Carenado SR22

[ryanbatc]

If you get over the simplicity of the G1000 there's not much to dislike.

The sounds need work and a few clickspots seem backwards to me (fuel pump operation).

[Felixthreeone]

+1 to what Ryan said. He has RW Cirrus time, like me. I can't really comment on the G1000, as much has been said about it already. It is a good addon that flies well and (although not realistic, per se) can be run with the RXP Garmin driving the avionics...which for those that have them, make it able to do the things it can't out-of-the box. I have never flown a P-51 so I will never comment on the flight model. This is different...

[N428ER]

Nobody can get through a 60 minute flight on this thing without something on the MFD going screwy. My Direct-To function was not responding as a Direct-To function. When I tried to show the FLP and PROC pages, it wouldn't let me back out of the menu again! It won't fly an approach, so don't even bother. This release is a real shameful portrayal of an aircraft as sporty and capable as the SR22.
"

[Felixthreeone]

Nobody can get through a 60 minute flight on this thing without something on the MFD going screwy. My Direct-To function was not responding as a Direct-To function. When I tried to show the FLP and PROC pages, it wouldn't let me back out of the menu again! It won't fly an approach, so don't even bother. This release is a real shameful portrayal of an aircraft as sporty and capable as the SR22.
"

Sorry to hear you are having issues with it. Have you considered opening a support ticket with Carenado? I haven't experienced the issues you mention....(haven't tried the 'direct-to', as I rarely use that function in the real plane and instead rely on manually inputting my waypoints in the center scratchpad)...and as I mentioned piggy-backing the RXP Garmin to drive the G1000 works great and opens up 1,000's of WAAS approaches...

[wombat666]

Nobody can get through a 60 minute flight on this thing without something on the MFD going screwy. My Direct-To function was not responding as a Direct-To function. When I tried to show the FLP and PROC pages, it wouldn't let me back out of the menu again! It won't fly an approach, so don't even bother. This release is a real shameful portrayal of an aircraft as sporty and capable as the SR22.
"

I'm very happy with this aircraft but I know it's a 'SIMULATION' and not the real thing.
Do as Felixthreeone has suggested, ask for assistance via Customer Support, Carenado usually seem to be good at it!

[N428ER]

It's a simulation not worth having lol. Pretty textures, terrible avionics. The latter bit is important to me, and as a paying customer I am displeased. At least leave the Cirrus Perspective information off the screen, it's a lot of product to live up to.

[skyhawka4m]

Tough crowd......too bad you are having problems with it. I see you are realtively new to the forum so........many of us here have a saying....its a SIM not the real world. If you want real world go get your ticket to fly. I do this for fun and enjoyment....I realize where my money is going and its going to a SIM and expect nothing more. Some developers have really pushed this sim and I know they will continue to do so, so I look forward to more in the future of this SIM.

As for buying.....I have learned one thing with this and all the othe sim.....I never buy in the first week.......Except for Warbirdsim Mustangs....lol......I wait to hear results and opinions. I base my purchases on trusted people on this site and highly recommend others to do the same.


Off to do some flying in my SIM now......my two cents.

[clmooring]

if anyone has both.... how does it compare with carenado's ct182?

Flight model

aviaonics

and yes graphics model?

I have to admit, I do enjoy the look of the model too. for me its part of the fun of playing with FS. That is why I like scale RC instead of flying sticks.,. not that there is anything wrong with big sticks.

[N428ER]

Flight model = Different Aircraft. People seem to be ok with it though.
Avionics seem to be the same basic G1000 system as modelled for the T182T, of course with the several aircraft-specific changes made. Frame rate seems to be the same, maybe better but certainly not any worse.

Graphics model is right on par with the T182T

[clmooring]

Flight model = Different Aircraft. People seem to be ok with it though.
Avionics seem to be the same basic G1000 system as modelled for the T182T, of course with the several aircraft-specific changes made. Frame rate seems to be the same, maybe better but certainly not any worse.

Graphics model is right on par with the T182T

Thanks for the quick feedback. I have read very positive comments on this site about the T182's flight model.

I am trying to decide if I want to wait for the TBM850 or take the plunge with one of these two. I appreciate your comments.

[Daube]

After all these years, I have understood and adopted one of the "rules" of the FS topics:
"If there are no screenshots before page 2, it means that the addon looks bad or has terrible quality".
We're at page 3. Enough said

[CODY]

After all these years, I have understood and adopted one of the "rules" of the FS topics:
"If there are no screenshots before page 2, it means that the addon looks bad or has terrible quality".
We're at page 3. Enough said

[N428ER]

As you wish...

[Daube]

Hehe, thanks for the screenshots gentlemen :ernae:

[IanHenry]

It's a simulation not worth having lol. Pretty textures, terrible avionics. The latter bit is important to me, and as a paying customer I am displeased. At least leave the Cirrus Perspective information off the screen, it's a lot of product to live up to.

Why not try the Eaglesoft model? I like it, but it's pretty heavy on frame rate though!
http://www.eaglesoftdg.com/CirrusSR22G2_G3T.htm

Regards,
Ian.

[Reddog]

Does it have real gauges and not the TV screens.

[N428ER]

Why not try the Eaglesoft model?

Flew all the ESDG stuff heavily back in the day :cost1:

Does it have real gauges and not the TV screens.

I don't understand this question.

[Felixthreeone]

Flew all the ESDG stuff heavily back in the day :cost1:



I don't understand this question.

I think what he is alluding to is that he isn't a fan of glass cockpits lol. The only cirrus aircraft to be equipped as such were the early first gen models, and no developer is going to model that these days. I sdk seem to remember seeing a freeware fs9 one that had the 50/50 split though...

[clmooring]

I have the F1 Cessna Mustang. It is a great addon in every respect. It looks great, the flight model is right (according to Cessna) and the glass display avionics are second to none.

There is one littel thing that I dont like about it That is that I cannot save and restart a flight. I understand this is due to the complexity of the g1000 systems as modeled by f1.

So although I love all of the real world features.... I rarely have the time to start and finish any real cross country flights worthy of the cessana mustang. I know that I can slew or fly in compressd time, but I dont like all of that; kind of a hassle.

So for me the silver lining with a less complex g1000 simulation..... I can save a flight to be continued later at my convenience. As long as what is modeled works properly and the flight model is vouched for by real world pilots and the graphics are pretty, I am sold.

That doesnt mean that I dont value the F1 g1000 and fly it often..... maybe it just means I can have my cake and it too.

[ryanbatc]

Why not try the Eaglesoft model? I like it, but it's pretty heavy on frame rate though!
http://www.eaglesoftdg.com/CirrusSR22G2_G3T.htm

Regards,
Ian.

I've actually gone back and forth between the CA one and the older ES one... The RXP 430W's fit perfectly into the older one and the avidyne is a bit different than the G1000 so that's fun!

About the Mustang - the majority of my flights are very short (less than 200 mi).... nothing says you HAVE to make 500 mi journeys hehe...

[clmooring]

About the Mustang - the majority of my flights are very short (less than 200 mi).... nothing says you HAVE to make 500 mi journeys hehe...

Mine too. Since I live in Chesapeake VA, i often fly to DC or New York.

[thunder100]

Flight model = Different Aircraft. People seem to be ok with it though.
Avionics seem to be the same basic G1000 system as modelled for the T182T, of course with the several aircraft-specific changes made. Frame rate seems to be the same, maybe better but certainly not any worse.

Graphics model is right on par with the T182T

Owning all 3 (CT-182,ES Cirrus and the new one) I can say

Visuals same like CT stunning style of course better then the (much) elder ES
Flight model-I never flew one but very much the same like ES so probably right
on the SR G1000 you have an engine page,which you have not on the CT
the PDF/MFD can also be used in other planes in 2 D always in VC when the base model (knobs) allow it

The TAWS is very good on par with the DSB TWAS and better then the RXP 530 one(still i cry that their is no Sandel in FSX)

A bit more FPS heavy then the non G1000 Carenados (I run limited 35 FPS-->an steam gauge Carenado (best of all payware) runs a 35 flat this runs at 28-32)

If you like the Cirrus basically its a good choice

Roland

[pilottj]

I don't have any of Carenado's G1000 aircraft yet. I was thinking about getting the TBM, but I have a question about their G1000 features.
Does the Carenado Garmin have the ability to change PFD settings, mainly adding bearing 1 & 2 pointers for adf/nav2 and adding DME?

F1 C182 G1000 PFD

[n4gix]

Does the Carenado Garmin have the ability to change PFD settings, mainly adding bearing 1 & 2 pointers for adf/nav2 and adding DME?

Yes, it does...:cost1: