I'm looking for a 2 engine transport jet that I could do realistic engine out, V1 cut scenarios.I'm presently furloughed from a CRJ 200 and want to practice some things, but there isn't a good CRJ 200 for FSXI noticed that Level D 767 lists "Programmation of engine failures triggered by speed (V1/V2/Vr)". Is this a good choice or would there be others capable of this? Is the Embraer Regional Jets 135/145 by Wilco capable of this?I'm running FSX with Windows 7-64 bit.

Is the Embraer Regional Jets 135/145 by Wilco capable of this?

noyou can turn off an engine if you like. be advised feelThere does not create 'failure simulators', the game is not certifed for use as a trainer, and to use the ERJv2 in a commercial setting requires gaining persission from feelThere (see EULA and manual copyrights).

Is the Embraer Regional Jets 135/145 by Wilco

the ERJv2 IS NOT A WILCO PRODUCT. the ERJ v2 (135, 145, XRJ) is a feelThere product. wilco happens to be selling the product. you can purchase the ERJv2 directly from feelThere.--

I believe the LevelD would do what you're looking for....There is a CRJ in the works....not sure how far out it is...http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...3966&st=240The link shows the end of 13 pages of discussion - I think there are better pics a few pages back...

I believe the LSH Maddog (MD 80) will simulate failures in the fashion you are looking for. You can research/buy it at Simmarket.com. Search for "Maddog". BTW, it is regarded by many to be the finest addon plane you can get!

I believe the LSH Maddog (MD 80) will simulate failures in the fashion you are looking for. You can research/buy it at Simmarket.com. Search for "Maddog". BTW, it is regarded by many to be the finest addon plane you can get!

Except it's really hard on fps.... so minus that...

And it's a rear engined aircraft, so asymmetric thrust with one engine out is minimal too.Al

And it's a rear engined aircraft, so asymmetric thrust with one engine out is minimal too.Al

Good point! But the crj is the same way is it not?

Well, true enough. In any case, I just noticed that the OP wanted to practice specifically for a CRJ to keep their hand in, so one assumes the MD might do the trick if it has a CRJ panel swapped in. Practicing real procedures in FS is generally only good in terms of reinforcing vital action drills rather than imagining FS will simulate engine out flight characteristics in any especially realistic manner, so I guess finding a decent CRJ panel is the priority in this instance, and as noted, there is one on the way for FSX.Al

If you are in the lookouts for a CRJ-200, then Wilco has the answer with the CRJ fleet. Though originally developed for FS2004 only, there's a free FSX patch on site.

If you are in the lookouts for a CRJ-200, then Wilco has the answer with the CRJ fleet. Though originally developed for FS2004 only, there's a free FSX patch on site.

Originally developed for FS2002 then patched for FS2004 then patched for FSX...The best CRJ200 currently in the making is for X-Plane by the way... Look up the videos on Youtube.Alex

Except it's really hard on fps.... so minus that...

Not "minus that" at all, Ryan. That's way too subjective. Maybe on your machine, perhaps! It absolutely, totally depends upon your system and how it's set up. There are probably many hundreds of users - including me - that are getting very acceptable frames.. - many of them are r/w pilots and many more fly Vatsim or other linked cockpit systems. Just visit the forum. One simply has to understand what is important when flying a tube.. 30% road traffic? 15% ships? massive autogen? etc... follow Nick and Bojote, roll some back, adjust the VC performance settings in the Load Manager and 22 is quite normal at KSEA.Al's note on the closeness of the engines to the center-line of the fuse has more legitimacy, but if all you want to achieve is the sensation of a strong pull into the dead engine almost any aircraft with wing-mounted engines will suffice: the benefit of the Maddog is that all the systems that go along with a dead engine are simulated, plus all the engine-out procedures need to be followed - and are well documented, as per the r/w aircraft. It's not "Ctrl-E+1" engine re-light.Now - that's a lot more interesting... :(

Originally developed for FS2002 then patched for FS2004 then patched for FSX...The best CRJ200 currently in the making is for X-Plane by the way... Look up the videos on Youtube.Alex

The X-Plane forum is thataway ---->

Thanks for all the replysI'll look into them

Originally developed for FS2002 then patched for FS2004 then patched for FSX...The best CRJ200 currently in the making is for X-Plane by the way... Look up the videos on Youtube.Alex

Where have I heard something like this before, HMMM???Of yeah,The Best A320 currently in the making is by AirSimmers (or Airliners XP)!We all know what became of them! Let's not make the same mistake and wait until the product is released, and we see it for real before we sing accolades about it!

Not "minus that" at all, Ryan. That's way too subjective. Maybe on your machine, perhaps! It absolutely, totally depends upon your system and how it's set up.

I see this a lot - and the problem is users are getting used to poor programming, in terms of modeling and its effect on performance. What you need to do is setup a test much like the Petraeus Index did. You test all the planes in your inventory against the default CRJ VC. You don't say "Oh xyz plane performs great on my system!" No no no - this doesn't tell the end user anything. You need to figure out a ratio of performance between a default model, all the other payware you have, and the specific aircraft in question. For instance, "xyz airplane performs at 50% of default crj, while abc plane performs at 110%" That way users know how the new addon may perform on their system. And if I recall the Index was averaged over 20 or more users... The Petreaus Index did it right - such a shame most was lost in the avsim hack... arggghhh