalies, such as the manual primer pump and carb heat controls being present in both the fixed gear and retract versions. The retract should have neither. The sound set is OK, but nothing special. Likewise interior textures - these being quite nice, but not world class. The VC is very easy to live with, with most switches and gauges easy to see and access, though it does seem as though some of the clickspots are a bit small or slightly off. Nothing huge, just a minor touchiness. Visibility from the VC is excellent, which matches what you get in the RW plane. This is a great plane for sightseeing down low (I did my flight around the Redding area of Orbx NorCal), and hand-flying is very smooth and predictable with no major anomolies noted. Potential buyers should be aware that the avionics choices are somewhat curious. The plane has a GNS530 (and does support the RXP 530 which I have installed), but does not have an autopilot of any kind, nor does it have a second nav radio, only a second comm unit. I'm good with the no AP choice (the Cardinal I flew didn't have one either) as this isn't a plane I'd buy to sit on AP with, but I'm a bit disappointed that there isn't a second nav radio. If that were in place, I'd say these would make excellent basic IFR trainers. Without, not so much. I wonder how many planes out there have an IFR certifiable GPS in the panel but no AP, no HSI, and no other nav equipment. And just to be clear, it's not the lack of AP or HSI that seems odd - that would be the norm for this kind of plane - it's that it is equipped that way while having a 530 and no second nav radio. My biggest gripe after my short introductory flight was with power changes, especially relating to the prop. When changing prop settings, RPM's bounce aggressively. Some bounce is pretty common in most FSX constant speed prop planes I've owned, but not this pronounced. In fact, it's so severe that it causes the entire plane to pitch up and down rapidly with the RPM oscillations. This will also occur to a lesser extent when adjusting mixture. Given my expectations, I'm happy with my purchase. I get both fixed gear and retractable Cardinals that will be good for casual VFR flights over interesting terrain for a fairly reasonable price. I won't fly this a lot, but I will on occasion for simple pleasure flights, and when I do I think I'll enjoy the heck out of it. Scott

Oh, thanks Lars. Just as I'd pretty much decided that I could wait for a bit, you had to write this description. :lol: I think I'm toast. Probably this weekend. Scott

That magenta line is your GPS course, nothing more. It is for a variety of reasons more accurate than the course you'll follow if using VOR navigation - for the reasons explained above and due to the fact that VOR signals themselves are less accurate the further you are from the station and can bend or "scallop" due to terrain and other issues. My suggestion if you're looking to learn navigation by reference to ground stations is to go cold turkey and do it like we did in the old days before you even had GPS. Don't put in a GPS flight plan, but instead really navigate using JUST the ground stations. If you're flying on airways and are concerned with the things like obstacle clearance and MEAs, keep in mind that clearances on those airways are designed with the navaids being used in mind. That is, they have "slop space" and you'll be fine using VORs as charted. I'd also suggest you grab some enroute charts which, among other things, will tell you when you should be switching over from the VOR you're flying from to the VOR you're flying to. Again, the airways are designed with these switchover points in mind, and the points are not always where you'd expect them to be, especially when in rugged terrain. When using the AP, I'd also recommend you get used to switching from NAV to HDG mode as you get close to each ground station. You do not want the AP coupled to the VOR as you approach and pass over the station, so use your heading bug or hand fly when near. Enjoy and feel liberated from the tyranny of the magenta line. :-) Scott

Bill, those prices are just for the obstacle and terrain databases, not the nav data. Bring those into the equation and it gets WAY more expensive. And the last time i looked at the nav data, even small regions were VERY pricey. And, I think you had to supply a registered device serial number before you could purchase, but I could be misremembering that part. Bottom line when I checked into this was, there was no practical way I could see for a simmer to purchase anything reasonable. Scott Edit: I take that back. Looks like the pricing and structure are a bit different on for the GTN products than they were for the 430/530. Edit #2: But yep, you still have to register and set up your aircraft and serial number to purcahse for the GTNs.

Ah, Ron. I know you're having fun, and subtleties don't always make it into FSX models so a single engine Cessna often feels just like every other single engine Cessna, but IRL the Cardinal really is a different sort of bird and a very delightful plane to fly. I'm quite pleased Alabeo decided to offer both fixed and retract 177s. Scott

The 530 doesn't really have a DME, the RW GPS unit is simply approved for use in lieu of a DME using GPS position and database coordinates. Distances won't quite match those you'd get from a DME, as they're not slant distances to a ground station, but they're close enough to be allowed, especially on approaches that include a DME component since you're at low altitude. If you've got a 530 in another plane (a Carenado in particular), this one should be pretty much the same. Sorry, in my case I use the RXP 530 (and the new Cardinals do support RXP 530 integration), so I don't recall what the display differences are between the actual Garmin and the typical FSX GPS based implementations. In the RXP 530 and RW units, distance to a tuned nav station can be quite prominently displayed. BTW, the RXP integration tool only exists in the fixed gear folder, but it does appear to work in both fixed and retract planes. I think. I say I think because I ran into a problem last night getting any avionics to turn on. I think this is unique to me and simply a classic FSX initialization problem. Most planes I fly have avionics masters and even though my default flight always loads the default 172, my system seems to be stuck with the (non-existent in the 177) avionics master off. Had limited time and patience last night, so I haven't gotten to fly the new Cardinal yet. Scott