Anyone Here with the Carenado 441?

[Deleted]

Mutley's actually gave this one decent marks, and the nice thing about Mutley's is they seem to know what's important in an airplane and base their reviews on that. One thing I'm worried about are heavy frame rate issues, but they seem to suggest this airplane isn't a problem that way. Anyone have it and can comment on it overall? You all know I'm not a big fan of Carenado, but every now and then they produce a gem (like the 404 and 406), and if this is one of those, then I'm definitely interested.

Thanks.

[Bushpounder]

Not I. I have the "other" brand.

BP;)

[scottb]

Unfortunately I don't. I never saw much about it, and already had the Flysimware. I do know my 404 with the GTN seems to be okay with performance. Hopefully this would be similar enough.

-Scott

[Deleted]

"Unfortunately" is not the correct term. You should be saying, "fortunately". Because the 406 was so good, I decided to take a chance on it. I feel like we've gone back to the early days of FSX with this one. The start is a runaway affair with the engines, so much so the brakes won't hold it in position on the start up. You want to be on the runway when you start this because chances are you'll be airborne by time the engines spool back to idle. The sounds suck. The torque won't go to full power. Even the graphics inside leave something to be desired. This machine is going to take a LOT of work to get it usable, if that's even possible.

I broke my rule of "never again Crappynado" and I'm paying for it now. Hopefully this time I will have learned my lesson.

[zigarten]

Good G2, I had thought about it, but I'm getting a little heavy with twins. I see there's 3 out there, Flysimware Flight1 and Carenado

[Deleted]

Stay as far away from this one as possible. You actually can achieve full torque (and then some) if you go to the "START/TAXI" position on the prop levers. It is exactly opposite of how this should handle. I dropped the fuel_flow_whatever from 0.03 to 0.005 to try and get the start under control, which helps, but only minimally. That throws everything else off though, so that's not a big help. Most of the switch rings on the sub panel by the pilot's elbow are all 2D (and look every bit of it) and several other graphics on the panel are very sub par. The airplane barely slows down with gear and flaps (much the way the 404 is). The pressurization dump switch is now defaulted to "DUMP" so you have to remember to flip it to Pressurize (or whatever the setting says) before you takeoff. On no airplane I know of is this the case because the switch guard holds it in the "pressurize" position by default (and you typically would never activate that switch anyway if you know how to properly handle the pressurization controls). This thing is a complete disaster, and while the graphics are still better than the Flysimware version, it's not by nearly the margin it used to be and systems wise it's a joke. Oh yeah, the start locks do nothing, and the sounds are not commensurate with what's going on with the engines. And, you'd better have a good set of brake pedals if you make the adjustments to get the starts under controls because you'll be needing them to taxi with (the airplane will get pretty close to takeoff speed with the prop levers in the "Taxi" position otherwise).

I'm emailing them and asking for my money back. This one is not recoverable.

[spud]

I assume your not really satisfied with the airplane then?  

[Deleted]

Hmm! Think you are on to something.

[Deleted]

I know I'm not Carenado's biggest supporter, but this one is waaaayyy below even what I would have expected, especially after Mutley's review of it (which I won't bother turning to again - it actually sounded like they had a clue what they were talking about, but such is not the case). This is a throwback to early FSX days in terms of modeling. They are getting worse with each release but this one takes it to a whole new low. And to charge what they are charging is criminal. I should have stuck to my mantra of never sending Carenado another nickel. If they refuse my request to refund my money, I'll be keeping where I can see it as a reminder to "never again". I've now got a whole lot of boot prints on my backside from this. Jeez.

[scottb]

That sounds pretty bad. Who do they have doing their flight models these days? I've noticed that Alabeo releases seem to be more sloppy overall than Carenado, if such a thing is possible . They don't have much on the horizon that interests me right now, so that's a plus. I picked up the 406 today from PC Aviator, with a ten off Tuesday deal. I'll try that out tonight.

-Scott

[Deleted]

You mean, who is doing their models today. I think they change out pretty quick. I've heard that they are near impossible to work for.

This is what gets me. The 406 is an outstanding model, and the 404 (with one exception) is almost as good. Yet their Aero Commander is abysmal. Their engine modeling in the 228 is really bad, only to be outdone by this POS. So it's anybody's guess as to what you'll get today. One thing IS for sure. Until they develop GOOD consistency, that really was my last plane from them, and they've been in the business for a long time now so I'm not expecting anything to change overnight. They don't seem interested in changing anything, except their prices. Even at half this price I would have been asking for my money back. At full price, it's an unbelievable ripoff. I have asked for, and have been told, I'll be getting a refund. I have already deleted it from my HD. Much of their stuff I can rework to make it at least plausible. Not this one.

[Sandy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the 441 Alabeo or Caranado? I know they are basically the same outfit, but looking for clarification. I was looking at the 441 myself, but if it's as bad as Glen says, I'll look elsewhere for a similar ship.

I guess the easier question is, are there any Caranado/Alabeo ships that seem fairly competent "straight out of the box"? I have several, but not being a pilot in real life, I can only guess at how the models are supposed to behave. That's where Carenado and all the virtual model creators have us by the nuts... as long as they get the visuals somewhat close, those of us with no actual experience in the ships modeled, we have to take it on faith that the models are accurate. Having someone like Glen ready with real world experience to shake the tree a bit and let the rest of us know there are issues with the models is a GodSend (to me at least.)

[Deleted]

Alabeo actually.

Surprisingly, the 406 is actually pretty good. Beyond that, not much. However, that said, "what you don't know, won't hurt you." The truth is, I have yet to find anything, other than PMDG that actually handles the way I think it should, but I have no 737 or 777 experience obviously. The default DHC 2 is very good if you handle it right, but you can "break the rules" with it (like climbing without flap), but that's not MS' fault (except they coded the sim <LOL>). The 441 though, is a giant step backward, and that includes with the graphics as well. I don't know what's going on down there but their output is getting worse (I put the graphics degradation down to laziness) and their prices are increasing. Sadly, I even found a major flaw with a make that I have thought is really outstanding, but I'm not saying too much yet because I need to do another flight to confirm it. FSX has major limitations so it's not always the developer's fault, but Alabeo/Carenado have a long history of "good plane/bad plane". Why the 441 is so absolutely awful out of the box while the 406 is very, very good is beyond me. I suspect they go through FDE guys like nobody's business so each airplane is done by a different pilot. But they claim that it's tested by real world pilots and that the flight characteristics are similar to the real thing. I know from experience they often don't listen to their beta testers and I seriously doubt they ever fly what they make. How else can you miss something like the engines/torque not coming up to full power, or warning lights on when there's nothing wrong? If I ever had engines that ran away like these ones do on start up IRL, I'd be doing an emergency shutdown and contacting maintenance immediately (and next start would be with fire extinguishers handy). You probably have been made aware that turboprop modeling in FS is not well done. That's true, but then how did they get the 406 so good, and how did Flysimware get their modeling so well done? As I said, this is reminiscent of the very early days of FSX when even the PMDG J41 tried to run you across the ramp on start up. At least they had brakes that would hold it. Alabeo's takes off across the ramp even with the parking brakes on. Give me a break! That problem dates back to FS9 and has loooong since been solved.

If you see something you really want, and want an opinion on it, then by all means post here somewhere. If I have it and I remember it, I'll try to give an honest and (somewhat) objective opinion, but for sure I'm probably too demanding of what we have. That's only because I've seen it done right, and wonder why some others don't even try to get it right, especially when their prices keep going up and up.