Carenado Beech F33A Bonanza for X-Plane released!

[alexcolka]

Hello,

Yes it is available now. Here's the link: http://www.carenado.com/CarSite/Portal/index.php?accion=product&correl=63

It looks great.

Alex

[steven winslow]

Bought it half an hour ago. Already starting to paint my personal liveries. Haven't even fired up X-Plane to check it out.

[Lukasz]

Bonanza is one of the aircraft, that are very high on my "most wanted" list. The screenshots look very good, but I'm a little worried about this:

"Features:

[...]

Similar behavior compared to the real airplane"

I wonder, how much is "similar"? As I understand the meaning of this word - not much, as in "a cat is similar to a dog". I remember some issues with previous Carenado x-products' flight models, so I'd be glad to hear from you, how does it fly.

[flyinhawaiian]

Bonanza is one of the aircraft, that are very high on my "most wanted" list. The screenshots look very good, but I'm a little worried about this:

"Features:

[...]

Similar behavior compared to the real airplane"

I wonder, how much is "similar"? As I understand the meaning of this word - not much, as in "a cat is similar to a dog". I remember some issues with previous Carenado x-products' flight models, so I'd be glad to hear from you, how does it fly.

This... also my chief concern too

[steven winslow]

Just did a quick pattern flying with my mouse. I'll fly her more later today with all my Saitek gear, but so far, she seems up to par. I've never had an issue with any of the flight modeling of the Carenado planes. Not sure what you guys are referring to, but they seem to be fairly accurate. The 152 is still one of my favorite planes to fly. By the way, the sounds with this plane are great!

[eaglewing7]

Has anyone else noticed that in all of the preview screenshots you cannot actually see the prop?

[flyinhawaiian]

I've flown Bonanzas in real life, so I might give it a try and write a review. I'm real picky when it comes to flight models. The one thing a sim can never replicate is the "feel" you get in the seat of your pants while you're flying. So long as the aircraft reacts and performs in a manner to simulate the real thing, that's good enough for me!

[steven winslow]

I still love my A36 and S35 Bonanza's by Jason Chandler, but this F33A will fit nicely in my hangar. Worth the investment. I still have a lot of exploring to do with her, but on first glance, she's a beauty!

[steven winslow]

The prop animation from inside the cockpit is different than any other I have experienced. I like it actually. Hard to explain, but it is different in a good way. It is visible from outside the aircraft, too.

[ARTIK]

The 152 is still one of my favorite planes to fly. By the way, the sounds with this plane are great!

Not so great...

They are nasty with the 11kHz frequency range with some aliasing and use the default sound architecture.

(as we all know X-Plane can playback 44.1kHz or higher sampling rate files)

regards

arti

[Lukasz]

I've never had an issue with any of the flight modeling of the Carenado planes. Not sure what you guys are referring to, but they seem to be fairly accurate.

After a very brief search:

"I’m not sure if the two problems are linked, but there would seem to be two fairly interesting issues with the flight model that need to be tackled in the

first update!"

Source (page 7):

http://xplane10.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/carenado-mooney-m-20-j-review.pdf

[steven winslow]

Thanks for the reference, Lukasz, but I have never experienced any of those problems. I have over 90 hours in the Mooney, having circumnavigated Alaska and flown out to the furthest west of the Aleutians and back, and I can say I am pleased with the Mooney's performance. If there were problems with the A/P or at altitude stalls, I certainly would have experienced them, but I have not.

As for the sounds, Arti, you are much more discerning than I. I can't wait for you to make your sound packs available. I would love to have your Beechcraft sounds in my Chandler A36!

Edited September 27, 2011 by steven winslow

[steven winslow]

In all fairness, I obviously have most of those hours in the updated Mooney. I believe the update was released very shortly after the initial release. At least Carenado is pretty quick to correct issues with their new releases.

[MaidenFan]

Looks cool!

I may wait until they start converting their HD series for XP though....

Edited September 27, 2011 by Perry

[ARTIK]

At least Carenado is pretty quick to correct issues with their new releases.

Really? They promissed Archer 44.1kHz sounds and never released an upgrade...

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=52104

[Lukasz]

I don't say, the Bonanza is bad. In fact I wish it's so good, that it would make a worthy purchase. It's just I'm more careful, after purchasing some other cool looking and somehow acclaimed aircraft, that made me really mad, after discovering, that their similarity to the original ones boils down to the looks themselves.

Carenado is a capable developer team and I was really excited, when I've learnt that they're also going to make x-aircraft. Also I can see, that they are making a progress - at least in visual quality. But I would like to learn a bit more about their newest product, than "the plane is similar to the real one", before I spend my money. Afterall I'm looking for an addon to a flight simulator, not a virtual plane showcase - I prefer die-cast in that role. Unfortunately, they hadn't convinced me so far.

[steven winslow]

I mean issues, Arti, that are flight crucial. You are VERY discerning when it comes to the sound quality. I doubt most X-Plane end users have issues with the sounds. I'm not trying to start an argument with you. I agree the sounds could be better, but the sounds in the Archer are not flight crucial and as such, I assume, are not a priority fix. I know Carenado has an ambitious schedule for X-Plane models and their priority is getting them produced. I'm sure they will get around to "fixing" the sound files in the Archer.

[steven winslow]

Just curious, Lukasz, but would you care to elaborate on the disappointments you have experienced? I have had a few of my own, but I have been pleased with my Carenado purchases. I have all of their X-Plane models. I also have all of Jason Chandler's planes and I have both the Sundowner and the Duchess and I am pleased with all of those investments. I also have most of the X-Aviation planes, except the Javelin, the T-28 Trojan, the SeaMax and the CRJ-200. Again, I'm not trying to start anything by my comments, but I am not happy with a couple of my X-A investments in comparison to some of my other purchases.

I guess it boils down to this: if you don't buy it, you won't know if it's worth the investment. I don't think you can judge without buying and flying it.

As for their statement: "the plane is similar to the real one"....just remember there is a language difference. I'm sure there has been something lost in the translation.

My first impressions are good, but I need to get some hours in her before I can truly pass judgement. As I said before, from first impressions, she seems like a winner.

[ARTIK]

I'm so sorry it's hard to satisfy my requirements. I thought we're using simulator not a game.

Sure not a flight model fix related but "HONOR FIX..." because they announced 44.1kHz on first version of their ads... and they are using 44.1kHz sound in the FSX version. I know poor X-Plane users can have half of the frequency range. They are joking. So I'm buying carenado airplanes but personally I don't like such a people.

[steven winslow]

I'm right there with you, Arti. I don't look at X-Plane as a game and it drives me nuts when people talk about "playing X-Plane." I use X-Plane as a serious training tool so I want my aircraft to be as "similar" to the real world plane in every aspect, but most importantly I want the flight model to be right. Then I want the cockpit to be realistic. I like them to look good on the outside, too, but that's not the highest priority. You are teaching me to be more discerning with the sounds. Thank you for your work with the sounds. As I mentioned before, I would love to beg, borrow, steal.....and even BUY your sound packs for Jason Chandler's Beechcraft.

[ARTIK]

Thank you. I have several soundpacks on my toolbench but I'll not forget Jason's airplanes for sure...

[arno54]

If I dare have a word on this matter... (well... I dare),

there is a common misunderstanding here I assume.

First, the initial quality of the recording is the clue, not the freqs. I mean, if the sound is poor and cracking, playing it 88Khz will simply give us high-quality cracks. So, it's probably better to have well-recorded sounds played 11Khz than poor sounds played 44khz.

Second, let's face a simple fact : I bet 99% of the users don't have a hardware that's able to restitute true high-freq sounds. Even if the sound is actually well-recorded and really 44khz, in the final headset of most users (not to speak of laptop speakers) these sounds won't play with the quality they are supposed to.

Third and last, there is an obvious, huge difference between 8 and 11khz. This difference is very noticeable but less important between 11 and 22. It's not really significant between 22 and 44, simply because the difference would require high-quality harware to be properly restituted.

Xplane is simply not intended for sound processing. We can do lots of things to improve the flight experience, but multiplying the weight of the sound files is probably not what comes first - even if I'm definitely convinced this is important (see T28 specs sheet).

[ARTIK]

Hi Arno,

I couldn't agree with almost any of your statements.

ad1. "Initial quality" means quality of location sound recordings, after first A/D conversion on your audio recorder. It could be 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz or any sane of even insane Sampling Frequency, 16 or 24 bit word lenght. [As we know according or thanks to Nyquist law we can percieve only half frequency range of the sampling rate (e.g. 32kHz sampling rate <= 15kHz freq range etc)].

You can't have high initial sound quality with low sampling frequency. It's just not possible.

No, upsampling, playing low sampling frequency (e.g. Fs=11kHz) poor cracking sound at 88kHz will give you the same weird cracking sound quality. it's simply misundestanding. You simply can't hear the difference after upsampling process.

BTW Carenado have those 44.1kHz sampling rate sounds and is doing the sampling rate down conversion without the reason, as if out of spite.

ad2. I don't have a clue what do you mean by therm "restitute".

If you're saying people don't have speakers with tweeters I wouln't agree. High frequencies are much easier to emit than low frequencies.

Also every healthy person (except really old man) can hear approx. 15-16kHz frequency range without the problem = they actually hear the difference between Fs=32000Hz and Fs=44100Hz

I don't even bother poor tiny laptop speakers (which high frequency range is quite good!), or pilots headsets used for full frequency range playback (which is funny but non realistic assumption).

ad3. Of course simmers sensitivity to sound quality may vary. Not everyone has trained ears, on the other side some well known flight simulator developers are quite deaf. But my goal is to have a good sounding airplane to very closely emulate the sounds from my real life flying, not a buzzy toy (just look for every embarrassing default sound and X-Plane sound architecture).

X-Plane is intended for sound processing. Believe me the old days ('80) of digital audio infancy are gone...

The CPU sound load is so minimal even using (not perfect) but high quality DreamEngine plugin or similar.

BTW I appreciate your sound invention and ideas in T28.

[flyinhawaiian]

Personally I would like to see a better sound quality throughout the range of products in Xplane. My father, being in the sound industry, has helped tune my ear to what sounds good, and what doesn't. His "house" speakers are a pair of Genelec studio monitors (for reference to how he likes his sound). Its preferable to put the highest quality sound (and visualization) into the products, and allow the end users tone them down to the level that they are able to achieve. Case in point is how many musicians now put out music compressed beyond all belief, because most of the end-users are going to be listening to them on crappy iPod ear-buds with only high-end freq-response and simulated low-end kick. You lose the entire middle (read: the meat) of the track and the depth that you'd get from nearly every band 20 years ago isn't there. Once in a while someone mixes it correctly and the difference is shocking.

Hopefully we can get some of the same back into Xplane...

[Pete_SMS]

Does it have 3D gauges and 3D needles/indicators or is it "just" a texture and flat? Can not see it clearly on the screenshots. The gauge itself looks 3D, but the inside looks like a flat texture.