homepage

CARENADO B1900 FSX

Posted By: Stormtrooper

CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/19/13 10:07 PM

If you can't view let me know so i can get better links

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.522092317867587.1073741869.129839447092878&type=3
Posted By: adlabs6

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/20/13 01:31 PM

Link works for me, looks good!
Posted By: kludger

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/20/13 01:41 PM

Looks great, but I assume it will have the typical Carenado light G1000 and no engine problem systems modeled which is hard to go back to after the Flight1 B200.

I keep hoping Carenado will do a more realistic approach to go along with the beautiful textures and models.
Posted By: AggressorBLUE

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/20/13 03:24 PM

Originally Posted By: kludger
Looks great, but I assume it will have the typical Carenado light G1000 and no engine problem systems modeled which is hard to go back to after the Flight1 B200.

I keep hoping Carenado will do a more realistic approach to go along with the beautiful textures and models.


Yeah, I have the same issue going back to any of their GA planes after the A2A 172.

If they want to step up their game they should consider partnering with another studio that can better code advanced systems (such as the aforementioned damage system).

What I really really really want now is a Cessna Caravan with a persistent ware and damage model, and realistic G1000.
Posted By: Heretic

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/21/13 06:45 PM

Can't you guys take any "exceptional" models as they are and not make them a new standard?

If I was a payware developer, I would be utterly turned off by such comments as I would have to pour even more work into an aircraft without ever being able to raise prices to compensate for the extra effort in turn.
Posted By: kludger

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/21/13 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Heretic
Can't you guys take any "exceptional" models as they are and not make them a new standard?

If I was a payware developer, I would be utterly turned off by such comments as I would have to pour even more work into an aircraft without ever being able to raise prices to compensate for the extra effort in turn.


Maybe you are reading things too defensively, nobody is bashing the exceptional models, all I said is I want systems modeling along with the eyecandy...

I own plenty of Carenado payware including the recent SR22 and C90, and all I am saying is I hope they add actual systems modeling with their newer aircraft.

Just eyecandy was great when Carenado aircraft cost $25 (C185 etc), but if you compare their recent costs which is much higher then it doesn't compare so well with the competition. For example the Carenado B200 costs $40 and is eyecandy only, while the Flight1 B200 costs $60 and includes a full G1000 model, engine damage and wear, icing etc, then you can see where Carenado's lack of systems modeling pales in comparison, especially since the F1 B200 has exceptional modeling and textures too.

It's a free market, and as a paying customer who buys these I'm free to share my opinion, I hope the payware developer is indeed turned off by my comments and does something about it to include systems modeling in their next aircraft, I actually want to buy a Carenado aircraft with systems modeled...
Posted By: Heretic

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/22/13 11:54 PM

Originally Posted By: kludger
It's a free market, and as a paying customer who buys these I'm free to share my opinion, I hope the payware developer is indeed turned off by my comments and does something about it to include systems modeling in their next aircraft, I actually want to buy a Carenado aircraft with systems modeled...


And I say that this is not going to happen as long as add-ons are still being bought by the numbers.


Btw: There's a gauge called RealEngine that does add some systems modeling.
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/fslib.php?do=copyright&fid=168686 (realengine_v14.zip)
Posted By: AggressorBLUE

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/23/13 02:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Heretic
Can't you guys take any "exceptional" models as they are and not make them a new standard?

If I was a payware developer, I would be utterly turned off by such comments as I would have to pour even more work into an aircraft without ever being able to raise prices to compensate for the extra effort in turn.


If they stepped up their game, id pay more for the product. No one said anything about carenado being "trapped" at their current price point.


For me it boils down to time. Ive only got so much time to sim, and lots of makers are now releaseiing top tier products. My time (and money) reward those who give me the most return.
Posted By: Heretic

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/23/13 05:37 PM

Originally Posted By: AggressorBLUE
For me it boils down to time. Ive only got so much time to sim, and lots of makers are now releaseiing top tier products. My time (and money) reward those who give me the most return.


And a lot of people don't have time or patience to obtain a virtual license and type rating and will prefer simple "hop in and go" planes.


Consider this:
Are you really giving a high-priced, complex plane the flying time necessary to justify the extra money and effort that went into it? Or are you jumping ship on the next release anyway and leave it dusting away in the hangar?
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/24/13 12:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Heretic
Are you really giving a high-priced, complex plane the flying time necessary to justify the extra money and effort that went into it? Or are you jumping ship on the next release anyway and leave it dusting away in the hangar?


If they loaded it up once, went through a full start-up and shutdown procedure, then shelved it, yet feel they got a good value out of it, then what do you care? Your same argument for lightly modeled aircraft being of value to you works for them regardless of how much time they spend with it.

Although I'm not flying FSX very much these days I can take the argument over to the DCS A-10C. Paid $50 for it and even though I'm not as proficient in it as most guys around I still get amazed when I hit a switch or button I didn't know existed and something new happens. Complex aircraft have more layers of discover than non-complex ones, but that doesn't make either any more or less enjoyable. But to model complexity costs money - thus the price point.

Still trying to figure out what your argument is.

popcorn

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/24/13 12:26 AM

I haven't given the B1900 a whirl..but it would be tough for me if it is lightly modeled because it shares a lot of systems commonality with the actual 200/B200/300s I've flown in my career. I'd be like going to see Iron Eagle with an aviation enthusiast... But if the price point matches the complexity, I'd be fine with it because I'd go in knowing what I'm paying for (ie: Strike Fighters DLC versus DCS DLC..)

BeachAV8R
Posted By: adlabs6

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/24/13 02:23 AM

I tend to prefer a middle of the road approach these days. Some general systems that I actually touch (meaning... I have the correct electrical/pneumatic configuration for the systems I'm trying to run, etc.), but not so much things like engine oil life, or contamination, oxygen bottle charge, etc...

OK, for a GA pilot those are things he might be in contact with. But do airline pilots ever actually touch those aspects of the plane they fly?

Most of the things I am familiar with regarding engine health for airliners tends to be annunciators for issues/conditions that should be recorded in the log book for reference. Example, the engine spent some seconds in a prescribed temperature range, it's logged by the crew and the flight continues. And from there, I am generally under the impression that the aircraft log book is referenced by maintenance who follow up these things, not the pilot personally.
Posted By: Heretic

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/24/13 11:14 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Still trying to figure out what your argument is.


Stop. Trying. To. Have. Companies. Always. Kick. #%&*$#. Up. A. Notch.

It will all come back to bite me in the end.

What good is doing free stuff if no one's using it because you didn't model compressor blade heating?
And what advantage do I get when I actually implement compressor blade heating when it's an add-on standard anyway?
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/24/13 12:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Heretic
Stop. Trying. To. Have. Companies. Always. Kick. #%&*$#. Up. A. Notch.


OK, so you spelled it out.

Now my question to you is - at what point in the past should companies have stopped striving for more realism? Was it in the 80s with Commodore 64 wire frame graphics? Or the 90s with Jane's titles? Or FS98 or 2000 or 2002?

Just curious where we crossed the threshold for you?

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/24/13 12:36 PM

Originally Posted By: adlabs6
But do airline pilots ever actually touch those aspects of the plane they fly?


My personal rule is to never touch a dusty button.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: kludger

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/24/13 06:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Heretic
Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Still trying to figure out what your argument is.


Stop. Trying. To. Have. Companies. Always. Kick. #%&*$#. Up. A. Notch.

It will all come back to bite me in the end.

What good is doing free stuff if no one's using it because you didn't model compressor blade heating?
And what advantage do I get when I actually implement compressor blade heating when it's an add-on standard anyway?


I think most of us have different levels of expectations for freeware vs payware, at least I do, especially on the top end of pricy payware.

So unless you are trying to compete with the top-end $40-$80 payware (which normally includes deeper systems modeling) I don't think you need to worry about the systems modeling competition with them.

In the $20 payware area is where freeware sometimes competes well, usually there is limited systems modeling if any at all in that type of payware, so the difference from lovingly detailed freeware is not much if both have quality modeling, textures and FDE, I don't see that changing currently in that $20 bracket, other than from a couple of developers (Ants Airplanes, Sibwings etc) that do some systems modeling, most other payware in that $20 bracket is just a model/textures/panel with basic FSX systems.

That was my original point above, Carenado used to be in that $20 bracket where lack of systems was expected and fine, but now that they are in the $40-$45 bracket, my expectations are higher, and they are starting to pale in comparison with others in the same pricepoint (F1, A2A, RealAir etc.) and I say that not to bash them but in the hope that they raise their game or partner with someone to provide the systems modeling that these high end GA models deserve.
Posted By: AggressorBLUE

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/24/13 10:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Heretic
Originally Posted By: AggressorBLUE
For me it boils down to time. Ive only got so much time to sim, and lots of makers are now releaseiing top tier products. My time (and money) reward those who give me the most return.


And a lot of people don't have time or patience to obtain a virtual license and type rating and will prefer simple "hop in and go" planes.


Consider this:
Are you really giving a high-priced, complex plane the flying time necessary to justify the extra money and effort that went into it? Or are you jumping ship on the next release anyway and leave it dusting away in the hangar?


The A2A C172 is a get in and go bird. I actually avoid the PMDG stuff because I don't have time for it.
Posted By: AggressorBLUE

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/24/13 10:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Heretic
Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Still trying to figure out what your argument is.


Stop. Trying. To. Have. Companies. Always. Kick. #%&*$#. Up. A. Notch.

It will all come back to bite me in the end.

What good is doing free stuff if no one's using it because you didn't model compressor blade heating?
And what advantage do I get when I actually implement compressor blade heating when it's an add-on standard anyway?


Wait, are you serious? No one said anything complaining about free stuff. There will ALWAYS be a 'market' for free stuff!

And frankly, if constant progression is something that frustrates you, software development (Pro or hobby) might not be for you.

In any event, I'm willing to meet devs half way. I don't need compressor blade heating exactly modeled, but I'm tired of being able to redline my engine everywhere and not being punished for it. I think a great example here is the Aerosoft Twin otter X extended. Sure, you can run the turbines hot on a short take off roll, maybe even a bit to climb out above some mountains, but if you keep it up YOU WILL blow an engine. We need to move this area of the hobby forward a bit.

I'm willing to bet Beach doesn't firewall the throttles on takeoff and leave them there till final approach. He manages power, pushing engines when called for (short field take off, climbing over weather or terrain, dog fighting rouge C208's, etc.) and pulls back.

I think I'm being fair here. My general issue with Carenado, is I see lots of people say they're "moving up in the world." I guess I just see them making bigger planes, not bigger products. If that's what they want to stick to, that's their prerogative versus my money.

*Ok, I'll be honest, I'm still a sucker for a pretty looking airplane, I'll probably still buy this thing.*
Posted By: Heretic

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/25/13 03:53 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
...


Originally Posted By: AggressorBLUE
...


Originally Posted By: kludger
...


Imagine you're pouring hundreds of hours into a flightsim model. You wrap it up idiot-proof, you upload it to the usual places, you don't stick a price tag on it. You expect at least a bit of recognition*. It does not materialize. So you try again. Models with a pricetag seem to be pretty popular, so you step up your game for the next round. Less sleep, more polys, more high res textures, more risk of a burnout**, sure can do. Should make for an accomplishment.
And then you read that the payware companies, already two steps ahead of you, should add yet another step.
The bad thing is, that there is money involved so the pricetaggers are more inclined to actually listen.
And you just sit there, already knowing that you barely stand a chance to get your "made someone happy" badge and your chance is getting even more slim.

It's like being the mentally disabled kid handing someone a drawing made with passion and getting shoved aside without even a faked "Well done." because another kid did a 90% accurate replica of the Mona Lisa at its parents' insistence.
But they want to have a 95% version of said replica before they will buy a print even though the differences are hardly notable.
And the worst thing is, that the amount of people with that attitude is way too high. Other flightsim forums are basically flooded with payware talk.
Announce the release of a freeware weather engine? One page of replies. At best. An early announcement of a new payware weather engine with 10% faster weather injection compared to the freeware one, a more "accurate" fog layer display and 50 customization options that no one ever uses. For $50 or more. The result? Five pages. At least. Rumours about your favourite payware company. Twenty pages. Preview of a freeware plane. Two pages.
Why?

Keeping that in mind...I don't understand what drives you people to want more of everything.
You're playing a simplified consumer flight simulator on a desktop PC in your [room] and all the high res textures and systems in the world won't compensate for that. You don't even have the smell of AVGAS or Jet-A or the stomach-shaking acceleration or the ability to view exactly your house from above and everything else that makes real flying special. So what's the point whether or not a switch actually does something?
Are you such bad pilots that you *need* systems and failures to make you operate the aircraft within stated limitations and checklists? Is your imagination so utterly dumbed down or dead that you need everything chiseled into stone, accounted for, pre-chewed, pre-swallowed and pre-digested?
Isn't keeping it simple actually better than slowly working towards a sim engine/hardware/monetary overload?
Why do you think the out of memory issue, pretentious talk about virtual address space limits, pseudo-remedy tweaks, cries for a new MSFS and complaints about low framerates correlates with praise for ever more detailed add-ons?
I don't get it.
I just don't.



Yes, this was basically a "BAWWWWWWWW" post. Send some tissues my way.



*Recognition is the equivalent to money for freeware.
** It exists, especially for freeware.
Posted By: kludger

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/25/13 04:53 PM

I hear what you are saying Heretic and I can understand those feelings.

Personally I'm a simmer, I have been so since the days of my first flight sims on my c-64 (Microprose F-19 Stealth Fighter, F15 Strike Eagle etc) where I was amazed by all the systems modeled in those early sims, and I have always enjoyed and looked for the deepest sim... while I appreciate some freeware FSX planes that are lovingly created, if there is a deeper sim alternative, that is what I will always enjoy flying more whether there is a price tag attached or not. I'm not able to be a real pilot so I want my sim to simulate as much of the real plane as possible.

FSX has been stable for a long time, and most of us hardcore FSX users have been flying it for many years and moved on from enjoying just the basic FSX default level model and sim depth and inop panel switches and indestructible engines.

Personally I'm very glad this stability has allowed the payware teams to produce some amazing revolutionary sim enhancements to FSX, that make it shine and compete with other modern sims (even study sims), without that I think many of us would have moved on long ago.

I wish you well with your freeware projects, but if your goal on freeware development is primarily for recognition and not personal use first, then I think you have a tough road ahead unless the freeware you are producing is revolutionary or fills some gap that is not otherwise filled. This is the same with modding for any games or sims but especially in FSX where there is so much high quality payware available and the bar keeps being raised (thankfully).
Posted By: Stormtrooper

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/26/13 12:40 AM

Someone once told me "mod for yourself not anybody else"

What i have repainted are aircraft/helos that i like and nobody else has done the texture....releasing it for download is a bonus for the community imho. Not as time consuming at modelling but there ya go.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/26/13 11:55 AM

So I'm still trying to get a concise summary...but if I'm reading it correctly you are basically upset that freeware offerings don't get the recognition that payware ones do and that incremental increases to the quality of payware are leaving freeware in the dust and/or killing the incentive for those developers? Is that about it?

If so, well, that certainly is an opinion to have, but I'm not sure I buy it. Hell, have you seen how much action still exists in the EECH and EAW forums? By your argument those sims should have died easy deaths a decade ago...yet they are still being modded and flown and enjoyed by fans (for free!). So it has nothing to do with weather IL-2 or B.O.B. or CoD were any better..it has to do with what each individual likes. Some of us happen to like complexity and new features.

As you know, I'm a pilot in real life, and your assertion that "we can't get there from here" because we are sitting in our rooms playing games on a PC is just patently false. FSX and X-Plane are already most of the way there. Yes, there are differences, but if you went back twenty years and did a side by side comparison of PC flying versus the real thing you'd find a dramatic closing of the gap between virtual and reality. And why? Because of two things - innovation and money. You had and have technological increases, and you have people willing to invest in software development in hopes of making a profit. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I'd argue that some developers that do the job for money are actually more passionate about the genre than freeware designers. They've staked their career and family and everything else on tying together their passion for simming with the hard knock life of being a sim developer. So I'm happy when they are rewarded.

And despite your gnashing of teeth, I don't see good freeware developers getting left out of the acknowledgements. I think in my PC Pilot articles I've used and recommended dozens of freeware airplanes, sceneries, and utilities (we've even included many of them on our cover CD). So I'm not sure where this perception that because Level D wants to model the brake temperature test switch equals no appreciation for Dino's T-45 comes from..

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Heretic

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/26/13 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: kludger
I wish you well with your freeware projects, but if your goal on freeware development is primarily for recognition and not personal use first, then I think you have a tough road ahead unless the freeware you are producing is revolutionary or fills some gap that is not otherwise filled. This is the same with modding for any games or sims but especially in FSX where there is so much high quality payware available and the bar keeps being raised (thankfully).


There's only so much time and energy you can pour into a project. And believe me, I know the "Just *this* took several hours of work?" feeling.
It's all contributing to an eventual "Screw this, I'll go watch butterflies for the next year" burnout. Many a developer suffers, suffered or will suffer from this.
So it's not primarily the recognition as much as self-motivation, but an occasional pat on the back does not hurt anyone.

Also, all of my stuff is filling a gap in the freeware sector; otherwise I wouldn't have a reason to do it in the first place. I don't know what counts as revolutionary for you, but so far, I've implemented fully modeled lighting into my Dornier, moving rain and working wipers (not present by default in FSX) into the Convair and working wipers and (actually lethal) icing into the 737. Try to find any of this in most payware.
And it's not just me. Other freeware authors implementing more realistic prop and jet startup sequences or 1940s long range beacon networks or blowing up engines or model configuration with a mere entry in the title= line of a repaint instead of a clumsy external tool or semitransparent window frames for improved visibility or Ground Controlled Approaches or start up sequences like on the real thing and I could go on and on and on...
All these things take hours and hours to implement, but get largely ignored because, say the model is still in beta, doesn't have an adjustable pilot seat, is french/russian/obscure, needs user intervention here and there, etc...
I get the feeling that most MSFS users have forgotten about everything that's not polished to perfection and maximum user friendliness.



Originally Posted By: Stormtrooper
Someone once told me "mod for yourself not anybody else"

What i have repainted are aircraft/helos that i like and nobody else has done the texture....releasing it for download is a bonus for the community imho. Not as time consuming at modelling but there ya go.


That's the premise.

It still would be nice to get a "Thank you", repaint or screenshots of someone using the stuff though, you know...even if the other person doesn't use it or or uses it only once or doesn't download it at all. Just a (hollow) sign that the developer does the right thing.



Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
So I'm still trying to get a concise summary...but if I'm reading it correctly you are basically upset that freeware offerings don't get the recognition that payware ones do and that incremental increases to the quality of payware are leaving freeware in the dust and/or killing the incentive for those developers? Is that about it?


The basic issue is the question of how a freeware developer can survive in a community that's not even content with the already very good payware.

Quote:
If so, well, that certainly is an opinion to have, but I'm not sure I buy it. Hell, have you seen how much action still exists in the EECH and EAW forums?


Stop.
EECH, Strike Fighters, Kerbal Space Program, IL-2, Freespace, EAW and many more are/were basically raised on freeware. There may be the odd payware add-on for some of them, but it's nearly not as much of an infestation as it is for MSFS(X).

There was a kind of healthy balance between free- and payware for FS2004 (at least that was my perception) and it basically eroded with the (perceived) "no limits" FSX.

Quote:
FSX and X-Plane are already most of the way there. Yes, there are differences, but if you went back twenty years and did a side by side comparison of PC flying versus the real thing you'd find a dramatic closing of the gap between virtual and reality. And why? Because of two things - innovation and money. You had and have technological increases, and you have people willing to invest in software development in hopes of making a profit. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I'd argue that some developers that do the job for money are actually more passionate about the genre than freeware designers. They've staked their career and family and everything else on tying together their passion for simming with the hard knock life of being a sim developer. So I'm happy when they are rewarded.


And in turn, you're allowed to demand more and ever more from them?
Do you actually know how godawful of a job commercial add-on development is?

You think that $40 for a non-systems plane is steep, but split up the earnings from, say 500 copies sold between the team members and hold it against the number of hours invested you end up with an hourly wage at third-world level, if at all. Hence most, if not all payware developers need additional income from real world sources thus limiting their time available for development. Most also have families.

And now they release their models and not get the amount of sales expected and beeching customers because of a missing feature or a few bugs and cries for even more of everything in the next model. Not speaking of the godawful nagging and complaints when the next release takes longer than projected due to this.

Keep that in mind and weigh it up against this:

Improvement in flightsim technology doesn't stem from what add-on makers make of it but from the sophistication of the base software. As it's not financially viable anymore for a big publisher or game studio to make a mass appeal flight simulator, you won't have any large strides in underlying technology for any time to come.
Prepar3D is FSX 2.0, but not aimed at the consumer market. FSX add-ons work in it and it has the potential to be a replacement at the cost of your interests not driving the overall development direction. It also might do away with some of limitations and bugs in FSX and offer better development tools.
X-Plane is on the same level as FSX by now, but since it's made by a rather small team that needs to be fed, you only see rather limited progress in each version. (Not to mention that it is very different in look&feel from FSX.) You can, of course, base your future on XP but you'll have to basically throw away all your FSX payware.
And then there's FlightGear. Unlimited potential, but nothing at all for the consumerist FSX fan.

These are three platforms way more suitable to provide a "next level" base.
FSX, with its limitations, bugs and already overworked (payware) developers, is *not*.
Unless, of course, there's a "great mysterious council" of developers chugging out improvements for everyone (see IL-2's continued patches), so that development can be streamlined in some areas.
This is totally utopian though, since FSX is a competitive environment in which every sale and extra feature counts.
So far, I've only experienced two and a half cases, in which payware developers are/were actually working for benefit to everyone. One case is payware devs helping out in forums, another is a payware dev actually publishing a fleshed out tutorial on a nonstandard model feature and the half one is developers announcing modules that ship with SDKs to make other aircraft support them. Doing stuff like smooth cockpit lighting or tieing YASIM to override FSX' flight model? Forever buried under Non-Disclosure Agreements.

Quote:
And despite your gnashing of teeth, I don't see good freeware developers getting left out of the acknowledgements. I think in my PC Pilot articles I've used and recommended dozens of freeware airplanes, sceneries, and utilities (we've even included many of them on our cover CD). So I'm not sure where this perception that because Level D wants to model the brake temperature test switch equals no appreciation for Dino's T-45 comes from..


Would you still recommend Dino's model if there was a payware T-45 with a bit more of everything?
Are you still going to recommend Dino's Tomcat after Aerosoft released theirs?
Would you recommend a freeware DC-9 if there's already Coolsky's and SkySimulations'?




Tl;dr, I've invested way too much time writing this.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/26/13 11:00 PM

I'm not going to "invest" much time in my replies either because it doesn't take a genius to spot a circle-jerk from 24 inches away. I'll save us both the hassle.

I will, however, answer your last three questions.

Yes.
Yes.
...and maybe. (I wouldn't recommend just a generic DC-9 if I know nothing about it..I know Dino's work and I have no idea if the DC-9 you are referencing would be worth recommending..)

Tl:dr - Sounds like you hate how you spend your free time. Me, not so much. But good luck anyway.

BeachAV8R

Apologies to the OP for the thread hijack. I'd still like to check out the B1900 because it does so closely resemble what I fly..



Posted By: AggressorBLUE

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/27/13 02:10 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
I'm not going to "invest" much time in my replies either because it doesn't take a genius to spot a circle-jerk from 24 inches away. I'll save us both the hassle.

I will, however, answer your last three questions.

Yes.
Yes.
...and maybe. (I wouldn't recommend just a generic DC-9 if I know nothing about it..I know Dino's work and I have no idea if the DC-9 you are referencing would be worth recommending..)

Tl:dr - Sounds like you hate how you spend your free time. Me, not so much. But good luck anyway.

BeachAV8R

Apologies to the OP for the thread hijack. I'd still like to check out the B1900 because it does so closely resemble what I fly..





agreed.

I knew this was pointless when I read:
"The basic issue is the question of how a freeware developer can survive in a community that's not even content with the already very good payware."


I don't know how anyone "survives" developing freeware period. Anyone who sees it as "survival" is already in the wrong frame of mind.

Heritic, if your seriously this upset over the current state of affairs, quit. Just up and quit developing. It seems like you're not enjoying this. Honestly I was actually pretty interested to see your Dornier come to light, but if it's causing that much trouble you won't offend me if you drop the project. The world won't stop moving forward, so stop expecting it to.
Posted By: Stormtrooper

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/27/13 11:52 AM

Question for Heretic....with your skill why don't you join one of payware teams and let others worry about cockpits etc while you do what you do?
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/27/13 12:11 PM

I used a freeware Dornier 228 to illustrate an article on Lukla. (I think we even put it on the cover CD)
I used a freeware Dash 7 to illustrate an article on Courchevel. (I think we even put it on the cover CD)
I used a freeware T-45 and freeware F-14 to illustrate an article on the Nimitz.

I could have sought out payware to do those articles, but the quality of the freeware was such that it made sense, was a service to the readers, and gave a nod to some fantastically talented freeware developers.

Simply put - if you make it, they will come. None of the above were modeled to anything other than light systems modeling, proving that a good 3D model with a basic rendition of the cockpit will work.







BeachAV8R
Posted By: Heretic

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/27/13 12:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Stormtrooper
Question for Heretic....with your skill why don't you join one of payware teams and let others worry about cockpits etc while you do what you do?


It's not that I haven't considered this, but no.



Originally Posted By: AggressorBLUE
Heritic, if your seriously this upset over the current state of affairs, quit. Just up and quit developing. It seems like you're not enjoying this. Honestly I was actually pretty interested to see your Dornier come to light, but if it's causing that much trouble you won't offend me if you drop the project. The world won't stop moving forward, so stop expecting it to.


Yeah, it's probably for the best.



Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Apologies to the OP for the thread hijack.


Same here.








And sorry for the whining, but I just couldn't help it.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: CARENADO B1900 FSX - 09/27/13 01:26 PM

Ah..we all have those days..or weeks..

That said, if I come across an article that needs a Do328 or Convair 580 I'll look you up.

BeachAV8R
© 2019 SimHQ Forums