it is my loose understanding that not all GNS530s have GPS “WAAS” certification capabilities for glideslope information and intercept with coupling to the vertical component of the HSI, and only RNAV approaches with specific “LPV” minimums crafted to work with said equipment will complete the recipe.
Without the WAAS capabilities of the equipment(which I don’t believe is modeled in the 337) and an LPV designed RNAV approach, the RNAV approaches are flown in a step down manner with only lateral guidance from the GPS.
I just bought the 337 today. I can’t get the GNS750 to work. Just a blank screen. Like no power to the unit. The tablet shows that it is installed and powered on. I have the Avionics set to on. I have reinstalled the file into the community folders twice. The 750 works fine on my other aircraft.
Also in response to those that can’t get it off the ground. My first flight was like that as well. Finally I looked down and realized that the props were feathered. This in spite of starting on the runway and supposedly “ready for takeoff”.
Carenado aircraft look lovely, are exceptionally priced, well behaved with no vices and tend to “fly by the numbers” in most cases.
There are a few specific areas where the flight modelling does have issues. They seem to have made little effort to get around the generic MSFS tailwheel ground handling issues for example. Comparing the AH c140 with the Carenado YMF5 or Carenado c170 will highlight this.
Most criticisms tend to revolve around a lack of system depth (inop switches, failures not modelled etc) but to be honest people buying at this price point are not looking for that sort of thing anyway.
The other criticism is they lack that indefinable realistic gritty “feel” you get from something like the JF Warrior II, Carenado flight models are a bit too sanitised in a hard to define way. Again, not necessarily something the majority of users are going to care about, especially if they have never flown a real version of the aircraft.
Overall most criticisms are valid but a bit “unfair” given they are comparing the Carenado products with something two or three times the price.
For the target market, they look great, fly well and the price is excellent.
I would love to see (hear?) a sound mod that replaces the gear horn with something less horrendous like the old C337 gear horn from the FSX/P3D version.
Hi i have used carenado in fsx for a long time, the skymaster too,and i have been very happy with them. But today I purchase the msfs 2020 carenado skymaster, and i am experiencing the problem ,can take off , the nose go up at very low speed without a response. and crash. Do you know how can i solve this problem , or a place where carenado can give me a dowload , to solve this. thank you
Carenado is the most private developer of all, perhaps because they were picked upon a lot in previous sims because they specialise in good looking planes with limited systems depth. Serious simmers did frown at them, and some still do, but the MSFS audience us perfectly suited to their business model.
Also they do not normally advertise their development plans, but rather surprise the community with new planes at regular intervals.
The Twin Otter Aerosoft debacle is the absolute opposite, building expectations over long time and developer interaction ( perhaps not with the greatest sensitivity) with the community resulting in much controversy and damage to the Aerosoft brand.
The long and short are Carenado launches are surprises.
As long as one buys private GA planes from Carenado the system depth is fully accurate to real-life because an analogue gauge can only show what the needle is pointing
And all Carenado planes have been patched to perfect realism, like having fuel flow after switching on the pumps and higher manifold pressure when giving a sharp propeller blade AOA.
The Cheyenne II and one or two new Skymaster liveries would be the perfect next Carenado surprise release…
That’s unfortunately not true. The system BEHIND the gague need to be accurately modelled or at least abstracted in order for the gauge to respond correctly and that’s not an area Carenado specialise in.
That isn’t a bad thing though - flight sims should support a wide variety of types of planes so people have a choice of what to fly.
Hm unfortunately I cannot tell the difference between simulation and real airplanes because I have absolut zero access to any kind of real airplanes, aviation, private aviation clubs. That´s why I rely on real YouTube pilots testing new planes, and it always makes me proud when knowing I own something with highest accuracy simulated.
And this one here looks nice:
Reading this on my android phone. Did not see that. Much weirder planes on its side, wings in ground are commonplace.
Do almost not notice that any more.
Thanks for explaining.
It´s a visual bug, some parking airplanes have a static propeller and a static half-transparent propeller spin disk. This should be fixed.
I have seen some of these parked airplane visual bugs too, sometimes only the cockpit loads which looks like a hoovering cockpit one to three meters hoovering over the parking lot (or whatever a parking lot for airplanes not standing inside a hangar is called in aviation terms I don´t know that sorry). And sometimes the blades of the propeller or the turbine fan are static while the airplane is making engine noises parking or taxiing.
This breaks the immersion and should be fixed
exactly - the parked aircraft with that ‘spinning disc’ looking static prop just look so gamey. Why is there even such a texture to call on in the first place? If a plane is parked and empty it should have a static prop - if it is occupied and idling it should have an animated spinning prop.
So too the planes that are floating off the ground or buried up their axles. You would think that on the Asobo MSFS side there would be a standard plot for the contact points and that (in the case of conventional ‘ground’ aircraft) all designated ‘wheels’ would be assigned those points upon compiling in the SDK. Somehow that isn’t what happens.
