If you try to put the rudder trim on the green mark in the MFD, the tooltip will tell you you're at +48!

 

 

That can't be right.

 

 

 

Did you mis-read my post, or are you just reiterating?

 

Already mentioned using the green rudder trim mark would be overkill in the sim and that instead you should try either +7 or +8 (which is about halfway to the green mark).

 

I think everyone has the same thoughts as you mentioned :-)...could be a combination of both (fighting FSX, plus dev time constraints while coming in at a caertain price point...either way its not easy and they dont make alot of money per hour doing this...noone does, not even PMDG).

Yes, read your post, just was mildly shocked to see how big the disconnect was between "normal" setting on MFD and actual numbers. Just as I was disappointed with Bert's suggestion that I have to turn off the entire instrumentation redundancy on the PFD to get rid of the noisome CAS black square.

 

These are not earth-shaking things. But leave me scratching my head over why Carenado couldn't have gotten just a _little_ more convenient/accurate on both these fronts, when clearly they put a lot of work into many other elements.

 

 

we as consumers get to decide whether a given feature set meets our individual needs.

 

Very well put.  I'm sure there's plenty of people who are enjoying their new TBM.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  Interesting review / thread, that's for sure.

Just as I was disappointed with Bert's suggestion that I have to turn off the entire instrumentation redundancy on the PFD to get rid of the noisome CAS black square.

 

These are not earth-shaking things.

I do not own a real TBM, but I actually suspect this may work this way in the real plane as well.

 

The display backup feature is there so that you can fly with the MFD dark, but when the MFD is lit up,

you have all the info there, so why duplicate it on the PFD?

 

 

instrumentation redundancy on the PFD to get rid of the noisome CAS black square.

 

Actually, I wish it was the opposite!  :lol:  I wish all the info BUT the CAS would go off... I seem to notice PFD CAS warnings allot sooner then MFD ones. From the (for me) site line,

 

the CAS in the MFD is out of site.

 

 

That's not strictly true as FSX was, for example, used as part of the original Redbird Jay trainer

 

Well, what I was getting at, Carenado isn't one of those companies  like PMDG, RXP and Majestic, that offer "pro" stuff... and those guys usually exceed what anyone at MS thought

FSX could do back in 2006.  Freaked them out so bad, they made FLIGHT... :lol:

 

 

Just as I was disappointed with Bert's suggestion that I have to turn off the entire instrumentation redundancy on the PFD to get rid of the noisome CAS black square.

 

 

These are not earth-shaking things.

 

 

I do not own a real TBM, but I actually suspect this may work this way in the real plane as well.

 

The display backup feature is there so that you can fly with the MFD dark, but when the MFD is lit up,

you have all the info there, so why duplicate it on the PFD?

Yes, am reading the manual for the real G1000 system included in the TBM850, and the Carenado is working to spec. Surprising how extensive Carenado's implementation of this system actually is, btw; quite pleased with that.

Well I finally got it and I've taken it for a few test flights. I like it quite a bit so far. I'm having a few minor issues but I'm not sure yet if they're user error or bugs.

 

As for the frame rate, I would say it's "heavy" on the frame rate (more so than the P46T), but not extremely heavy, like the 182T. When sitting still on the runway, FPS is similar to the P46T, but in flight or when panning the view, it drops a little bit lower. It's perfectly flyable  everywhere except the worst areas for frame rate (OrbX Seattle etc), but in those areas, the FPS is really too low on my system regardless of which plane I fly.

I don't know what they did – sharpness and the refresh seem to be reduced slightly, but it's not enough to be noticeable in use. I think the root of the problem with the 182 and SR22 was the actual XML code running behind the gauge, which they must have optimized and cleaned up.

 

With SP1, I've been able to achieve about 302-303 KTAS so far, which seems a little low but not totally unrealistic. I kind of wish it would do the advertised 320 kts.

With SP1, I've been able to achieve about 302-303 KTAS so far, which seems a little low but not totally unrealistic. I kind of wish it would do the advertised 320 kts.

Mine does 320 kts at 26,000 feet, with the 850 setting set (!)

 

Have you got it on?

 

 

Yup, 850 setting is on. I tried it at 31,000 feet, though. What kind of Torque are you able to achieve?

At ISA temps I was never able to get it to 320 here...best I had was 315...its the temps that are going to dictate exactly how much speed youre going to attain...at FL310 you're losing power...it's sweet spot is around FL260 (but again it depends upon outside temps, so read the performance chart that comes with the plane to understand what you need to do as far as alts and torque levels).

At ISA temps I was never able to get it to 320 here...best I had was 315...its the temps that are going to dictate exactly how much speed youre going to attain...at FL310 you're losing power...it's sweet spot is around FL260 (but again it depends upon outside temps, so read the performance chart that comes with the plane to understand what you need to do as far as alts and torque levels).

According to the performance tables, at FL310 in ISA conditions it should do 309 - 319 kts TAS (depending on weight) at 98% Torque with a lower fuel flow than 26,000 ft (at 317 - 323 KTAS). ~303 KTAS isn't too far off, but that was with just two people and 60% fuel on board.

 

It looks like performance of the engine drops off a little too quickly at high altitudes. I think my fuel flow was lower than the performance tables as well.

yea, .with the sp1 patch the speeds are within about 5% of published (im not going to complain about that). I never tested the fuel flow rates but according to articles written about the TBM and an actual TBM pilot who posted earlier in this thread, they're supposedly quite similar to the real plane...although again, you're not going to find perfection in what is essentially developed and marketed as a purely entertainment product for $40.

As soon as I use the mouse and the mouse pointer appears I get a huge FPS hit. When the pointer dissapears it takes a while and the FPS go up again.

Can anybody confirm this or is it just me...?

 

As they say: "The baseball just kept getting bigger, and then it hit me.."

 

After looking at the G1000 code in some detail and marveling at the elaborate mouse routines,

it hit me that all this code does not have to be executed if the mouse pointer is inactive..

 

As soon as you bring the mouse pointer onto the screen, hundreds, if not thousands lines of

code get executed to determine where you are pointing and what action you might want to trigger..

 

That has got to eat framerates.. :(

According to the performance tables, at FL310 in ISA conditions it should do 309 - 319 kts TAS (depending on weight) at 98% Torque with a lower fuel flow than 26,000 ft (at 317 - 323 KTAS). ~303 KTAS isn't too far off, but that was with just two people and 60% fuel on board.

 

It looks like performance of the engine drops off a little too quickly at high altitudes. I think my fuel flow was lower than the performance tables as well.

 

Yeah.....The power drops off substaintially at 27,000ft. From there up the power and FF is way under charts (but speed still semi-normal) .... It seems like 26,000ft. is the highest you can fly close to the charts....

 

 

As soon as you bring the mouse pointer onto the screen, hundreds, if not thousands lines of
code get executed to determine where you are pointing and what action you might want to trigger..
 
That has got to eat framerates..

 

Very interesting find Bert, seems to me that's all the more reason to assign key strokes to simulate button presses and knob turns. 

Very interesting find Bert, seems to me that's all the more reason to assign key strokes to simulate button presses and knob turns. 

 

I find for optimum framerates, I have to only leave the primary display in front of me turned on and I only turn on the other displays if I need them.  Framerates jump significantly when I work things this way.  Since high fps aren't that important in the flight levels I leave the displays turned on during cruise, and turn them off only when I am in the approach pattern or during the first few moments after takeoff.  It's not entirely realistic but it allows my slower system to work with the aircraft.

 

John