Installs no problem, the usual Aerosoft quick online registration check of your serial number and you are good to go. Flies very nicely indeed and has some nice features, such as the EFB on both sides of the cockpit which has a lot of useful stuff on it such as passenger config, V-speeds, checklists, ground services etc. Sounds are particularly well done. VC has plenty of functionality.

Bit harder on FPS than the iFly 737 NG (as a comparison for those of you who have that one), but still okay as long as you don't go mental on the sim's sliders, obviously the much less complex Virtualcol CRJ does a lot better in that regard, but if you want all the proper avionics, this would the CRJ of choice. Taxies pretty well and seems to perform on the numbers pretty well too. It's obviously a bit more challenging to fly than a Boeing or an Airbus, what with no autothrottle, but it is easy to stablise the speed, so it is pleasant to land manually, even in quite a crosswind. Texturing is good and stands up to close inspection with detail such as stencilling visible on the fuselage and the 3D model is nicely done too.

Certainly worth a look if you want a popular RJ for FSX or P3D for an okay price and of course Aerosoft are one of the better choices for support, which is another plus point. Of course if you are worried about FPS and want a simpler 'jump in and go' CRJ, then the Virtualcol one is cheaper, a lot less complex and includes more variants of the CRJ although it's VC is a lot less pretty, so if you want something a bit more 'study sim' then this Aerosoft would be the way to go. Personally, I think it's nice to have both options, especially since they both work in FSX and P3D.

3 minutes ago, Chock said:

Bit harder on FPS than the iFly 737 NG (as a comparison for those of you who have that one), but still okay as long as you don't go mental on the sim's sliders

Thanks Chock...sent me scrambling to see whether the iFly was better or worse than the PMDG.  (For everyone else, from what I find...iFly is better on frames.) 

The reason I chose that as a comparison, is because the iFly 737 NG is really impressive on frame rates in P3D V4, especially for an airliner with which you can simulate a lot of realism. It's not as 'shiny' as the newly-tweaked P3D V4 PMDG 737 NG of course, but it's a good value package which 'does the job' in most respects and would certainly be a recommendation for those worried about FPS. On initial release the iFly P3D V4 NG was a bit choppy on performance, but they patched it a day or so after the release and whatever it was they did, it speeded its performance up a hell of a lot, so it's kind of my 'jet airliner benchmark to aim for' for P3D V4, particularly if you start adding a lot of fancy FPS-hungry add-ons.

We may be thrilled to be enjoying the fact that P3D V4 won't OOM, but we should be aware that state of affairs is going to give developers enough rope to hang themselves, by adding all kinds of stuff they couldn't get away with before, so it is perhaps even more critical now that they make sure they optimise the hell out of add-ons, because every developer is going to be pushing their content to greater limits now.

Thanks a lot,Alan, for posting that initial flight and Review. I was awaiting to see some reports and feedback on this.

Now, thanks to you, may just pull the trigger.

Thanks for that review Alan.

One further question, Alan.

No auto-throttle, only advisory vertical navigation. So, is it a difficult plane to fly?

Thanks.

19 minutes ago, vc10man said:

One further question, Alan.

No auto-throttle, only advisory vertical navigation. So, is it a difficult plane to fly?

Thanks.

Nah, the Aerosoft CRJ flies beautifully, much less of a handful than the Virtualcol one, which is very easy to overspeed and seems overpowered to me. Of course never having flown a real CRJ, I couldn't say which was more realistic, but if I had to make an educated guess, I'd say the Aerosoft one is probably nearer the mark.

This Bombardier CRJ has not really been on my radar, which means that I have avoided the frustration associated with the excessive development period. However, the screenshots and video clips have made me sit up and take notice. I am not bothered about lack of auto throttles or vertical navigation, since I prefer to hand fly my planes at low speeds and low altitudes so that I can enjoy the scenery! The flight dynamics are VERY important to me, together with the quality of the VC and sound effects.

I am assuming that the lack of gear compression evident in the preview video is simply a consequence of recording in REPLAY mode? I can't imagine that this aircraft would not include simulated gear compression on landing. Can anyone confirm that?

Visual comparison between the Aerosoft CRJ and the Virtualcol one, in all cases, the Aerosoft is the upper image of the two...

Aerosoft VC:

Virtualcol VC:

Aerosoft Nose:

Virtualcol Nose:

Aerosoft Tail:

Virtualcol Tail:

Aerosoft Undercarriage:

Virtualcol Undercarriage:

Aerosoft Exterior View:

Virtualcol Exterior View:

3 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I am assuming that the lack of gear compression evident in the preview video is simply a consequence of recording in REPLAY mode? I can't imagine that this aircraft would not include simulated gear compression on landing. Can anyone confirm that?

If Alan can kindly confirm this, then even though I am at work, this will be an Instant Buy for me.

EDIT: Are you sure you are not on an AS commission, Alan, because you are doing a great 'sales' job for them. Excellent screenshots that really show up the differences. Thank you for that.

Nah - although if Aerosoft want to send me a cheque, I'll be happy to receive it lol - I just thought it'd be interesting to compare the two because from what i can gather on these forums, quite a few people bought the Virtualcol CRJ, it being one of the first airliners which was P3D V4 ready.

Since you asked nicely, landing video coming in a minute...

4 minutes ago, Chock said:

Since you asked nicely, landing video coming in a minute...

Great, look forward to it.

P..ssst.............somebody should have a in Mathijs' ears!

30 minutes ago, vc10man said:

One further question, Alan.

No auto-throttle, only advisory vertical navigation. So, is it a difficult plane to fly?

Thanks.

It's not difficult. The main operating mode for climbs and descents is speed hold - in which the aircraft will pitch to maintain the IAS dialed in on the AP control panel.

Since the aircraft (real and simulated) has FADEC equipped engines, climbs are very easy. The throttles are simply left in the CLB detent, and the SPD button on the AP is depressed once. As long as the selected altitude is higher than current altitude, the aircraft will pitch up to maintain the selected speed, and the resulting rate of climb will depend on the current weight and outside air temperature.

As the aircraft starts to level off, the pilot has to begin reducing thrust to prevent speed increasing. In cruise, the speed bug on the PFD is for reference only - speed is totally dependent on manual throttle control. There is a trend vector on the PFD to show if your speed will tend to increase or decrease. It's pretty intuitive, and not difficult to maintain your desired cruise. It pretty much depends on your hardware power levers. Best results come from having axes that operate smoothly and without noise spikes.

In descent, you first dial down the selected altitude, then press the SPD button once to enable SPD DES mode. As you start reducing power, the aircraft will pitch down to maintain the selected Mach or IAS (typically 290 knots above 10,000). 

Descents may take some getting used to for those not used to this way of doing things. To increase the rate of descent, you decrease power - to slow the rate of descent, you increase power.

On approach, you will typically have to slowly increase power as flaps and gear are extended and drag increases. The PFD airspeed trend vector is very helpful.

Thanks for that very explanatory write-up, Jim. Between you and Alan, you have made this a Buy for me.

So, the FADEC engines are more or less like the Airbus' then?

2 hours ago, Chock said:

I

Certainly worth a look if you want a popular RJ for FSX or P3D for an okay price and of course Aerosoft are one of the better choices for support, which is another plus point. 

 

Thanks Chock