Carenado CT210M Centurion II Just Released!

[alexcolka]

How does this plane simulate the turbo capabilities at high altitude?

Thanks,

[pryoski]

Oh dear so now problems are being moved further back to 10.30. Gosh I didn't realize I was buying a beta key for a flightsim and for addons. Sorry for the sarcasm but perhaps I grew old in an era where items sold where expected to work well and fluently out of the box, and things were not released until the quality testing gave them the thumbs up.

 

Many people forget that X-Plane 'stable' is actually version 9.70 ...

X-Plane 10 won't be considered 'stable' until the last update prior to version 11, which will be the next major development upgrade for X-Plane.

This has been the development and distribution model for as long as I know and it's a familiar development/distribution model very similar to the GNU/GPL/Free Software Linux & BSD environment. I think it's great because it allows greater involvement with the consumer ... and the underlying presumption is that eventually it will all be fixed (IMO ).

[Femke]

Thanks for your comment there Kris but if I purchase something advertised as 10.1 was originally, how was I supposed to know that I was in fact buying a version that was unstable and that I should have purchased a 9 series version. If what you say is correct then perhaps the manufacturer should have made me aware before I parted with my cash, as your comment there just lends gravity to my view I was purchasing a beta version of x-plane.

 

While I don't have an aversion to testing betas and I have in the mmorpg world frequently, I do have an aversion to paying for that dubious pleasure.

 

I can't share your underlying assumption of all being fixed eventually. My experience with software companies is often that fixes are often introduced to repair problems that thorough testing in the first place would have isolated, and that as time passes new problems overtake the good intentions to fix original problems, then often niggly things are left in the software and never fixed to the point of a new version of the software being issued. This new version starting another merry-go-round of further problems.

 

I guess I will just have to wait and see if X-Plane can fulfil its promise of becoming the great program it can become and in the meantime fly the Bombardier Challenger, and the one or two excellent freeware craft I have downloaded between returning to FSX to for some more disneyish flying with fluffy clouds and pretty scenery.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Femke

[Mario Donick]

how was I supposed to know that I was in fact buying a version that was unstable and that I should have purchased a 9 series version. If what you say is correct then perhaps the manufacturer should have made me aware before I parted with my cash, as your comment there just lends gravity to my view I was purchasing a beta version of x-plane.

 

[...]

 

I can't share your underlying assumption of all being fixed eventually. My experience with software companies is often that fixes are often introduced to repair problems that thorough testing in the first place would have isolated.

 

Your first assumption (or impression) is somehow correct. A user without prior experience in X-Plane buying an X-Plane version in a store or online shop will of course expect it to work as stable as theoretically possible.

 

However, it has always been the case like this with X-Plane, and X-Plane is around since many many years. So your second assumption, based on your experience with other software companies, is not entirely applicable to X-Plane development. In the past it has always been the case that announced features eventually were all working and stable. If you are in the mood, search for the development history of X-Plane 9 -- and how different the final 9.7 version was from the initial versions.

 

Of course, this is something you need to get used to. And it is something that should be communicated much clearer by the X-Plane developers and publishers, I think.

 

Kris' comparison to open source software is good: You could say while FSX is similar to Windows, X-Plane is similar to Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu, for example. Of course the comparison has the caveat that many open source projects are not just free, but also "free as in beer", while X-Plane costs a good amount of money you need to spend, and trust that the original developers will do the needed work, while in open source you could fix it on your own.

 

I guess I will just have to wait and see if X-Plane can fulfil its promise of becoming the great program it can become and in the meantime fly the Bombardier Challenger, and the one or two excellent freeware craft I have downloaded between returning to FSX to for some more disneyish flying with fluffy clouds and pretty scenery.

 

You have always the option to use 32-bit mode. I don't know which OS you're using. I use Windows 7 64 bit with 8 GB RAM, but flying in 32-bit mode and everything works perfectly fine. I don't have any crashes, even in dense scenery like YPAD or New Zealand Pro, or even the extremly heavy San Diego conversions I'm using.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Mario Donick

[Femke]

You have always the option to use 32-bit mode. I don't know which OS you're using. I use Windows 7 64 bit with 8 GB RAM, but flying in 32-bit mode and everything works perfectly fine. I don't have any crashes, even in dense scenery like YPAD or New Zealand Pro, or even the extremly heavy San Diego conversions I'm using.

 

Well that would rather negate the reason for upgrading my computer to 16 gig ram and the graphic card to a 7850 radeon HD. If I wanted to fly in 32 bit mode I would have stayed with FSX, 6  gig of ram and my 550TI nvidea card.

I also use Windows 7 64 bit. It is not crashes I am having as I would need to get my realistic payware craft out of the hangars and into the air to be able to crash.

I purchased X-Plane because of all the 64 bit hype and it seems to be turning out to be that, just hype at this time. Perhaps the future will change that, we will have to wait and see.

 

But ask yourself this, if you want X-Plane to be No. 1, you will need to entice flight simmers from older sims that are still stuck in the 32bit stone age, does it make sense if you want to get that user base to X-Plane to ask them to use X-Plane in 32 bit mode?

 

By the way I never bought from a shop or an online store, I purchased direct from X-Plane by going to their .com website and seeing the wonderful (cough) advertising blurb and hype that didn't mention 9. I did notice there was a 9 so I am not totally gullible but I saw nothing to suggest that 10 was still in some form of prepubescent beta. Silly me eh.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Femke

[Mario Donick]

Well that would rather negate the reason for upgrading my computer to 16 gig ram and the graphic card to a 7850 radeon HD. If I wanted to fly in 32 bit mode I would have stayed with FSX, 6  gig of ram and my 550TI nvidea card.

 

While 16 GB aren't used directly by X-Plane in 32 bit mode (I doubt that even in 64 bit mode these are fully used), I think these are still very useful, because Windows itself and several background processes need RAM, too. And the graphics card has nothing to do with 64 bit mode. It should prove useful even in 32 bit mode.

 

I purchased X-Plane because of all the 64 bit hype and it seems to be turning out to be that, just hype at this time. Perhaps the future will change that, we will have to wait and see.

 

Purchasing without informing about possible problems is never a good idea. One time, I was purchasing FTS avionics, because I wanted to have a realistic Avidyne cockpit. Only after paying lots of money, I recognized that they only included navigation data for the U.S. but not the rest of the world, which made me feel I wasted my money. But it was my own mistake -- I did not read enough about it before buying.

 

Regarding the 64bit mode, with 3 OSes and a complex plugin architecture, it was totally clear that the transition phase from 32 to 64 bit would bring several problems. But as I said, it would have been better if this would have been made more clear to customers.

 

But ask yourself this, if you want X-Plane to be No. 1, you will need to entice flight simmers from older sims that are still stuck in the 32bit stone age, does it make sense if you want to get that user base to X-Plane to ask them to use X-Plane in 32 bit mode?

 

I am very relaxed about that: Neither do I want X-Plane to be no. 1, nor any other sim. I am also just a customer, sometimes also frustrated and impatient, like many other customers. But I try to understand all involved actors and the reasons why things don't always work as they would in an ideal world.

 

You can't expect 2-man-companies to work as fast as big software developers.

 

But in the end, these are all luxury problems. If you don't use X-Plane for real-world flight training, we are just talking about computer games.

[rick_studder]

XP is not unstable as much as it's a moving target. That means that when XP is changed add ons might not work as expected, and add on developers need to play catch up. If you have installed add ons that you don't wan't to break, you might not want to update straight away, but check out if your add ons will be fine first.

 

I'm not so fond of a development model where changes are pushed at this rate, I'd prefer it if updates were concentrated on bug fixes. That would make it easier for add on developers.

Edited April 8, 2013 by rick_studder

[pryoski]

I purchased X-Plane because of all the 64 bit hype and it seems to be turning out to be that, just hype at this time. Perhaps the future will change that, we will have to wait and see.

 

Don't lose heart Femke ... X-Plane hasn't let me down yet (and my first experience with X-Plane was around 1996/97  - I believe it was XP 2 - with a hiatus until version 6) ... I was completely blown away by the 'feel' of flight and it just gets better , but a lot of it is probably mind set. When I'm feeling capable it's a breeze, other times it's a real drag ... hehe. I believe the Flight Simming hobby is best treated as a journey that evolves. It takes patience and time and occasionally one gets to experience that "perfect" flight where it all comes together. Particularly with X-Plane the highs can be fantabulous, and the lows can leave you in the doldrums. Cheers!

[woweezowee]

back on topic: I enjoy that plane!

 

[alexcolka]

At last!

How does this plane fly at high altitude? How is the turbo modeled? By the way nice picture!

Thanks,

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[woweezowee]

I did not climb higher than 6000ft yet, sorry.

[steven winslow]

At last! How does this plane fly at high altitude? How is the turbo modeled? By the way nice picture! Thanks, Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

I'm not sure what you're asking.  What do you mean by "how is the turbo modeled?" I've flown her at 16,000 and she's quite comfortable there.  I' haven't taken her up any higher yet.

 

Published service ceiling is 27,000 and the performance charts that come with the Carenado model go up to cruise level of 24,000.  I'll take her up there and let you know how it goes.

[alexcolka]

Just wanted to know that, thanks!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[alexcolka]

Finally got this plane, yes it climbs very well at high altitude, really fast at cruise. It takes off nice in the highlands in runways above 8000 ft. I guess the turbo is very well modeled.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Phantom88]

Absolutely Love the sound,Very Powerful and full of Torque,I think The Centurion and The Baron are my favorite from Carenado yet.

[woweezowee]

Absolutely Love the sound,Very Powerful and full of Torque,I think The Centurion and The Baron are my favorite from Carenado yet.

 

Same for me. That surprises myself, because for years I was hungry for a Caravan. But now it's "only" no. 3 in favorites…

 

However: I think the torque effect on the Centurion is way too much. As is always the question with this: Is it because of Carenados flight model or is it because X-Plane itself is generally overdoing this effect with prop planes?

[LA]

However: I think the torque effect on the Centurion is way too much. As is always the question with this: Is it because of Carenados flight model or is it because X-Plane itself is generally overdoing this effect with prop planes?

 

For sure, if it has a tendency to keep rolling in flight, then it's an unrealistic "feature". Seems I heard that the new X-Plane beta release has sorted some of this out. I don't really know. I've moved and have no simming CPU at the moment.

[motoadve]

I have the latest beta and still wants to roll in flight.

Not realistic!

 

 

[raven1982]

Torque effect has always been an issue. Also, check your wind speeds at the airport you are flying. If the winds are above about seven knots some aircraft will react unrealistically. Torque and crosswind issues are always there and are tough to pinpoint. The stock 172 has just as much torque, but that is a bad overall comparison. One other issue might be tire friction and pavement,