Carenado's Annual Sale On Now - Up to 80% OFF

[PCAviator 30]

 

Carenado's once-a-year sale is on now. Up to 80% OFF their range of flight simulator aircraft add-ons.

Some items excluded.

 

Check out what's on sale now at http://www.pcaviator.com.au/store/home.php?cat=999

 

The sale ends December 17th 2017.

[mutley 4,498]

Thanks for the heads up Dean, I know a few people who will very happy with  this announcement!

[brett 2,315]

In my opinion it is the best way to get your monies worth.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

20 hours ago, brett said:

In my opinion it is the best way to get your monies worth.

 

Indeed. Lots of great older stuff at deep discounts. The couple of newish models I was hoping for are not surprisingly not discounted. I won't be getting my Mooney's worth, at least not the Mooney Ovation i wanted in my stocking. The older M20J is a great older model and a great Mooney's worth...but I already have it. I'm looking at the Cessna 550 Citation jet...zooom zooom??? Maybe?

 

Edit to add: Ok, the M20R Ovation is an Alabeo licensed product...that probably explains it not having any "Carenado" discount, none of the Alabeo models are on sale at this time it appears...I'll keep my fingers crossed that Alabeo has a holiday sale too.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Captain Coffee

[Holdit 106]

I'm considering the B350i and the Piper Malibu Mirage. Does anyone know the extent of the problems* with either and whether there are any fixes? I know about the gear down light problem with the 350i and it's a no sale for me if there's no fix for it. I don't look for PMDG-level modelling, but what is modeled should work.

 

Note that I don't say "are there any?" 

[Tim_A 997]

Opinion? PA-46 Malibu Mirage, or PA-46T Malibu? There can be only one . . . .

[Andrew Godden 943]

2 hours ago, Tim_A said:

Opinion? PA-46 Malibu Mirage, or PA-46T Malibu? There can be only one . . . .

 

Tim,

 

There are actually three versions to choose from, two turboprop versions being the PA-46T Malibu JetPROP and the PA-46T 500TP Malibu Meridian, and the PA-46 Malibu Mirage 350P.

 

As the PA-46T 500TP Malibu Meridian is NOT ON SALE, I assume you are looking at either the PA-46T Malibu JetPROP or the PA-46 Malibu Mirage 350P.

 

The PA-46 Malibu Mirage 350P has traditional instrumentation whereas the PA-46T Malibu JetPROP has a Garmin G500 PFD / MFD. Performance wise, there is not as big an increase in speed in the turboprop as you might expect. I guess it gets down to what you are more comfortable with, piston vs turboprop and traditional avionics vs glass cockpit.

 

Cheers

Andrew

 

[mutley 4,498]

Depends on your preference on with the avionics? I have the older Malibu and it's good but the Mirage is looking better IMO.

[Holdit 106]

Thanks all.

 

I'm specifically interested in the basic Mirage, but what I'm more interested in is the inevitable Carenado issues. 

[Andrew Godden 943]

13 hours ago, Holdit said:

I'm considering the B350i and the Piper Malibu Mirage. Does anyone know the extent of the problems* with either and whether there are any fixes? I know about the gear down light problem with the 350i and it's a no sale for me if there's no fix for it. I don't look for PMDG-level modelling, but what is modeled should work.

 

Note that I don't say "are there any?" 

 

Paul,

 

If you go to the AVSIM Carenado (UNOFFICIAL) Support Forum you will find a great deal of detailed (pessimistic) views on all the Carenado models, including the Beechcraft 350i. These seem to be written by real world pilots expecting a perfect flight sim add-on which matches the real world aircraft 100%, and nothing less. Reality is, the Carenado add-ons are a US$34.95 to US$39.95 (mostly) product for use on a flight simulator which is, at best, for entertainment purposes.

 

You will see contradicting posts on the AVSIM Forum regarding the 350i landing gear lights, and based on the contradicting posts, I am now not sure if it is a problem or not. I just checked my install of the 350i and the landing gear lights don't illuminate. I had never noticed this before as I have the Saitek Switch Panel and refer to it for the landing gear lights. I will say however, that I have experienced some issues of this type before with Carenado products, and after an uninstall and reinstall of the product, the problem is no longer there. This could explain the contradicting comments.

 

This might not help make up your mind, but then if you based your decisions on reading the AVSIM Carenado (UNOFFICIAL) Support Forums, you would never buy anything. Taking your comment, "...but what is modeled should work." literally, there are a great deal more systems modelled (visually) in Carenado models, and any other developer's products for that matter, i.e. circuit breakers, cabin heating, etc, which were never meant to work. On that basis you would not buy anything.

 

I guess it simply gets down to where you set your expectation levels. Personally, I think the expectation levels on the AVSIM Forums are off the scale for the price and level of reality in the flight sim we are dealing with.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Expectation Levels are key with Carenado and Alabeo products I suspect. They Look like nearly if not The Best modeled and textured aircraft on the market, especially the interior attention to details imo... but their aircraft perform like any mid range payware addon in the same price range...that needs to be understood from the get go when you buy one. You get a competent (and sometimes buggy at first release) Simulation with Superb Artwork Textures attached to it the incredibly well modeled polygons.

If your immersion comes from systems complexity and realism a Carenado might not be for you...go with PMDG, A2A or the like. If your immersion is derived from stunning visuals and good to great sound quality in the VC and exterior views...well, that's the kind of simmer I am and my Carenado/Alabeos are always a joy to fly once I have fixed the Easter eggs in the aircraft.cfgs (...by that I meen bunny poo, not candy...little tiny aww-shits scattered here and there). They occasionally have typos in the contact sections, use metrics instead of standard in the weight and balance section, and even just get lazy and use 0,0,0 for all station loads instead of measuring out their actual locations...I repair that stuff and have no problems. I find these kind of things in other dev products in that price range as well...you gets what you pay for, but with Carenados you also get amazing visuals with your occasional bugs. 

For all the above I tend to agree with Andrew's reviews when he puts a Less than 10 points on the Value for Price for Carenados as their products are gradually increasing in price approaching A2A product costs, without A2A systems realism.

 

Cheers.

 

P.S. I have neither of the models you are interested in, but I do have their P46T Malibu Jetprop, which is probably the older foundation they worked from to build the newer Malibu...mine is great fun and I have noticed no bugs in it.

[Tim_A 997]

Carenados have always been mid-range aircraft, workhorses for the one-click / ctrl-E simmer, with nice visuals. And as such they perform the role admirably. You don't expect a huge amount in the way of systems simulation, and you don't get it. I've been flying their planes since the FS9 PA28-235 Dakota and love em.

 

They've been shifting their prices towards the high end of late, although that hasn't come with any improvement in systems modelling. Something I see as a disappointment, and one of several reasons I now only buy in the sales.

[Holdit 106]

Hi guys and thanks for the further input. I may have given the wrong impression above. When I say what is modeled should work, I mean what the developer has designed to work, should work, not that everything that is visible should work. I have enough Carenado aircraft in my hangar alongside A2A, Milviz and RealAir GA aircraft to know what I can realistically expect from each developer.

 

Non-functioning circuit breakers are not an issue, because hardly anyone does them. Things like avionics that can be started up without the battery being on are irritating, but are something I can live with, as are other minor quirks and annoyances.  Some things, however, should go without saying and I would put functioning gear indicator lights in that category. Another example would be anything they have mentioned in the promotional blurb as being a feature. A case in point; the ADF in the Alabeo Tomahawk can't be tuned. They still haven't fixed it, despite saying they would. Otherwise their Tomahawk is a great little aircraft. I wrote a review on it for Aerosoft and I was surprised myself at how much good I had to say about it.   The developers said they would fix the issue, but they still haven't. There is a difference between quibbling about details and being dissatisfied with substandard quality control, and there is a point at which understandable lack of depth from a mid-range developer becomes sloppy QA. 

 

Please don't mistake this for an anti-Carabeo rant. I have real affection for some of their aircraft in my hangar, particularly the Mooney M20J, Cessna 152, Cessna 182Q and  their steam gauge King Air 90 and 200, and also the Navajo, which I have just picked up and is very nice. 

 

@Tim_A Agreed, and it's only at sale time that I buy their stuff too, but I still look out for mines . The Navajo has always been a particular favourite of mine and the King Air even more so. The main reason I'm thinking about their King Air is that I fear our sun will have gone Red Giant before Milviz get around to releasing theirs, and dammit the Carenado ones look good.

 

@Andrew Godden Andrew, I hope I clarified the where I come from regarding expectations, and thanks for your comments about the King Air. Maybe I'll take a punt on it. 

 

@Captain Coffee Likewise regarding the Malibu.

 

Thanks again, gents.

[Andrew Godden 943]

Paul,

 

I fully understand and realise some intent and detail is lost in the brevity of posts. As it was about 12.30 am (my time) when I made my post I didn’t have the chance to do a reinstall of the B350i. Let me do that and I’ll report back on the landing gear light issue. I will also have a look at the Alabeo Tomahawk too (maybe here I should admit to owning all the Alabeo and Carenado products, except some of the special Alabeo models, i.e. Gee Bee, etc.).

 

We all have our respective levels of what we are prepared to accept as reasonable or prepared to live with for the money we spend, but as I pointed out about the AVSIM Carenado (UNOFFICIAL) Forums I rarely see any level of reasonableness applied - just negativity based on finite comparisons to the real world aircraft and product bashing. I am prepared to admit some of it is justified but to the average flight simmer, most of them wouldn’t be aware, even if they did care.

[Andrew Godden 943]

5 hours ago, Holdit said:

...A case in point; the ADF in the Alabeo Tomahawk can't be tuned. They still haven't fixed it, despite saying they would...

 

Paul,

 

OK, after a fresh download and reinstall of the Beechcraft 350i, there is still no joy on the landing gear condition lights.

 

As for the Tomahawk though, I will beg to differ. Without doing a reinstall, the ADF radio tuning is functional. Now, I will point out something here about the ADF radio on earlier Alabeo and Carenado models. In the earlier models, the tuning of the ADF radio did not use the tuning knobs on the right hand side as later models do, it is done by + / - click spots below each digit (except the thousands digit) of the Standby Frequency (to the right). These click spots can be small and finicky at low zoom levels, however, once the + / - click spot is highlighted, the mouse wheel will adjust the individual digits of the frequency up or down, press the Frequency Change button and the ADF gauge becomes active once in range of the NDB.

 

Here is a proof screenshot of the Tomahawk coming up abeam KDTS on my left. The co-located DTS NDB has a frequency of 254.0 KHz, set on the ADF radio, and, as you can see, the ADF gauge is active and pointing towards the DTS NDB.

 

[brett 2,315]

I have six of their aircraft and do enjoy flying them, they look good, fly by the numbers, have great cockpit lighting and Carenado/Abaleo have enough of a selection to meet everyone's needs.

 

What I have gleaned from the great folks here over time is that,

1. Carenado/Alabeo aircraft are getting too expensive for what you get and buying them on sale is your best buy unless you are a want/need it now simmer and aren't strapped.

2. Although Carenado provide fixes they are limited to quick fixes and any lasting faults will not be taken care of.

3. Their high end textures will sometimes cause a prohibitive drop in fps in mid-range computers.

4. The only good thing in the "Unofficial Support" forum is the couple of guys that provide fixes that Carenado never get around to.

5. If you have a problem with any developers aircraft you should talk to others because it might be Your problem and not Theirs.

5. Even above average simmers like to take a spin in a new shiny aircraft if they can get a good deal. 

 

I'm a big fan of A2A because they fit my simming needs for higher end simulations of aircraft, constantly update their products and have great support. They put all of that together for the average price of fifty bucks and that's why I think Carenado/Alabeo are too expensive right now.(Edited Out) 

 

Yet with all of that said I do enjoy just hopping into a decent and diverse aircraft to take a spin just for fun and that's where these mid-level sim aircraft come in, so if you asked this A2A sim snob if I would purchase a Careado/Alebeo aircraft in the future it would be a resounding yes but only when they are on sale for less than thirty bucks. I have enough aircraft in my hangar to keep me busy and am willing to wait for the price to drop. My   

 

It has been correctly pointed out that I'm an idiot so feel free to correct. 

[Andrew Godden 943]

14 minutes ago, brett said:

...and that's why I think Carenado/Alabeo are too expensive right now.(A point reviewers can't take into consideration to be fair and impartial) 

 

Excellent points all round Brett, but the above point confuses me in what you are trying to say.

[brett 2,315]

Well I figure reviewers to be fair take each product on it's own merit and don't compare them to other products except when it comes to viewing their price. I'm guessing if the product is taken money wise against all the like products out there the Carenado product would fair well in their price range but as a consumer I look at the fact that I paid fifty dollars for the A2A Comanche and all it does and the Carenado Cheyenne at forty dollars doesn't make sense to me.

 

As a reviewer Andrew, if you feel my statement wasn't correct or was out of context I would be happy to take it out after you show me the error of my ways.    

[Holdit 106]

42 minutes ago, brett said:

Well I figure reviewers to be fair take each product on it's own merit and don't compare them to other products except when it comes to viewing their price. I'm guessing if the product is taken money wise against all the like products out there the Carenado product would fair well in their price range but as a consumer I look at the fact that I paid fifty dollars for the A2A Comanche and all it does and the Carenado Cheyenne at forty dollars doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

I have to agree, particularly when combined with quality control that is at best dysfunctional - from the customer's point of view - suspect it works fine for Carabeo. 

 

@Andrew Godden Andrew, you are right. I've just checked and it does work that way. I re-downloaded mine recently so maybe they fixed it in the meantime, I'm sure it didn't do that before, and Bert Pieke (see Brett's point #4 ) never mentioned it when he sent me a fix for it. 

 

That said, their aircraft look terrific, and at sale prices they aren't a bad buy. I weakened in the end and picked up the Malibu (350P) and B350i and I like them so far. Regarding the 350i gear lights, I can probably cannibalise some from another King Air and create a pop-up for that purpose. It only needs to be called up once per flight anyway...

[Andrew Godden 943]

11 hours ago, brett said:

Well I figure reviewers to be fair take each product on it's own merit and don't compare them to other products except when it comes to viewing their price. I'm guessing if the product is taken money wise against all the like products out there the Carenado product would fair well in their price range but as a consumer I look at the fact that I paid fifty dollars for the A2A Comanche and all it does and the Carenado Cheyenne at forty dollars doesn't make sense to me.

 

As a reviewer Andrew, if you feel my statement wasn't correct or was out of context I would be happy to take it out after you show me the error of my ways.    

 

Brett,

 

My question was more one of clarification because I couldn't clearly see the intent of your statement. You focus your comment on price and in the same context talk about fairness and impartiality. What about all the other considerations and assessments which are done against a product? In the case of aircraft add-ons, an MH review makes assessments across seven discrete categories, all weighted equally.

 

You also erroneously quote an average $50.00 (sic) price tag for an A2A product. This is misleading in itself as the $50.00 (sic) A2A product is a single platform licence, i.e. it is either for FSX or Prepar3D. All Alabeo / Carenado products are a multi platform licence for FSX, FSX:SE, and Prepar3D. A2A don't even offer such a comparable multi platform product with the closest similar product being the "Academic Bundle" product for FSX and Prepar3D, priced at $69.99. So, on that basis, and using your example of the A2A Comanche and the Carenado PA-42 Cheyenne III, the real price differential is $30.00 not $10.00. But let's be serious, regardless of developer, these two real world aircraft are like the proverbial "chalk and cheese". The real world counterparts of the Piper PA-24 Comanche are the Beechcraft A36, V35B, and F33A Bonanza, Cessna 210, and the Mooney M20. Note that I have specifically chosen these real world counterparts as they are specific models in the Alabeo and Carenado product range. Therefore, these will provide a more accurate and realistic product price comparison. The aforementioned Alabeo / Carenado products are priced across $26.95, $29.95, and $34.95. Now we start to see the reality of a better like for like comparison and, on price alone, at better than two to one in all instances, the A2A Comanche isn't smelling too good.

 

So, now let's get back to the subject of reviews, the other point in your comment.

 

From a reviewer's perspective, and at least since my time as Head of Reviews at MH, regardless of the add-on type, aircraft, scenery, etc., we have never, and will never do a direct comparison against other products in the review for a number of reasons:

1. It is extremely rare to be able to compare like for like products. I've already put the issue of price to bed, so let's look at some other areas. Again, for example, what in the A2A Accu-Sim range do you compare the Carenado PA-42 Cheyenne III to? Other than it being an add-on aircraft, generically, they are completely diverse products. The Accu-Sim products have a higher level of systems complexity, whereas the PA-42 Cheyenne III is a more technically complex aircraft to model. In the rare instance where you may get similar products from different developers, what is the time gap between the development of the respective products? The later product would be expected to benefit from advances and developments in modelling, texturing, and systems coding over an older product, thereby garnering an advantage, but also possibly costing more in development time and, therefore, a higher retail price.
    
2. Developers often have different business models, aims, or development criteria for their products. In the case of the A2A Accu-Sim range, at least in part, it is aimed at real world professional flight training schools. Hence the $799.00 price tag for the licence of the commercial versions. The cheaper versions of the same product are aimed at the more serious and procedural flight simmer. As further examples, the same can be said for the Majestic Dash-8 Q400 product range, and the PMDG product range. The level of realism and systems modelling in all of these products are aimed at the more serious and procedural flight simmer. Neither Alabeo or Carenado aim their products at this sector of the market. They do aim, and have set a certain default standard, for an extremely high quality in visual modelling, something they do consistently well. From a business model perspective, Alabeo started with a stated aim of "bringing a different type of flying experience to people who may otherwise never get the chance to experience it", with "lower priced" aircraft, Alabeo products "combine the joy, the challenge, and the fun of flying". Consequently, there are certain inaccuracies or deficiencies in their modelling, particularly in the cockpit. However, not one of these inaccuracies or deficiencies prevent the aircraft from being flown. Regardless, Alabeo and Carenado are constantly criticised for not producing to a level of realism they never claimed or intended to produce.
    
3. MH reviews are structured to make quantitative and qualitative assessments against certain scoring categories (more easily done for aircraft and utility add-ons than scenery) to provide a measured degree of objectivity. For example, physical performance against the documented and real world aircraft's performance data, accuracy in the visual model against the real world counterpart, the quantity and quality of supplied documentation, etc.. This measured degree of objectivity is intended to provide a basis upon which readers can make certain indirect comparisons with other products. This is not always a precise methodology but it is considered the most consistent and equitable approach. I will also point out that over the history of MH Reviews, encompassing 386 reviews by 28 reviewers, the scoring, in the main has been consistent, not bad considering no T scoring has ever been applied.
    
4. Any reviewed product stands alone to be assessed on its own merits against the scoring categories. To do any form of comparative analysis involving quantitative and qualitative assessments requires the compared products to be reviewed equally. This is restrictive on so many fronts, the least of which is time alone. Secondly, copies of reviewed products are often paid for out of the reviewer's own pocket. In situations where press copies are obtained, the developer understands that we do not use a comparative analysis format for the review.
    
5. MH reviews start from the premise of being written for the average flight simmer. Who is the average flight simmer you might ask? Well, let me start by saying I don't consider anyone who has posted in this thread to date to be your average flight simmer, and it certainly would exclude the (extreme) individuals on the AVSIM Carenado (UNOFFICIAL) Forums. All of us once were your average flight simmer but we have all long transcended that level as is evidenced in the level of discussion and subjects of these posts. In some instances, the product itself will dictate the level of its audience, a review of a PMDG product would be a good case in point.

I will finish with some slightly more personal views. The reviewers at MH do what they do for the general benefit of MH members and the broader flight sim community as a whole, as a service to help inform and / or provide a basis upon which to help fellow flight simmers make a decision on a product. I am proud to stand with each of the reviewers and totally respect them for their knowledge and the work they produce. We get very little personal gratification out of the process, and the writing of each review, editing, and preparation for the web site involves tens of hours of our personal time and effort when we could be doing something more enjoyable with our time. We also do it, putting our work out into the public domain, knowing and accepting we will be criticised by all and sundry who have a differing opinion and are not prepared to or cannot accept other's opinions. We take criticism from individuals, both members of MH and others from the broader flight sim community, who more than often have very little understanding of our review process and review structure and have probably never written a review or article in their life, but sure as shit flows downhill, they will bombastically tell you that you are wrong. They justify themselves with meaningless claims like, "...I have 5,000 hrs on VATSIM..." as if it is meant to give the individual more credibility. Others will bombastically claim to be real world pilots with an extensive flight log of hours on certain types, which, whilst it gives them real world credibility, they expect, to the point of demanding, the same veneration in the flight sim world. I'm sorry, and I make no apologies to such people, but respect is earnt and given when it's due. Then you will get the gutless individual, and I use the term gutless deliberately, who will use the MH contact form to question the credibility of a reviewer by stating the reviewer "...is obviously not a real world pilot..." on the basis that the reviewer did not identify all the missing real world functionality on the ProLine21 avionics suite. In this instance, the provided functionality was more than enough to monitor the required basic systems and fly the aircraft model as intended by the developer, and yet this man among men hid behind a false email address, such that a response could not be sent to him. Now, I have been labelled and called many things in my life, and people see me as being blunt, rude, and often lacking empathy. For many reasons I am all of them, partly because I'm an Australian, and as such we simply tell it like it is, no pretence, pretentiousness, and more often than not without malice, it's just simply called the truth, but misinterpreted or called rudeness by those who can't accept it. Lacking empathy, sure, because sometimes life just does that to you and the more you put yourself in the public domain, the more you bear the brunt of unwarranted criticism and put downs. But I will continue to put myself out there in that public domain for as long as I think I still have something to share and offer advice on or assistance with based on my experience. If people don't like the advice or disagree, or if I am wrong, that's fine, I am man enough to accept it, but I will also defend my position when they are wrong, and often, that's when the same level of acceptance is not reciprocated.

 

I have strayed somewhat from a simple response, and nothing written is intended as a slight, personal or otherwise. It is merely offered for a deeper understanding and awareness of where the content and level of detail in the response comes from. All examples of individuals quoted in the above paragraph come from real incidents experienced in my time at MH.

[brett 2,315]

Personally, one thing I usually do when a review is put up is to thank the reviewer for their time and effort. My intention was not to disparage reviewers and I admit I did take an overly simplistic view of things, I also mistakenly combined others input with my personal views without noting that fact. As a long time FSX'er I did not take into consideration the across platform component in my original statement in question(do their aircraft belong in what is considered a higher end training platform, meh) and as dinner was ready I did not give my second reply it's due when comparing like models(Like you noted above not an easy thing to do) or was I able to explain things to my own satisfaction. Often I wish I had the capacity to explain myself better but it seems I lack that ability but even if I did it would probably end up in one of those never ending back and forth situations that we try to stay away from in forums. I misspoke and have edited out that one sentence out of respect for reviewers everywhere.

 

To note I still stand by my other comments because they pertain to my own simming views and that is within my own "Reality Tunnel."     

 

Good things sometimes come from simple mistakes and at least the members here will come away with a better understanding of what not only goes into creating a review but also the criteria involved behind the final result. A review is just that, one person's views based on their level of understanding and experience and I might add that our Mutley's Hangar reviews should be considered at the top of the pack. 

 

 

[Holdit 106]

15 hours ago, Andrew Godden said:

We get very little personal gratification out of the process, and the writing of each review, editing, and preparation for the web site involves tens of hours of our personal time and effort when we could be doing something more enjoyable with our time.

 

It's interesting to read this because the review I did of the Tomahawk (for the now-vanished Aerosoft Sim News) required more work than I anticipated.  Not just in terms of flight testing but also in terms of putting thoughts together as in: what do I really think about X? Is it reasonable to expect Y? Am I being too hard on the developer? Am I going too easy for fear of being unfair? Etc.  Nailing your colours to the mast is easy enough...the tricky bit is deciding what colours to nail.   In my experience anyway.

 

I'd link to the review but it has disappeared, although I still have my own copy.

[Andrew Godden 943]

Brett,

 

As in my earlier response to Paul, detail and intent is often lost in the brevity of posts. Simple questions provide no indication of the writers level of experience or understanding, often resulting in simple responses, or responses which could be taken as “spoon feeding” to someone with a higher level of knowledge than they made apparent.

 

In your case, it wasn’t that I had taken taken offence to anything you had written, it was simply that it didn’t make logical sense to me. As my response to you highlights, all 1,750 words of it, brevity is often inadequate in providing a comprehensive explanation to things as complex of assessing a product and writing a review on it. For you, I now understand more the relevance you put on the bottom dollar, whereas I always come at it from a broader perspective.

 

In considering value for money, it means different things to different people. It is often given a higher priority than other product features, with most just generally focusing on price. My real world professional background has ingrained in me that the value for money equation is far more than just a dollar figure. MH reviews are structured similarly to consider all aspects in the value for money equation, not just price. I can think of numerous times where I have questioned in myself whether a product deserves a Bronze, Silver, or Gold award simply based on one assessment category, but the product’s performance in other categories has offset poor performance elsewhere - such is the law of averages. At the final edit phase, Joe and I have a lengthy Skype call just prior to publishing a review, and again, there have been numerous times where we have rationalised between us, that a given category or overall score and award is justified.

 

Flight simmers will often have no understanding or comprehension of a developer's target market, yet this is fundamentally critical to the level of detail modelled. A developer's target market can sometimes spread across the spectrum of flight simmer experience from the basic, through intermediate, to the advanced flight simmer. A2A is a good example of this with their top $799.00 commercial package. A2A state, "For real world flight training, use our commercial license which is intended to be used with flight simulators authorized by the FAA while using our software.". As for the AVSIM Carenado (UNOFFICIAL) Forums, to me they are out of touch with market reality (and reality generally) because they are trying to apply their personal expectations to the product rather than the correct way, that of understanding what the developer intended to model for the target market identified and chosen by the developer - it's like buying a Ford but expecting it to perform like a Porsche.

[brett 2,315]

Thanks you Andrew and Paul for you insights. 

 

It's funny how soon we forget what the intention of the OP's post was but this has been enlightening and it is also one of the most endearing things about being a part of this friendly and open minded forum is that we are allowed to go off on tangents. 

 

16 hours ago, Andrew Godden said:

As for the AVSIM Carenado (UNOFFICIAL) Forums, to me they are out of touch with market reality (and reality generally) because they are trying to apply their personal expectations to the product rather than the correct way, that of understanding what the developer intended to model for the target market identified and chosen by the developer - it's like buying a Ford but expecting it to perform like a Porsche.

 

I agree with this only to a point, for someone with such a high degree of assimilation this seems to be a generalization. As for myself I don't visit there often yet I have seen those few that expect too much from a product that has stayed within the bounds of the FSX coding but as a whole most are just wondering why some aspect of the plane isn't working correctly, like a landing light condition light or why certain simple aspects of the product sytems that work in other like aircraft are not in this one, it is an injustice to lump these simmers in with the knuckleheads. 

 

 

[Holdit 106]

2 hours ago, brett said:

I agree with this only to a point, for someone with such a high degree of assimilation this seems to be a generalization. As for myself I don't visit there often yet I have seen those few that expect too much from a product that has stayed within the bounds of the FSX coding but as a whole most are just wondering why some aspect of the plane isn't working correctly, like a landing light condition light or why certain simple aspects of the product sytems that work in other like aircraft are not in this one, it is an injustice to lump these simmers in with the knuckleheads. 

 

Agreed. Those who criticise Carenado because they're not PMDG/A2A quality are far outnumbered by those who are just frustrated at a developer who fails again and again to get the basics right (which is why I only ever buy their products during sales). Note too that many of these complaints are fixed by other simmers, and in a short time, which goes to show that what's being asked of Carenado isn't really an awful lot.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Holdit