Carenado SR22

[VCN-1]

It has been released.

http://www.carenado.com/CarSite/Portal/index.php?accion=product&correl=81

VCN-1

[Kiwikat]

Can someone let us know if it allows you to enter a flight plan from inside the unit? Carenado avoided this question like the plague on facebook...

[kernelPANIC]

No, you have to load the flight plan from the simulator and then it will be loaded on the G1000. It is not currently possible to load a flight plan from inside the unit on this G1000. Maybe with a future revision...

[N428ER]

Really? What a shame, bloody shame.

[Felixthreeone]

It definitely looks nice lol

[OleBoy]

No, you have to load the flight plan from the simulator and then it will be loaded on the G1000. It is not currently possible to load a flight plan from inside the unit on this G1000. Maybe with a future revision...

What are your ties to Carenado? Based on your comment you sound as if you are on the dev team.
Curious members would like to know.

[kernelPANIC]

What are your ties to Carenado? Based on your comment you sound as if you are on the dev team.
Curious members would like to know.


I do customer support for Carenado and aircraft development on Alabeo (Although I'm here on personal grounds and not representing anybody, I was just trying to clarify things for those who asked).

[ryanbatc]

Really? What a shame, bloody shame.
Really I'm not surprised. Im camping in -40 f windchill but when I come back I'm buying it easy.

[JAllen]

:jump: Getting this one soon as I get home. When not flying warbirds I have been flying their 182T all over hell and back. Thank you Carenado.

[Kiwikat]

I will pass on this one. Don't need yet another aircraft with poorly modeled avionics. Sigh...

[Phantom88]

I do customer support for Carenado and aircraft development on Alabeo (Although I'm here on personal grounds and not representing anybody, I was just trying to clarify things for those who asked).

What happened to the GeeBee? It was announced on Twitter that it would be released soon,That was over 2 weeks ago.

[Motormouse]

I will pass on this one. Don't need yet another aircraft with poorly modeled avionics. Sigh...

You could always buy the G1000 simulator from Garmin.... ----> https://buy.garmin.com/shop/search.do?searchStr=G1000

ttfn

Pete

[Scratch]

WOW! It's gorgeous!

[Sascha66]

Please let them do it for FS2004!!!

[dvj]

What happened to the GeeBee? It was announced on Twitter that it would be released soon,That was over 2 weeks ago.

Not Carenado. Albeao. Same house, different team. GeeBee and Staggerwing high on my list.

[ryanbatc]

I bought it. I like it. I went in knowing what to expect (and not to expect Flight1 G1000-like avionics). It flies well, looks great. The sounds are lacking... they won't sound quite like the cirruses that fly around duluth... and the sound is very muffled during cruise, and a little distorted...

The LVL button works hehe (but we've been doing this for a long time in FS!) Night lighting is good, smooth gauges (even the g1000 is decent). I'm finding the clickspots easy to manipulate compared to previous releases. The A/P behavior is typical (misses localizer intercepts and has to correct back), but I find it works pretty good overall. There is one annoying bug I found so far with the avionics. The push direct to course knob doesn't work (similar to heading where you'd make the heading sync - the course knob usually points to the station and the direct course to - doesn't work with this release)

I'm not having fps issues like some people were reporting.

Flight model seems fine from my limited SR22 time. I found the yaw axis to be quite sensitive on this version. I flew an older G1 SR22 and the rudder wasn't nearly this touchy both on the roll and airborne. Could be my hardware, could be my lack of time. Matt what do you think?

Overall, possible a little pricey for what you get but I love the Cirrus so I was bound to get it anyway :)

p.s. I stuck the RXP 530W as a popup in this plane. The A/P works like usual and tracks the various legs. I bet if you put the link on in the .ini file it might show on the G1000 MFD? I don't use that so maybe someone could check?

p.s.s The turbo seems to be working fairly well yay! Numbers for a quick typical high altitude test are close (FL250 - I'm getting 17.5 gph @ 83% power) I should be doing 18.3 gph @ 85% power. ISA TAS should be 214 and I'm getting 213 really nice!

[Phantom88]

It's coming out early Feb (as in the first 10 days of Feb). We try to time our releases so they don't clash with each other (SR22 came out today). But the next one on the pipeline is the GeeBee.

Cheers,Thanks very much!

[Felixthreeone]

Flight model seems fine from my limited SR22 time. I found the yaw axis to be quite sensitive on this version. I flew an older G1 SR22 and the rudder wasn't nearly this touchy both on the roll and airborne. Could be my hardware, could be my lack of time. Matt what do you think?


Well, Ryan...If the 22 you flew was an Avidyne equipped aircraft, then that would say a lot about the rudder sensitivity. I have flown all Cirrus models, and the new gen aircraft---those with the perspective avionics, all have done away with the 'rudder/aileron interconnect'. That flight control feature essentially 'tied' the rudder to the ailerons to make for smoother, more coordinated turns even if the pilot was lazy with his feet..It didn't mean you could fly feet-off, just that it eased coordination (and a few other things). In the newer Cirrus aircraft, if one was to approach and compare, say, ramp stance...the first thing you would notice is that there is more dihedral with the older gen aircraft, and they also sit lower to the ground. A bit of the dihedral has been removed and ground stance raised on the newer models (also for a number of applicable reasons). So, in essence, if this addon (I have yet to purchase it) has what seems to be a 'sensitive' rudder, that would be why. Having flown the new models, I can attest that they indeed are far more foot-sensitive than earlier models

[ryanbatc]

Thanks .... seems the touchy yaw axis is correct then.

The only other question is about descent. Out of FL250 I had full power in (around 83%) and in a -1000 fpm descent I wasn't redlining. In fact I barely went past vno. This plane is far more slippery than that isn't it?

[Felixthreeone]

Thanks .... seems the touchy yaw axis is correct then.

The only other question is about descent. Out of FL250 I had full power in (around 83%) and in a -1000 fpm descent I wasn't redlining. In fact I barely went past vno. This plane is far more slippery than that isn't it?

Well, TBH, I would assume so...but I haven't delved that deeply into high altitude flying IRL in the Cirrus so i would hesitate to comment. A lot of factors there...but maybe one of my COPA Turbo owner friends can shed some light on it, assuming he isn't out flying right now lol....

[bstolle]

If you look at Engine out glide table you will see that the SR22 isn't a slippery airplane. just average. Not surprisingly if you don't have a retractable gear... ;)

[ryanbatc]

I did look at it this morning... 8:1 ish yeah not nearly as well as I thought!

Still you would think at full power in a descent the thing would overspeed? I guess technically it is at 180 kias. Which is past VNE at FL250 (170 kias)

[bstolle]

Max crz pwr at FL250 results in approx 140kias.....looong way to Vne in a shallow descent

[N428ER]

Not at all impressed by this release!

[skyhawka4m]

Not at all impressed by this release!


Please tell us why? Some might be on the fence about this item.

[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!
:173go1:

[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. :icon_lol:

[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 :icon_lol:

[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 :icon_lol:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c264/CODY614/F-86%20Paints/fsscr463_zpsdab2376f.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c264/CODY614/F-86%20Paints/fsscr455_zps9d8fbdb4.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c264/CODY614/F-86%20Paints/fsscr460_zps4da964bd.jpg

[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
http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2013/01/31/S9OPc.jpg

[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: