barrel_owl

Truth is probably halfway from both ends. I think that this model has some minor bugs, but in general my impression is so far quite positive. I really enjoyed the aircraft so far and I hope that 1.1 will fix the rest. Some remarks. The VNAV button does not work (confirmed by Carenado), but with NAV active the FMS follows the altitudes entered in the FPL page. So, VNAV is officially not implemented, yet it basically works. I am still waiting for confirmations for my transponder issue from other users. Carenado answered that, if confirmed, they will address it in 1.1.

Yes, I guess the problem of the failed GTN sync was due to the fact I was using an hybrid configuration: panel modified for with GTN, but original model. Ad explained in my post above, the GTN plugin modifies both the "panel" and the "model" folders. I am using the default config with GNS and FMS now and I am really liking the fact that your sim flight plan is automatically imported into your FMS at loading. On the other side, I had a strange problem with the transponder. I made a test with Pro/ATC/X and was asked to set the squawk code, but never got it acknowledged. I tried all possible switch positions, at no avail. Would you mind test this on your side? Thx

Amazing shots, Bernd.

The FMS automatically loads your sim flight plan. This is what i found when loading the aircraft with my usual LOWILOWS01 flight plan:

Ed, out of curiosity, I decided to try your procedure and yes, you are right. The GTN plugin actually changes the "Dornier_interior.MDL" file too within the "model" folder, not only the "panel" folder. I checked this with a file compare tool and it really reports a different size between both "Dornier_interior.MDL" files. Take the same procedure as descrived above and apply the same to the "model" folder. In the aircraft.cfg file all textures with model= panel= will have the default GNS+FMS option. All textures with model=GTN panel=GTN will have the GTN panel and model loaded. Obviously you can change GTN with whatever you like.

Well, that's the easiest part. I do this standard procedure for any new Carenado aircraft supporting GTN as optional. You can have both panels installed and apply the panel you like to any texture you like. 1. Uninstall the product. For added security, completely remove the aicraft folder manually. 2. Reinstall it as usual. 3. Once installed, go to the main aircraft folder. Copy the "panel" folder (which by default contains the GNS+FMS option) and paste it to any other location, for example Desktop. 4. Now, go back to the aircraft main folder and launch the GTN plug-in installer, named "F1GTN750DO228". This action will change the "panel" folder. All your liveries will have the GTN option installed now. 5. Change the name of the folder from "panel" to any other name, for example "panel.GTN". 6. Now take the original folder you previously dropped on your Desktop and paste it into the aircraft main folder. This way, you have both options installed. Go to your aircraft.cfg file and apply the GTN option to the liveries you want it to be added. Nothing equals GNS+FMS (default). "panel.GTN" equals that texture will be loaded with GTN. Hope this helps.

I have just performed an RNAV approach and so far everything worked fine with the AP. ALT SEL and NAV functions worked as expected. Only thing I could not have working was the Synchophaser button. Have you tried to use it there? Not sure whether it's me who's doing something wrong or it is not really modeled, but I could not have it working in any way. That's surprising, because I recall it is modeled on the F406 and maybe on other products as well. As far as GTN2 is concerned. Can you have both GTNs syncronized? The problem with the GTN panel is that you completely lose the FMS and, as a result, any VNAV function. I am considering reinstating the normal GNS panel because of this.

The (annoying) popup screen automatically vanishes after few minutes. As someone pointed out, you can simply deactivate that window in the panel.cfg. Anyway, I only had this problem at the first launch, not later and I did not change a thing in the panel file. All switches and button appear to work properly here, including wipers and fire handles. I have just completed the Cold&Dark procedure without problems. After firing up the engines, remember to activate the Radio Master switch on the pedestal to have avionic turned on.

Either I was very lucky or you are not in Ready to taxi. Or you have any other problem I can't figure out. AP buttons light normally here, wipers are also working as expected. Did not try any cold&dark start up yet, though.

Just released. Priced as usual for Carenado.

You can see a lot of nice buildings in US downtown areas, such as San Diego, Los Angeles etc., or around airports in Switzerland like Zürich, although the area covered by autogen is still pretty limited. However, whenever you find one, believe me if I say that it is a totally immersive experience. If you mean popping, as we know it from ESP, I can assure you that I never saw anything like that so far. I am running Aerofly FS 2 on two different machines, one of them being a laptop with a far less powerful configuration than Rob's and I never ever saw any sign of popping or delay in texture loading. The sim runs smooth in any circumstance with resolution maxed out. The only real shortcoming, in my view, is that the aircraft are still lacking basic functions (such as mixture in the Baron, there is not yet an option to control the mixture lever in the Settings even). It is not yet a simulator, but at the moment it is by far the most promising.

Thank you very much, Rob!

Correct. The checklist file must be named "chklist.ace" and reside within the aircraft root directory. Your GTN will load it when you load the aircraft in your simulator. Once you are in the cockpit, the checklist will be accessible from the main GTN screen under "Utilities/Checklists". If you download a checklist wih a longer name (i.e. "chklist_baronb55"), remember to rename it to "chklist.ace" once you saved the file within the appropriate root directory of the aircraft. Absolutely. You can create as many checklists as you want for all the aircraft you want. If my memory does not fail, a tutorial PDF is included with the the latest GTN v.14. Make sure you have this version or checklists will not work. Note. Sorry for splitting my reply. AVSIM allows a limited number of quote blocks. Also, I had to wait several minutes before posting the second part, supposedly because of some antiflood protection.

Correct. You can have one separate checklist file for each plane. This is very nice, because you obviously need different checklists for different aircraft. You can search the AVSIM library for "checklists". You should find three of mine, respectively for Milviz B55, Carenado AS500 Shrike and Carenado Cessna F406. Other checklists for the Flysimware MU-2 and Lear 35A have been provided here by other users, not sure if they were also uploaded to library, though. But you should find the links somewhere in the Flysimware forum. Finally, you can check the Flight1 library for a list of other checklists. The procedure is very simple. You definitely need to work within the Checklist Editor to create a new checklist. Keep in mind that this editor has an anti-tamper protection. Any attempt to modify it with any external editor (i.e. Notepad) will result in a corrupted and unusable ACE file. You can use another checklist as template to create a new checklist for another aircraft, provided you work within the Garmin editor and you make all edits within the editor.

I am not questioning this. I watched hundreds of VR videos and read tons of reports and I fully agree with you: VR is the future of flight simulation. This is also is one of the several reasons why I am supporting Aerofly FS 2. If I had the money, be sure it would on the top of my to-buy list today. I hope this technology will become available for about 500 Euros/dollars and several optimizations in a matter of 2-3 years. Given the price it is being offered today, especially outside US, it is well beyond my reach.

Except that I can't afford it, especially here in Brazil, I fully agree with you.

I am afraid I did not make myself clear given to my inappropriate formulation. Therefore, I will rephrase the statement. Taking into account that Microsoft jumped off (abandoned) flight simulation years ago and LM never actually jumped on (did not develop any real brand new flight simulator so far), I seriously doubt that any other big investor of that size will ever show up and risk so much money. DTG sat on the fence for a long while listening to the market feedback and eventually they ended up opting for a conservative approach. Reason being, many simmers are not ready to switch to a new platform and give up their addon investment. Of course, I will be very glad to be proven wrong.

Why should any big investor risk so much money to develop a new flight simulator, when the expected return is so low, due to our very small share in the gaming market? If Microsoft jumped off the bandwagon and Lockheed Martin never seriously jumped on, why should any other attempt to do this? Obviously, no new flight simulator, no matter how advanced and graphically compelling, will ever reach 65 million copies like GTA V or similar market winners. Or even 20 or 10 million copies. On the other side, I understand your point and share your concern. Competition brings fragmentation. A possible solution is a future with several flight simulators focused on different segments. For example, P3D focused on liners, Aerofly focused on GA and business jets, DCS still focused on military planes and so on. Every platform focused on a different subsegment. Not sure this is going to happen, though.

Based on Carenado's record, I'd dare to say that their Dornier Do 228, which is very close to release according to their latest announcements, may also be another good candidate to the to-buy list. But obviously we'll only now after it will have been released.

Actually I said complex, non complicated :-) Maybe I should have said "too complex for Carenado" to make myself clearer, but this would maybe sound harsh and I always refrain from everything that may be considered as bashing. Such avionics are not complicated themselves, provided they worked by the book. Point is, they do not. Carenado versions of these systems are not only simplified, which is OK to a certain extent, they always also have several bugs. Specifically on the Phenom 300, I remember I created a video for their support to show a bug in the FMC programming. They acknowledged and promised they would fix it in their next release. That was October 2015, I am still waiting. In general, Carenado released a lot of nice GA and turboprop aircraft. But I would definitely not recommend any of their latest business jets or turboprops with Proline21 and Prodigy G1000 to avoid any frustration. I know many of you are using a mod with GTN750 and are happy with it, I tested and do not like it. If the OP is seeking for a good business jet (while the Milviz King Air is still under production), I would recommend Flysimware's Lear 35A.

Obviously my very personal review: 1. Carenado - Aero Commander 500S Shrike HD 10/10 2. Caranado Cessna/Reims F406 Caravan II 9/10 3. Alabeo PA23 AZTEC F 250 8/10 These models are actually very good and enjoyable, in my opinion they are really worth every penny. Stay away from everything with complex avionics like Prodigy G1000 or Proline21, therefore Phenom 100/300, Hawker, King Airs etc.

I think that upgrading our GPUs may make sense in view of the future sim technology. AeroFly FS 2 and DCS already offer full and native support for VR. So will probably P3D 4 and DTG FS (not immediately, though, if we believe to what Martin wrote here months ago, but possibly in some future edition). Unquestionably 3D and VR are the future of flight simulation and this technology is very GPU-demanding. In view of the current sim technology, read FSX, FSX-SE or P3D 3.x, however, I don't think it makes much sense to upgrade. If past is any indication, benefits will be very low compared to the price.

And this will impact on the performance of our ten years old graphic engines for about how much? 5 FPS? 8 more FPS? Great deal!

That's great. Thanks for sharing.

Forgot to ask. Are you aware of this bug? Any chance to see it addressed in this patch? Maybe it is listed, but I could not find it clearly mentioned. Regards