It's another twin!

[steven winslow]

Just got an e-mail saying Carenado has released their Cessna C340II for X-Plane.  It's only available directly from Carenado right now, but should be available at all the usual outlets within the next couple of weeks.

[pryoski]

Nice .. just bought it .. but will have to wait until I get home tonight to fly it ...

 

I haven't flown any of my Carenado's for a while ... can anyone confirm if the updates to 64bit work?

 

Edit: I REALLY hope that they release their KingAir's for X-Plane ...

Edited July 11, 2013 by Kris Pryo

[steven winslow]

This one is definitely 64 bit.  You can check on the V2/64 bit update progress here:

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=68492&page=1

[hobofat]

This one is definitely 64 bit.  You can check on the V2/64 bit update progress here:

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=68492&page=1

 

That's the information I need, right there!

[BWolf7]

I've never bought a Carenado plane, and probably never will. All eye candy and no systems... Thankfully we got the best props on X-Aviation

[steven winslow]

I've never bought a Carenado plane, and probably never will. All eye candy and no systems... Thankfully we got the best props on X-Aviation

Well, consider the planes they're modeling.  What "systems" are you referring to?  Not a whole lot of them to model in the GA aircraft Carenado makes.  However, I don't know any other GA aircraft developers putting any more "systems" into their planes, other than the MU-2 if you want to count that in the same GA category as Carenado's offerings.  As Carenado adds to their X-Plane fleet, they've been adding additional features like the Aspen in the A36, which nobody else has.  As they get deeper into X-Plane I think you'll see more and more "systems" modeling.  Keep your eye on them.

 

If you're a real systems junkie, you're probably more into the airliners and more complex aircraft anyway.  You probably wouldn't have much fun in the low and slow flight gang that Carenado appeals to.

[Cameron]

However, I don't know any other GA aircraft developers putting any more "systems" into their planes, other than the MU-2

 

No? The G1000 in the C400 we have doesn't count?

 

 

 

Not a whole lot of them to model in the GA aircraft Carenado makes.

 

Yes, there is. Like their aircraft with the G1000 and various other glass displays. 

 

TBM 850

SR22 GTSX TURBO

PA46T MALIBU JETPRO

 

etc...

 

 

 

As they get deeper into X-Plane I think you'll see more and more "systems" modeling.  Keep your eye on them.

 

I hope so! It sounds to me after discussions with various developers and Laminar that SASL has hit somewhat of a wall for forward movement on many of the necessary items glass displays need. The G1000 comes to mind.

[BWolf7]

Well, consider the planes they're modeling.  What "systems" are you referring to?  Not a whole lot of them to model in the GA aircraft Carenado makes.  However, I don't know any other GA aircraft developers putting any more "systems" into their planes, other than the MU-2 if you want to count that in the same GA category as Carenado's offerings.  As Carenado adds to their X-Plane fleet, they've been adding additional features like the Aspen in the A36, which nobody else has.  As they get deeper into X-Plane I think you'll see more and more "systems" modeling.  Keep your eye on them.

 

If you're a real systems junkie, you're probably more into the airliners and more complex aircraft anyway.  You probably wouldn't have much fun in the low and slow flight gang that Carenado appeals to.

Well, I wouldn't think it is too realistic to be able to jump in, turn on the battery, the fuel pump, mixture full rich, and press the starters, then your off. Pretty much what Carenado is right there. Except for their fancy lights. No other aircraft has modeled a GNS 430, so it would be raising the bar if they did. Well, $5 less and you get an amazing G1000 in the Corvalis. For the price, I would like to see a bit better simulation. I must say, FSX does come with much better stock instruments, so I guess they are better to fly in FSX.

[steven winslow]

No? The G1000 in the C400 we have doesn't count?

Definitely!  Certainly the G1000 in the Corvalis counts, but as far as "jump in, turn on the battery, the fuel pump, mixture full rich, and press the starters, then your off" part, the Corvalis is pretty much the same as any other X-Plane aircraft.  I didn't realize the "systems" being referred to were instrumentation.  I thought maybe full implementation of startup procedures (priming and choking)  and correct fuel flows, etc, were the type of systems he was referring to.  But come to think of it, all the real world planes I've flown have had pretty simple startup procedures.  Prime, magnetos on, turn key, engine starts, check oil pressure, check oil temps before take off, etc....  Obviously it is a little more involved than that, but you get the idea.  I think Carenado, as well as most payware developers, do a pretty good job simulating the oil pressure, oil temps, CHT, EGT, etc upon startup.  

 

 

Yes, there is. Like their aircraft with the G1000 and various other glass displays. 

 

TBM 850

SR22 GTSX TURBO

PA46T MALIBU JETPRO

I was referring to their X-Plane products, not their FSX offerings.  Hopefully we'll see some more "systems" implementation when those models are brought over to X-Plane.

 

As for the GNS 430, I hope and pray someone, someday will produce an "in panel" GNS 430 with real world functionality.  I know there are Garmin add-ons available, but not for Mac.  At least none I'm aware of.  I could easily be wrong on that.  For the way I use the GNS430, the stock model works okay for now.

Edited July 24, 2013 by steven winslow

[raven1982]

Okay is very true. After all the version 8.XX and 9.XX I thought we would have gotten a better 430 but no luck yet. There are so many other issues to be worked out with X-Plane 10 still that it will take a separate entity to develop the GNS 430 to the next step. I would rather see a move to the GTN 650/750 but those are a whole other issue for coding. Oh, program in GPS approaches would be great!

 

Sorry for the off topic addition. I plan on buying the C340 after I get back from working Oshkosh.

[steven winslow]

...after I get back from working Oshkosh.

Wait....can you really call it "working" at Oshkosh?      Regardless, have a great time at AirVenture 2013!

[Mario Donick]

I thought maybe full implementation of startup procedures (priming and choking)  and correct fuel flows, etc, were the type of systems he was referring to.  But come to think of it, all the real world planes I've flown have had pretty simple startup procedures.  Prime, magnetos on, turn key, engine starts, check oil pressure, check oil temps before take off, etc....  Obviously it is a little more involved than that, but you get the idea.  I think Carenado, as well as most payware developers, do a pretty good job simulating the oil pressure, oil temps, CHT, EGT, etc upon startup. 

 

This is also what I mean when I complain about the lack of systems depth in GA aircraft. Working circuit breakers, i.e. other systems depending on realistically modelled electrics, would be a start.

[LA]

I would rather see a move to the GTN 650/750 but those are a whole other issue for coding. Oh, program in GPS approaches would be great!

 

Me too. Over the years I went through three Garmin aviation portables (296,496,696,) that had far superior graphics over the 430. I just consider the 430s as being kind of old these days.

[steven winslow]

This is also what I mean when I complain about the lack of systems depth in GA aircraft. Working circuit breakers, i.e. other systems depending on realistically modelled electrics, would be a start.

I believe some of the Carenados do actually have working circuit breakers.  I think it's the 152 and/or the 172.  I'm right there with you wanting more depth in the systems for GA aircraft.

[raven1982]

For those that have the aircraft, does the CHT work properly on the C340? I know that a few of the aircraft the CHT is set only to rpm and not matched with Cowl Flaps as well.

 

@steven winslow - Yeah, it is not really working! The only part that makes it work is the heat during the day in the Hangers. Come see me at the Saitek booth in Hanger C, my name is Joseph Szpak.

[tkyler]

This is also what I mean when I complain about the lack of systems depth in GA aircraft. Working circuit breakers, i.e. other systems depending on realistically modelled electrics, would be a start.

 

Solving the electrical systems depth in x-plane is a deceptively nagging problem that requires one to ignore most all of x-plane electrics save the battery charge.   and TBH, it really is the only 'system' in a small GA.  You can tie a few circuit breakers to default datarefs but that usually still leaves a lot left.  For example, alternators commonly have a field winding tied to a voltage regulator...so there are TWO ways to disconnect a generator (THREE if you want to fail the voltage regulator)...via the generator switch (which disconnects a relay) or the field switch / fuse, which disengages the voltage regulator (not modeled in xplane).   In addition, most avionics work on a voltage range...so when the alternator goes down, you will have 'x' amount of time before the battery drains below the minimum level to drive a device...and not all devices have the same voltage range, so you may lose one device before another and x-plane doesn't do this by default either.  You need a battery model (different for Ni-Cad vs. Lead-acid), a charging model and a discharging model to get really accurate......but really,  what user simulates alternator failure in a single GA or cares if an instruments dies in 10mins vs. 15mins.  Is it that we enjoy knowing its there? 

 

Most aircraft don't have truly accurate systems and most users don't know it because they always operate the aircraft in a predictable manner and as long as the author makes sure things look right down that path and users don't deviate too far, they're golden.  Most developers who claim they have "realistic systems" don't have truly realistic systems....but what they do have is "realistic enough for most folks to enjoy them" systems and there is something to be said for that....BUT at the same time, having truly realistic systems satisfies most all types (there are folks who claim they want accuracy but then complain when they actually get it)  so there's something to be said for that too.  I think in the end, a product follows a developers preferences and standards and folks who share in those can share in the enjoyment of that product for what it is.

 

 

TomK

Edited July 24, 2013 by tkyler

[steven winslow]

Spot on, Tom!  You nailed it.  I especially like "there are folks who claim they want accuracy but then complain when they actually get it."  I think you're right about the "knowing it's there" part, too.  I think a lot of X-Plane development stops at the "good enough for general consumption" level and I'm not saying that's necessarily bad.  You guys work hard and long enough doing what you do and you have to weigh the cost/ROI factor.

[tkyler]

When I first got into simming.....or perhaps looked at it "again" after a long absence....I do recall thinking,   "I wonder if this is EXACTLY like the real thing....how cool would that be to have a serious airliner simulation for under 100 bucks that teaches me everything I'd need to know to fly the real thing".    There IS something cool about that whether I bother to learn the simulation that deep or not...just knowing its there should I choose to go a bit deeper on some day when I'm bored....there's satisfaction in that to me...it's like an interactive classroom and so I can't help but aspire to that level for my stuff.   We all have to bow to the whims and necessities of the market though, especially during this (longer than I thought) adolescent process x-plane seems to be going through.   From the developer side though, I see things here now that I didn't have a few years ago and don't see anything but better and more accurate simulations in the future.    Once FSX starts to wane, that's when the ROI will start to hit probably......its definitely a labor of love for now......darn-the-DNA.

 

TomK

[Mario Donick]

what user simulates alternator failure in a single GA or cares if an instruments dies in 10mins vs. 15mins.  Is it that we enjoy knowing its there? 

 

...

 

there are folks who claim they want accuracy but then complain when they actually get it

 

Tom, first, thanks for the explanation on what is involed in creating an electrical system in X-Plane, and why it's very hard to do it.

 

I agree that most users probably don't care about that level of depth, and I also agree about the people wanting realism but not willing to learn how to cope with it.

 

This said, I still think that a minimum level of depth should be strived for -- at least to a level which you can find in some of the good FSX payware.