The new TBM850 by Wilco

[YoYo]

Coming in October:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6lMYIcOG74&feature=share&list=UUb9mOAWJZcVj-Y70Fh0z9Iw

More : http://www.wilcopub.com/simulator-add-on/tbm850-fsx-p3d-6586.html

[stovall]

Fantastic looking aircraft. I'll take cream and sugar in my coffee.

[Firekitten]

Odd of them to make one straight after Carenado... But it will more than likely have better frame performance and looks like it has more features... I'll take one! :D

[Cirrus N210MS]

by far the Carenado TBM 850 Looks Far nicer and and does not look like plastic model....

[Firekitten]

by far the Carenado TBM 850 Looks Far nicer and and does not look like plastic model....Like most of carenado's new aircraft its WAY too shiny and plasticy... and its frame performance SUCKS like most of their recent ones again... This could well be far better in that regard. I'd take this over that hunk of junk any day.

[Cirrus N210MS]

The Carenados dont Look Shiny or like cartoon planes The Wilco Aircraft Look like Toys Plastic big time i got there tilt rotor And Boy What a Waste of money it was! wont be geting any Other Of there payware stuff again even if its on sale

:salute: Carenado Plane Are some of the best Ga Aircraft You can Get And they Look The best and the models are the best!

They Dont Look Like they were Created for FS2004 I have seen Freeware aircraft Which Have More detail then Wilcos TBM 850

[Firekitten]

I think our views differ... Carenado's recent aircraft are frame hogs and way too shiny externally... 20 layers of clearcoat. And I hate their phototexturing. They lost me as a fan a while ago.

As for wilco.. this aircraft isnt 04-alike or like a toy... plus comparing recent ones to the tiltrotor (which is ancient) is unfair.

[stovall]

Good to have diverging opinions. Probably should leave it at that. For sure it will be someone's favorite. Once released there undoubtedly will be considerable input.

[Firekitten]

I just like to see things given a chance... the video looks good though... it has potential to be good... but we can't see for sure till as you say, it comes out.

[ryanbatc]

Carenando definitely wins for looks. But let's see how this one flies. Also theG1000 looks stock from the inset map so I'm guessing there won't be Navigraph capable data. Hopefully I'm wrong!

[Anneke]

Also theG1000 looks stock

You might wanna take a look at the feature list. See link above.
From the blurb




Fully automated LNAV and VNAV capability down to 250 decision height for LPV approaches (localiser guidance)
WAAS/LPV approach capable



Does that look stock to you?

I think it looks good and I'm looking forward to this bird.
I only hope I can get rid of that prostitute which stands beside the plane (video at 30sec).

[Daube]

I only hope I can get rid of that prostitute which stands beside the plane (video at 30sec).

Could we avoid these middle age-style comments please ? We're not all religious ultra conservatives here.

[MCDesigns]

Could we avoid these middle age-style comments please ? We're not all religious ultra conservatives here.

heck, that comment made me actually look at the video and if she comes with the aircraft, it's a selling point for me, LOL. :jump: that is conservative attire where I live, LOL.

[FentiFlier1]

heck, that comment made me actually look at the video and if she comes with the aircraft, it's a selling point for me, LOL. :jump: that is conservative attire where I live, LOL.


Made me look att the video too! Lol :jump:
Nice modelling!

[Firekitten]

Would you all mind dragging your knuckles just a little bit less please? It's rather disgusting to hear you all going on like this. Any wonder why there are so few females in the FS community?

[Roger]

Undoubtedly we have more than our fair share of Sheldons, Leonards, Howards and Rajs here (and I include myself!) and let's face it it's the designer who included the female (and A2A for Heidi) and the comments have not been lewd in my opinion, so give we nerdy males a little elbow room.

[Firekitten]

She hardly resembles a prostitute in my eyes... and that is a fairly nice/conservative dress... (short but nice) But you do have a point Rodger... You do deserve room but don't forget us Penny's too... (or sometimes Amy)... A2A's Heidi was cool... And there's nothing wrong with this female model at all... apart from the dribbling. There aren't enough Females in sim aircraft. The throw away comments though are endemic... and usually seen as acceptable... it drives us off. I guess this was just the nearest soapbox... Sorry guys... Its something that really bugs me. (I've been driven off several forums due to rather tasteless lewd behaviour by members who didn't give a toss who they offended.) You don't see female simmers dribbling verbosely over male sim pilots do you? You haven't seen me rubbing my thighs over carenado's recent figures ? :D

I apologise for jumping a bit hard... I over reacted.

[MCDesigns]

Would you all mind dragging your knuckles just a little bit less please? It's rather disgusting to hear you all going on like this. Any wonder why there are so few females in the FS community?

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I develop and belong to several communities, including SIMS3 which is mostly women and try to keep it PC, but we all have different levels of what is PC or not. I have been around adult entertainment and musicians most of my life, but I try real hard not to fall to that level when on forums, LOL

[Marvin Carter]

You know when your not political correct a Kitten dies some where and the world!

[Firekitten]

You know when your not political correct a Kitten dies some where and the world!Nothing to do with political correctness....

Anyway this kitten has 9 lives.

[Ark]

Coming in October:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6lMYIcOG74&feature=share&list=UUb9mOAWJZcVj-Y70Fh0z9Iw

More : http://www.wilcopub.com/simulator-add-on/tbm850-fsx-p3d-6586.html

Look at the video when it shows the aircraft from the top......the spinner is pointing off at an angle. That's a pretty big modeling error. :/

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 2

[EMatheson]

Look at the video when it shows the aircraft from the top......the spinner is pointing off at an angle. That's a pretty big modeling error. :/

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 2
It's not an error - many airplanes - especially turbine airplanes - have the engine mounted at an angle to reduce the roll effect from the torque of the engine.

http://www.tbm850.com (http://www.tbm850.com/IMG/pdf/2013_TBM850_Specifications.pdf)
http://www.tbm850.com/IMG/pdf/2013_TBM850_Specifications.pdf

[adi518]

As far as modelling & textures it's really low quality and I will not consider it. Maybe in terms of systems it's better than the Carenado.

[Firekitten]

Don't you think the low res video is partly to blame? doesn't look too bad to me.

[adi518]

That too. It's really bad.

[Firekitten]

Quite a narrow minded view... because the model and textures look good to me... Not the same phototexture style as carenado... but still good.

As I mentioned earlier, this one will probably fly a lot better and have a better frame performance... Carenado's glass is a framehog from hell... So depends what you want, to sit on the ground and pan around, or fly.

[bstolle]

this one will probably fly a lot better

If the Carenado TBM performs and handles very close to the real one, in which way do you expect the Wilco version to be better?
Although I generally don't like glass cockpits the framerate isn't any lower than other glass cockpit planes on my old i7.

[Firekitten]

If the Carenado TBM performs and handles very close to the real one, in which way do you expect the Wilco version to be better?
Although I generally don't like glass cockpits the framerate isn't any lower than other glass cockpit planes on my old i7.
I wasn't suggesting your flight model was bad Bernt... far from. By 'fly well' I meant that it might actually fly smoothly... Most of carenado's more recent glass aircraft have had very bad performance for me vs non glass ones. Their G1000 and similar systems are massive performance hogs.

[Dumonceau]

heck, that comment made me actually look at the video and if she comes with the aircraft, it's a selling point for me, LOL. :jump: that is conservative attire where I live, LOL.

Definitely conservative clothing where I live, and it can be COLD over here! And she's nicely modeled. In fact both of them are! :icon_lol:

Ok, back on topic, I'll always prefer Carenado modeling over wilco. But that is of course just MHO.

Thanks MCD, you cracked me up!

Dumonceau

[Ark]

It's not an error - many airplanes - especially turbine airplanes - have the engine mounted at an angle to reduce the roll effect from the torque of the engine.

http://www.tbm850.com (http://www.tbm850.com/IMG/pdf/2013_TBM850_Specifications.pdf)
http://www.tbm850.com/IMG/pdf/2013_TBM850_Specifications.pdf


Wow, never knew that. Makes sense, but sure looks silly. LOL

[adi518]

I wasn't suggesting your flight model was bad Bernt... far from. By 'fly well' I meant that it might actually fly smoothly... Most of carenado's more recent glass aircraft have had very bad performance for me vs non glass ones. Their G1000 and similar systems are massive performance hogs.

Hmm.. actually carenado has put out two service packs that supposedly fix the fps issues with g1000 on the ct182 and sr22. All the newer aircrafts with g1000 actually work good. Better off with an overclocked K cpu to make it even better. I respect your opinion, it's just that when there's a certain acceptable level of visuals, going back slightly becomes a problem. I do not mean to bash anyone or anything, just stating my opinion. :)

[Anneke]

Darn end of October here and still not released. Not a good sign.

[Firekitten]

Hmm.. actually carenado has put out two service packs that supposedly fix the fps issues with g1000 on the ct182 and sr22. All the newer aircrafts with g1000 actually work good. Better off with an overclocked K cpu to make it even better. I respect your opinion, it's just that when there's a certain acceptable level of visuals, going back slightly becomes a problem. I do not mean to bash anyone or anything, just stating my opinion. :)
Accepted standard? That's a double edged sword... Carenado use colour adjusted photo texture, rather than traditional textures, they over model and map small parts, its just one technique. I'd trade 'hyper perfect' visuals for a great handling and well designed aircraft with good visuals... the TBM doesn't look bad to be fair, the video lets it down in my book.


Darn end of October here and still not released. Not a good sign.

Welcome to development... not a sign at all, just how these things work.

[MCDesigns]

Accepted standard? That's a double edged sword... Carenado use colour adjusted photo texture, rather than traditional textures, they over model and map small parts, its just one technique. I'd trade 'hyper perfect' visuals for a great handling and well designed aircraft with good visuals... the TBM doesn't look bad to be fair, the video lets it down in my book.

Welcome to development... not a sign at all, just how these things work.

The main reason carenado texture the way they do is probably because the lighting/render engine in FSX sucks and in order to try and create some kind of realistic immersion you have to "fake" how light reacts with surfaces, which is terrible, but otherwise the visuals are severely lacking. Look at ORBX and how they add AO and baked shadows to their textures, same principle. You mention development, I have designed a few aircraft and without these texture tricks in the VC, it looks highly unrealistic IMO.

it's obvious you are not a fan of carenado visuals and don't place that much importance on visuals and I respect that, but the main reason i own so many of their aircraft is because their texturing makes the immersion that much more realistic IMO.

I will agree that slagging the new TBM before you can actually compare both is in poor form. I am looking forward to seeing how it is since it is one of my fav aircraft (having flown in one 3 years ago) and I love the carenado version.

[Firekitten]

The main reason carenado texture the way they do is probably because the lighting/render engine in FSX sucks and in order to try and create some kind of realistic immersion you have to "fake" how light reacts with surfaces, which is terrible, but otherwise the visuals are severely lacking. Look at ORBX and how they add AO and baked shadows to their textures, same principle. You mention development, I have designed a few aircraft and without these texture tricks in the VC, it looks highly unrealistic IMO.

it's obvious you are not a fan of carenado visuals and don't place that much importance on visuals and I respect that, but the main reason i own so many of their aircraft is because their texturing makes the immersion that much more realistic IMO.

I will agree that slagging the new TBM before you can actually compare both is in poor form. I am looking forward to seeing how it is since it is one of my fav aircraft (having flown in one 3 years ago) and I love the carenado version.
Ok, you have the first part wrong, and are taking what I'm saying the wrong way. Its nothing to do with baked textures or adding shadowing.
Orbx don't bake textures, they use component parts of satellite imagery (photoreal)

Third, I am actually a fan of carenado visuals... when they don't slam my frame rate.. I really like how pretty they look, but for me it isn't the only factor in an aircraft. I place a HUGE importance on visuals... its just again, not the only factor. I don't think these visuals look BAD, just different... that was my point. Just because it doesn't use carenado's photoreal style doesn't make it bad.

I fully expect you wont want to fly our navion for example... its not got a carenado badge.

[heywooood]

unfortunate how this thread devolved...

I like some aspects of Carenado, I like some things about Nemeth, Razbam, Alabeo, Golden Age, and all the rest (not in any particular order) - there is something to like in most payware isn't there?
Flip side is that there can always be found something about every model that we might wish was different...from form to function.
It comes down to the multiplicity of talent required for FSX and the strengths and weaknesses of the developers who create for it.
And since we are talking about payware, we feel the need to discuss these things. I know I like to talk about flight sims in general, and I know my wifes' eyes glass over when I talk to her about them...
And since we don't typically have friends at home, spouses or kids who also love FSX - we do that stuff here in this forum. For better or worse.

I do not model in 3D - but I do build in balsa, and I play some original compositions on acoustic guitar so I know about having some sensitivity to criticism....its the price we pay for the flip side - enthusiastic appreciation

is it worth it? Usually...until it isn't - that's the point at which we decide either to continue or to quit I suppose
does the criticism help? yes - even if painfully and carelessly rendered...if it is the consensus of opinion...it helps us strive to get better but, personally - I do what I do creatively for me
If other people appreciate it then so much the better...but I am my harshest critic by far.

I do not own anything from Wilco yet, but its only a matter of time. Once they create a model of a subject aircraft that I just have to have.

As to freeware - I believe that the very fact that these works are created as gifts makes them special - that they are often exceptional models is the frosting on the cake

The new Navion appears to be an exceptional model and I hope we see it soon

[Firekitten]

I see where you're coming from Heywood, and agree and disagree...

Just because something is payware doesn't mean we can automatically badmouth it because we don't like it... Like freeware, vote with your feet... just don't buy it. No need to go 'oh that's ****, what a hunk of junk'.

People jump to far too many conclusions... judging bad quality videos or even an early pre beta model...how can they know what state its in?

I find it personally irritating when everyone compares development to carenado as though they are the alpha and omega of development. Speaking from a technical standpoint, they're sloppy... bad beta testing, awful systems and bad performance usually. They're pretty... yes, and that seems to be all many care about rather than function... They want a fashion model... looks great, but can't do her own make-up. As far as technical development goes, they're as shallow as a west Virginian gene pool.

The important thing here to consider is that while they busilly dismiss the quality of the textures, they overlook the systems, which is something most wilco aircraft do have, and have well. I wish people would be a little more objective.

End of the day, we're all different, we all have our priorities and we all sim differently. That's fine... that's what this allows. But we must accept others have different requirements and needs. Some want a pretty aircraft that isn't complex, others want complex and will 'cope' with a bit less pretty to get it. Its not that they don't want it...

Happy happy thoughts!