X-Plane Fan
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Fab10 last won the day on April 25

Fab10 had the most liked content!

About Fab10

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. Hi, Your appraisal of the Carenado Phenom 100 is fair and honest. I have a real weakness for the little Phenom 100 by Embraer, as it's a gorgeous little bizjet with much presence. In terms of capability, well, the real thing is way up there with a magnificently capable Garmin/Prodigy suite. As you say, Carenado's version falls short, and what a sad and desperate situation this is. This would be a hot selling product if it met with expectations, not just ours set against the real aircraft, but also in terms of Carenado's FSX/P3D variant. The lack of procedures is a major omission, as is the lack of weather radar. I feel that you have summarised the situation very nicely. I'm hopeful that like many, the failures in this model do not equate to a general "downer" against Carenado, as many of their products are perfectly adequate and fit for purpose. In the case of the Phenom, I feel that they have missed the mark, and significantly too, for they have knowingly brought to market a sub standard product at roughly the same time at the little Aerobask 550NG appeared (a beautiful little aeroplane that is enormously capable, but at the same time an enigma too, as Skyviews with GTN's are non an avionics option). Instead of leaving things as they stand, Carenado might consider that an overhaul to encompass procedures and SID/STAR plus WX radar is not just optional but necessary, even mandatory. Carenado have not falsely advertised this could-be gem, yet they might have been clearer in the lack of procedures and WX radar; for instance, their P3D models had WX radars removed due to crashes, and this was clearly stated. Also, a G1000 system might reasonably be expected to offer procedures, so I feel Carenado should have been clearer in this regard, not just at launch, but during the pre-launch build up. I fully agree that the unit is hard to use, and without a useable flow. Whilst I do not own the Phenom 100, I do have the Kodiak, and I understand that the units are one and the same. One option I had considered was implementing the SID/STAR Python script that can be used in the FF A350 to generate procedures in a subdirectory of default navdata, but I couldn't work out how to get the Garmin to open subfolders (or copy FMS files into the flight plan folder - messy though!). This maybe is a viable short term solution but NOT a fix. The other thing is the lack of WX radar, and this for me is a deal breaker, unless somehow I find how to map even the default "stormosope" gauge into the VC somehow. With today's weather rendition and accuracy, why-oh-why has this been left out? The real aircraft may not receive certification without it. Im looking forward to a fully featured future iteration of the Carenado Phenom 100. In fact, I'll be first in line! Fabio
  2. Really great aeroplane, has the look and feel of the Golden Oldie Boeing 707. One thing though, the 707's PDF manual is a "scan", meaning that users cannot search for individual words within the document. You can't lookup "Boeing" for instance. No big thing really, except that it makes it harder to find specific content. Hope Michael is ready to receive a few help emails!
  3. Such a lovely little jet, have been waiting for Carenado jets to be ported into XP for a long time. However, I gather from Carenado that this model won't be equipped with a WX radar, which is a massive disappointment when our weather depiction has become real and so accurate. Perhaps I am destined to fly the Phenom on the other platform, and use the soon to be Aerobask Eclipse in XP? Hoping Carenado have had a change of heart. Fabio
  4. Thanks Stephen, it's good to know that this aircraft has received some XP11 compatibility attention. The FF 777 is often on the receiving end of unwarranted bad press, though I cannot see why, as given its age, it has stood the test of time. In terms of systems, there's little more that one could ask for, perhaps terrain radar and a fancy iPad with which to manage options. My major gripe with it is the complete lack of gracefully arcing wings when in flight, something that really should have been addressed by FF quite some time ago. I'm hopeful that FF will give this iconic aircraft the full beauty treatment that she deserves, as XP11's appeal is broad, and newcomers to the X-Plane platform will be looking for a 777 to replace the 32-bit model that they left behind, so they'll be looking out for those gracefully arced wings. And surely it would be a wise policy for FlightFactor to not give XP newbies too many reasons to compare and contrast?
  5. I haven't installed XP11, yet. However, I believe that new buyers of JAR products will get XP11 updates FOC (whereas existing owners will face a charge for this update). This likely means (a) if you buy now you should get the update for free, and (b) it's not XP11 ready yet. The best place to check for an offical answer is the JAR Forum: http://jardesign.org/forum/index.php
  6. Me too, tough decision between Nimbus and Carenado, but I opted for Carenado in the end. The detailing on the centre pedestal and cabin areas clinched it, but it was close. I always try to support newcomers, but the Aero Commander I wanted to be right, and experience said Carenado will likely deliver. The externals of most aircraft are kept clean, tidy, and shiny, but I agree that some grubbiness would add to the character. Cabins are often pretty worn, and I quite like them worn, and in this regard the Carenado won me over again over the Nimbus.
  7. This is a very interesting aircraft, and seemingly beautifully modelled inside and out. One couldn't call it a mainstream aircraft, though I do remember this noteworthy aeroplane sitting quietly within the pages of "Janes All The World's Aircraft", so worthwhile in terms of aviation heritage. Interesting that the much lauded Honda Jet has engines mounted similarly on pylons above the wing - 1:0 to Fokker. My sole concern is that Peter's VFW 614 might parallel its real-life counterpart's limited market success, though absolutely I wish Peter's creation greater success than Fokker's original. With this in mind, I am able to think of an extraordinarily large number of aircraft that I would wish to see replicated to this immaculate degree within X-Plane, but sadly the VFW would not have been one of them.
  8. Thanks, I really appreciate this excellent narrative on XPII.
  9. Hi, You are very welcome, thank you to you and all at SSG.. With best wishes, Fabio
  10. Hi, No worries - let's just say that we should all support and be aware of the needs of all involved, be they developers, publishers, reviewers, and users alike. After all, we are all in the same boat - ahem! - aeroplane! Best wishes, Fabio
  11. Hi, I'm quite supportive of SSG and their products, don't think otherwise please. My gambit has always been that if one is going to do something, then it should be done properly. Thus, FMC's should match their real world counterparts, not always function by function as that may be a very tall order, but in looks and at least some or many of their functions. Many users probably are more aware than you (as developers) realise, and certainly many are pilots (myself as a PPL included) and many have contacts within the aviation world (myself included). I am relatively happy with the SSG E170, though there are things I would like to see addressed, and certainly I wasn't after an apology. In fact, the reverse, as I have spent many hours chatting to my Embraer Captain friend, and he has furnished me with many photographs of the flight deck. One other thing to consider is that flying is a rich man's game (I stopped because I couldn't justify the costs, and I miss my many flights from Massa Cinquale and Biggin Hill), but also flight simulation is becoming more and more expensive, and again we must justify the costs. For some, these costs are astronomical, and for others just one or two purchases are made a year. Whether you buy a few or many add-ons is not the point, it counts even if you buy one, and that is that the product must match our expectations, or we feel unhappy. It's really that simple. Now don't think that I am unhappy, because certainly I am quite happy, but often the voice we make heard is not just for ourselves, but for all users of these products. I will buy again from SSG, and I aim to buy the CRJ too, but when I do, I will by that point hope to have seen some service packs for the E170, and some improvements when it comes to the production and delivery of the CRJ. And this is not unreasonable nor unrealistic of me, I don't think. Try not alienating users, as first and foremost we are customers. Sometimes, support forums can be a "make or break" for users, because we ask for help and we put across questions, and always these are in writing, but writing cannot possibly hope to convey feeling or intonation that we feel; we might be desperate, in a hurry, anxious, miserable, and even supportive, though you might not read it that way. My issue with VNAV was not that I didn't know how to use it, as I most certainly do, but because I didn't recognise the PFD symbols. Consider that no manual is supplied, so I have but my memory to serve me. Besides, in the real world, VNAV is rarely used, especially in busy airspace. Also, how was I to know that the TOGA button is hard coded into the glareshield, for your PDF instructions didn't mention it, and in fact they suggest other ways of enabling TOGA. Therefore, think of my frustration when eventually I did ask, because that was flights later, each one adding to my level of unnecessary aggravation. Instead, I ask in what ways can I help SSG achieve their goals, for you may find that not only do we know a thing or two, but also that we are happy to help. Ricardo, I wish you and SSG every success, and I expect so to do most of your customers. With best wishes, Fabio
  12. Stephen, I absolutely agree, FMC's as the heart and soul of an aircraft should precisely mirror their real world counterpart. I have not test found the discrepancies that you mention, and indeed, that sounds like it is a bug of a critical nature. I had hoped to put a positive spin on the negativity surrounding this model. Let me put that another way; my newly found enthusiasm for the Embraer E-Jets led me to reinstall my old feelThere product, but to my surprise, it was showing its age more so than I had expected. In turn, this served to highlight the good points of SSG's effort, such as the really rather good modelling, though it did rather show up the FMC's discrepancies. My gripe with the X-Crafts E-Jet was the non-standard FMC that neither looked like or felt like an Embraer unit, whereas SSG have made an effort to visually match at least some of the Embraer's FMC. The entire FMC unit, however, should have zero Boeing-esque elements to it, even if the underlying structures are indeed JC's UFMC. SSG, to enter into the upper echelons on this market, the detailing, texturing, and systems of the aircraft must more resemble in form and function the product that they based upon. The Evolution does this to a reasonable extent, but to fully warrant its price, the aircraft should have deeper and more reliable systems depth at it heart, and an enhanced quality at its interface, and by this I mean where we as pilots sit as well as how we interact with it. Good try, nice aeroplane, though this won't stop me looking forward to more in the way of revisions. Best wishes, Fabio
  13. Hi, Yes, it is possible to open .FMS flight plans in the E170's FMC. Press NAV, then NAVDATA, and when the message appears to open FMC plans press the lower most RH LSK, and this will take you to the familiar XP FMC flight plan page. Therefore, yes, you can export from your favourite planner in .FMS format. Fabio
  14. The complexity of FMC's varies model by model, and possibly it's an unavoidable fact of aviation life that the more FMC's can do, the more we will need to learn them on an aircraft by aircraft basis. In fact, and just like any other aircraft FMC, once the Embraer FMC becomes known to you, it becomes an familiar old friend, so just give it time, but do try to check-out the PDF I mentioned as it may give you some pointers. I once mentioned to a E-Jet Captain friend of mine about the apparent complexity (or did I mean difference?) between Boeing types and the Q400 FMC, and he said that up until he flew Embraer after Q400's, that the Dash FMC was "normal" and that he hadn't considered that other aircraft FMC were really any different. Just wait until an accurate facsimile of the Q400 Universal FMC comes into XP, there'd be no point in talking to the developer!... However, until FMC's are 100% accurately portrayed within X-Plane, we might need to apply a little bit of Boeing, Airbus or Embraer know-how into our button pushing, but in essence it is the delivery of accurate FMC's that is mission critical if developer's wish to enter the upstream market, and in this regard SSG, FlightFactor, and even IXEG have work to do, some more than others, but as it is, they are mostly doing OK, just a few more tweaks and we will be there, of that I am sure. BTW, I am not discussing the intention of delivering fully fledged FMC's, I am considering what we have right now. We are seeing improvements everywhere. are we not?
  15. Hi, Lots of comments to analyse, it appears that this aeroplane has caused some issues! However, it is actually very flyable. Think of the FMC as being part-Boeing and part-Embraer, and remember that you can always grab X-Plane .FMC flight plans via the "navdata" entry under the FMC's menu, and to execute this, press the lower-most FMC button on the RHS. This might help create plans more easily, but that said, it is very possible to enter flight plans via the Boeing FMC or via the Embraer FMC portions of the display. Searching the web for feelThere's old E-Jet V2 PDF manual might be another viable source of additional information to guide you through the FMC setup. There are issues, however, when moving through various AP and AT modes, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes easier to fly (obviously!). Best wishes, Fabio