violingineer

For Carenado planes with steam gauges I expect default aircraft performance---what else does the C421 have to do that is so taxing on a modern processor? Since a few of their builds they've managed to do it with the same gauges, see above, why can't they achieve it everytime for at least the same caliber gauges? Answer: Quality control. Nothing new here. Anyhow, I demand 60 fps because this simulator is 35 years old. I also demand 60 fps because when you pan (and I pan all the time) in the VC, it looks like an 80's game if it is anything less than 60fps. yes 30 fps is ok looking and appears smooth with standard slow maneuvers ....if your head is stationary; But after you get used to 60 fps, 30, 40, 50 look like garbage (to me). I could play 30 fps all day long on a very complex addon, and my processor is 5 YEARS OLD--and I'm not touting I have an awesome rig, mine is totally budget. Before you say BS... I have a 3570K at 4.1 ghz, bout the same as modern processors, just less cores. Most of P3d is still blind to more cores. I have the funny feeling that I'd get maybe a 5 fps boost if I upgraded to the latest 8700K build, actually 7700K runs at stock 4.2hz, so I would rather get one of those, but again, after 5 years I'm only 0.1 Ghz slower..... !!!!! Finally, other developers have done a lot more with less impact on frames. Majestic is ridiculously paradigm changing, yet no one has followed suit with the way they are handling their gauges and calcs. For instance, after 4 years+ ? of development, Aerosoft CRJ is pretty bad frame rates. The paradigm for most developers is 30 fps. WHY? Demand more from products.

Well looks like both my angry comments were removed on this C421. I am not all lovey-dovey on this one from Alabeo: 1) FPS is bad for the complexity of this aircraft. Does not compare to similar VC's: Titan (even with the Avidyne) and C310 to name a few, where the 310 gets 60fps in most situations on my 5 year old 3570k 4.0 ghz machine, The titan will get 55fps, and this C421 gets 50fps. That's comparing all in the same scenery on the ground, same runway, full sliders ultra, autogen range low, default Eglin airfield, traffic 10%, and same forward facing zoom level. (Apples to apples.) 2) The RXP GPS-swap out tool blanks out the GPS and audio selector on the VC interior model. This has to be a bug. I'm upset because this is the first Alabeo plane to use this swap specifically for RXP GNS v.2. The swap tool employing a blank 3d gps area for the RXP was a nice way for me to add ANY developer's GPS to an Alabeo/Carenado interior - especially Baytower GPS, because he made it readible from higher zoom levels.... (even my own versions of Carenado GPS530 that I have tweaked to include TAWS abilities.) So I'm miffed that it has a nice big fat black 3d emptiness where the GNS530 and audio selector below were in the default Alabeo VC interior. Wonder if anyone else sees this? 3) Something negative that this C421 has in common with the Carenado Navajo, and I believe the Aztec, and all Fly Sim Ware products: you turn on the GNS530, and frame rates lose 5 fps. I have tried swapping GPS's on these birds to no avail. It has to do with the interior model itself interacting with a dynamic screen underneath it. It is a bug because this does not happen with most other Carenado products. Stuff like this happens on a few other planes with G1000, but typical not for the G530. 4) The WX radar (lightning detector in real life) is default powered on in this plane. It is the source of about 3 fps drop, so I like it off. It is default off in all of their other planes, so why default on here?? I quickly commented (//) that gauge out. Do not try to educate me on FPS, as I'm probably the world's expert on testing VC's and FPS. I know XML, and know how to mod gauges/textures/LODs/scenery/clouds/trees to improve FPS. So, my opinion on this 421 is that Alabeo dropped the ball on what would have been an amazing plane--as its visibility is great, the capabilities, everything it has going for it, yet FPS cuts it out of the picture for me. $35 wasted. On those notes: List of Alabeo/Carenado planes with my seal of approval for FPS in P3dV4: and surprisingly one that was good is now bad: I'll use 60 fps as the standard below, given my system is set up to be right at the threshold of taxing on the best of these planes: the list does not include any Car/Ala plane that does not have the latest modern landing lights. As the Baron for sure takes the win of the best plane ever for flight simulator, but alas, Carenado hasnt updated that one (I wish) and maintained the modability/non-3D option of the VC in their latest releases ...soap box wish list off... Anyhow: M20R - 60fps everywhere in LITE version; by far the most default FPS with best graphics, lighting, flying, and even you can mod it with the GPS swap out and the GEM being a swappable/modable gauge. Saratoga - 58-59 fps, older but still the best on my list for FPS vs eyecandy, usually runs maybe 1 fps slower than the M20. C310 - 59 fps, this one has improved on my system with P3dV4. the LITE version is very appreciated, and runs great. Malibu Mirage - 60 fps. solid. (The steam gauge version, not the jet prop) Seminole - 57 fps. Good but has some stutters, if you swap the G600 for the G500 the frames improve in the EFIS version to about what the steam version is. Great plane, just wish they had a LITE version. Jetprop - 53 fps - this one has degraded on P3dV4, used to be 59 fps, used to be as good as the steam gauge (non turbine Malibu) version in both FSX and P3dV3. The jetprop's G500 still gets better frames over the G600 in the seminole and seneca. Easy swap too. C404 Titan - 52 or 57 depending if you turn the Avidyne to a non taxing screen, or off of course, it gets decent rates. C421 is about 50. With the WX off and the GPS on. With both the WX off and the GPS off, now I get about 59. So something is definitely up with the interior VC and the GPS, as the GPS itself isnt a resource hog And if you swap the respective Carenado Attitude, and HSI in the PC-12 and S550 for the default Beech Kingair's, I get 58fps for both planes! Both have improved in v4. Finally, I do not subscribe to the interior model file size as being a predictor of VC FPS. Some are quite large with great FPS. Has more to do with how many inefficient polygons and unnecessarily adding 3d objects (switches etc) that do nothing on the plane. Which I find unforgivable.

THIS ALABEO PRODUCT HAS GARBAGE FRAME RATES FOR ITS COMPLEXITY. I USED TO LOVE ALABEO FOR THEIR HIGH FPS. NOW I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER PRODUCT OF THEIRS. THEY HAVE GOTTEN RID OF THE "LITE" MODELS. THEIR INCONSISTENCY AND HORRIBLE QUALITY CONTROL HAS ME ANGRY BEYOND BELIEF. NEVER AGAIN WILL I WASTE MONEY ON THIS GARBAGE!!!!!! I WILL RANT ON YOUTUBE AND COMMENT ALL OVER YOUR FACEBOOK, ALABEO. YOUHAVE MADE AN ENEMY!!!!!!!!

I'm just glad I got a reply from Mr. Pieke ;)

Although I personally know nothing about this plane's design, I know folks at my work who do, and who visit Kerrville a lot. My former boss just signed the TC on this one: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/march/30/new-mooney-ultras-certified Fun near Reno: Here I've edited the GPS and swapped it with my version of the Baytower GPS with Kronzky's (http://kronzky.info/fs/500wx/) algorithm for relative terrain, which sorta looks like the RXP rel-terrain, but a little more interpolation in the colors (not official Garmin), but I modified Kronzky's green to black which fits the real life colors better. I have this rel-terrain in my personal-use-only xml versions for RealAir GNS530, Carenado GNS530 and Baytower530. I frankenstein gauges and cockpits a lot for my own purpose---BTW, the EDM/GEM in this Mooney (like most other Alabeo/Carenado GEMs) doesn't really have a light map, so you can put in just about any gauge that fits the diameter in there. I have tried the LRI (lift reserve indicator) from the FSX DC3, an AOA from the FSX learjet, AOA from the freeware Iris T-6 Texan (http://www.rikoooo.com/downloads/viewdownload/62/548), and a radar altimeter---all work pretty good, the LRI looks a little scratchy on the edges, but the Iris AOA always looks great. That is if one prefers AOA over the GEM, since cyl head temp and EGT are already redundant on this plane. I'd imagine a g-meter would work pretty good in that spot too. Again, I wish developers would make their cockpits more editable. Now just need some repaint masters like Ron Attwood to kick out some gnarly colors for this beast!

I just throw the Baytower (RV7) GNS530 in all my planes. Run the Alabeo RXP converter, then edit the panel to put in your choice of GPS. (The RXP converter works as a generic GNS530 converter.) I like Baytower because he actually bothered to make the text readable. BTW, the Mooney gets 3 FPS slower than the Saratoga. But it gets about 15-20 knots cruise faster, so take your pick! I can't decide!

OK, I took the plunge and bought this plane 2 hours ago. Money well spent. buy it. IMO: THIS IS THE BEST ALABEO RELEASE YET. I grade it A+ All is good in in terms of FPS, window placement visibility, instrument placement, GPS integration (must have a 530 for me to like--my pref), cruising speed, instruments chosen to be included (GEM, fuel mgmt, EGT & engine gauges easy to read, older KFC150 AP w/easy functionality), liveries/paints, cockpit/external landing/taxiing lighting--just absolutely the best plane. This may beat Baytower/Alabeo Saratoga for my number one go-to single, NM, at the moment it has, lol. Nitpicks: - ASI has too small lettering, I can fix this myself with texture editor, but really, make it easier to read. - GEM gauge buttons do not work AFAIK. - sounds could be better/more immersive, but honestly for Alabeo, its not bad at all. (B+) - Airplane seems a bit slippery; really needs a lot of speed brakes, but nothing surprising here for a Mooney. It also has a nice slippery rudder feel in the turns which isn't really a nitpick. I made ZERO changes to this aircraft. It is good right out of the box. Which only a few have ever been this good for me. As far as GPS terrain stutter, this does not have it---at least it is not noticeable as much as the C310. And did I mention framerate? Excellent. BUY IT. (Edit: I did change the default Alabeo wind sound (it sucks.))

Interesting. Scenery has intermittent effect on fps, while the VC has a constant effect. I test without sceneries that are inconsistent, or I simply move all the sliders add weather and check fps on the ground in the exact same view per aircraft. So your stuttering probably has a lot to do with the sceneries. I was originally talking about the gps terrain mode linked into the model in a way that the vc will stutter with terrain map update this will happen at 60 fps on a default frame rate friendly airplane if not coded correctly and though it says 60fps the view stutters at 1hz. Interesting to see your fps on those planes. The tripacer is very close to default frame rates. I consistently get 60 fps on the pacer. I dont use ftx/orbx, not worth the fps hit for me, as there are other products that dont hit frames as much that work for me. I dont see much perf hit with 4096 textures either, they just dont hurt my system...not that I use them, I always use the c310 lite version, I think its stupid to offer 4096 textures on a vc or exterior when Id much rather see 4096 textures resources (finite) on the ground at lower altitudes than anywhere else...as a trade off... Big clear gauges should be developers focus rather than pretty paint jobs ... Hence Real Air, depressed to see them go. Love to see more results on fps.

I'll ask what my question is ALWAYS with Carenado/Alabeo. Framerate inconsistency between planes. A) Please reply if rates are on par with one of the below: 1) Early Carenado Mooney/Bonanza/AC11/C172/Arrow IV, Alabeo Cutlass (basically FSX default rates) 2) "Frame rate Friendly" (Such as Alabeo Saratoga or C310). 3) Lower rates (but still steam gauge speeds), such as Piper Aztec, C340, Piper Seminole (yes, this is in a slower frame class than 2 above) 4) Terrible, such as all/most of their Bizjets, or anything with their Avidyne EX500 or G1000 glass cockpits, such as C182, Meridian, TBM. I would expect this plane should be close to the (2) category, especially the C310... which isn't as good as the Saratoga for the quality of bling, but not bad. B) Test this: With the Mooney's basic GPS/GNS-530 on terrain display mode, during a hard turn, does the terrain refresh make the VC view out the cockpit pause on update? This is inconsistent on their (really on all P3D/FSX) payware planes. Some have it, some don't. If it has this problem, you will notice during the turn that the frame rate should be smooth except for a "clicking" type pause when the terrain display on the GPS terrain updates every 1-2 seconds or so. It is REALLY annoying and I will not put up with it. The Alabeo Saratoga and C310 do NOT have this, while the otherwise superior frame rate Carenado AC11 does, as does the Cardinal, I believe.

FDE is very subjective. So are sounds. But sounds are definitely what makes the experience more gratifying/soulful. That said, sounds are also the most difficult for developers to do right, and actually record well. To do the sounds right... you have to record both channels separately for stereo, leaving all room or environmental acoustics and loop ticks/phasing/artifacts reduced as much as possible. Real Air did this the best with the Duke and Legacy. Most developers are very poor at this, Alabeo and Carenado are somewhat inconsistent...some planes are decent some are terrible. I'd say thats the case for their products in general...just inconsistent, except for the visuals... but then again, they are inconsistent there too because sometimes they pay attention to the polygon count, and sometimes they seemingly dont care about it. I respect a developer that considers FPS the most, followed by immersion. If it has one without the other I dont like the product. Ant's does this well. Real Air almost does this well--the Duke and Legacy take some FPS hits..their older products were the best--Spitfire, SF260. Among the Alabeo line, their Saratoga TC is the best, good balance of both immersion and FPS. That said, from the above discussion, what I really wanna know is does this 310 perform like the B58/A36/F33/V35 in terms of FPS? If not, I'm not interested. Alabeo was started to be the "Lite" line from Carenado. The first 5-ish products have amazing FPS and visuals...take the Extra 300, Cutlass, great stuff. Lately though they have become bloated. I have be reading that this C310 has a "lite" VC or model, and hope that they are back to their FPS greatness. Comments? P.S. Mil-viz 310 does the customizable gauge thing very well! Which I sorely miss on most modern developer's planes. Why cant WE choose what the avionics are? In the real world you get an STC, and throw in a Garmin if you want, throw in whatever radio/GPS/ADF/radar you name it. Developers should all include a generic light map feature (the driving issue why most dont do customizable panels anymore) that keeps the avionics bay non-discriminatory ;) And also include a flat 3D VC without knobs, so you can put in whatever you want. I miss this feature from the early Carenados! I have heavily modified light maps on the B58 to fit my favorite freeware gauges, since you can remove the 3d knobs. CARENADO/ALABEO PLEASE BRING BACK THE REMOVABLE 3D KNOBS FEATURE!!! Half of the fun of the old FS games was that you could design stuff yourself--- if any of you remember one version of MSFS where they actually had a plane editor included (before GMAX).... LONG LONG time ago.

After doing some investigation, agree that the G600 loses 2-5 fps. But, if you have other CArenado releases that have a G500, this one has no effect on frame rate. It is a quick and easy swap in to the Seminole. Now I get no or better frame rates with the G500 in the Seminole.

Second this. Identical frame rates as the Saratoga. I have not noticed a difference in fps with the G600 on. (I just re-discovered the G600 feature after remembering that I had read about it! This hot swap panel alone makes it better than the 'toga.) Of course they still use the Carenado TAWS, which is FPS killing, but the radar is a nice addition without FPS hit---however I haven't gotten the radar to work yet. Has anyone? Also, coming from Bert, I know beyond a doubt this is a great plane.