Aerosoft CRJ 700/900 Released!!!

[joemiller 269]

4 hours ago, nealmac said:

Dear God.

 

Mitch, if you're that unhappy with it, just ask for a refund. You have nothing to loose.

 

Have you looked at the list of things being addressed in the latest update? It's obviously a major update, compared with the updates that have already been released. If you can't wait patiently for another couple of days then you seriously need help. Have you no other aircraft you can play about with? I bet you were one of the ones moaning about the original delay. It's because of people like that that it got rushed in the first place. Some people are never happy.

Well, here we go again with his...  1000th rant. Why?"  His intention is another-  Easy! In fact you or I could offer to refund his money and this person will still make noise.  

Interestingly enough the thread remains open despite several very malicious and rude posts. Hmm, but if  this were a PMDG topic, it would have been locked within the first 2 days. Hmmm (hint, hint) 

[Mitch24 194]

1 hour ago, joemiller said:

Well, here we go again with his...  1000th rant. Why?"  His intention is another-  Easy! In fact you or I could offer to refund his money and this person will still make noise.  

Interestingly enough the thread remains open despite several very malicious and rude posts. Hmm, but if  this were a PMDG topic, it would have been locked within the first 2 days. Hmmm (hint, hint) 

 

Even though my post had absolutely nothing malicious about it, but sure, if you want to get offended by it, that's fine. Lets just lock every topic if somebody gets offended!

[Nyxx 6,993]

Aerosoft can do no wrong fan               v                   Someone pointing out a bug.

   

[BrianW 124]

6 hours ago, joemiller said:

(1) However, we have folks asking for a sim which they can study with? So it must be near 99% accurate in all systems and so. Will that make a difference if you're not flying the real thing nor getting off the ground? Hmmm, no. Then? That's like someone saying: "Oh jeez, I always wanted to be a surgeon; so I'll buy tons of books and a lab. But, I don't like a particular lab cause it's missing the ventilator or a volunteer  I can cut his neck" 

(2) A sim is a sim, it simulates something, in our case, flight. My point is if someone is going to scream because his add-on is missing a screw, (or ) then, what he really needs is the real thing, and no it will not cost $50.00 nor $140.00 , but millions. 

(3)  And, if I may ask..... who are PMDG, FSLabs and Majectic's customers?  Hmmmmmm... Boeing , Airbus,  CAE, NASA, United Airliner, Virgin, Locheed Martin? Hmmm, or some local instructors wanting to show his students what a 747 will look like in 20 years when they no longer fly the Cessna 182?  (Maybe). 

And, by-the-way, Aerosoft also have commercial customers for their Aircraft, so? Shouldn't they be part of your list?  LoL 

I still don’t understand your argument, it almost feels like you’re saying we should all just be happy with the way default aircraft work, and the only reason to buy an addon is for something that looks like a particular aircraft.  Or, maybe it’s a difference in the meaning of “study sim”.  For me the term comes from the days where games (mainly air combat) would include several different aircraft but the systems were all the same.  The term study sim was used to indicate that a game offered an aircraft with some systems that were specific and representative of the real thing. It was never meant to specify a percentage of closeness to the real thing.  Maybe the meaning has changed a bit over time, but to me it doesn’t mean it’s an aircraft to use to study for flying the real thing.  The term commonly used to describe the systems depth is “complex”, which can also be a misnomer because it doesn’t always mean the aircraft is harder to operate.  For example both the Aerosoft A320 and the FSLabs A320 can use the same flows and checklists.  So by definition yes the CRJ is a “study sim”, but the level of systems depth or “complexity” misses the mark in some areas.

 

Back to my point though, accurate systems does make a difference to many people. Just because you personally don’t notice, or don’t care, doesn't make it a silly waste of time.  It’s all about that immersion factor we’re all trying to achieve.

 

I have no idea who commercially uses these products or for what purpose, but I do know they’re all detailed enough to be used to some extent for aircraft familiarization.  Doesn't Aerosoft having commercial customers negate your whole argument though?  Aerosoft (and the other devs) could also be providing a much different product commercially than what we see.  In the end it all comes down to customer requirements.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

8 hours ago, Nyxx said:

Aerosoft can do no wrong fan               v                   Someone pointing out a bug.   

 

Quite shockingly, in the "AS can do no wrong" vs. "Why shouldn't bugs be reported once they've been spotted?" battle, Hans Hartmann and Aerosoft have teamed up with the "bug reporters" ():

 

• The misunderstanding on which the currently flawed pressurization system is based has been identified. (Identification equals chance für rectification.) And AS wants this system to be reasonably modeled just like anyone else. (Reasonably does *NOT* equal perfectly.)
• We also have been provided an explanation for the currently limited functions of the TCAS. (Resolution advisories have not yet been implemented because the whole TCAS had/has to be build up from scratch in 64bit because of P3Dv4 - now that is some task! Again, reasonable/plausible advisories are welcome, *NO* 1:1 implementation of the real thing would be feasible or required ... or affordable.)

 

In conclusion, there isn't really much of a difference between how Hans Hartmann/Aerosoft would like to have their product and what "bug reporters" would like to see corrected and/or implemented.  

 

[Nyxx 6,993]

I agree.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Version 1.0.1 is now available in Aerosoft customer accounts, but maybe not quite yet from other vendors. They may still need a few more hours or, in some cases, even days to update their files:

Not yet the official release statement, but:

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126621-rudder/&do=findComment&comment=838792

What to expect:

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126457-new-build/&do=findComment&comment=838478

 

EDIT:

Official release statement with final changelog:

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126625-crj-updated-to-101/

Edited August 31, 2017 by Gone
Latest official info released by Aerosoft

[JYW 2,977]

Thanks @Gone - Downloading v1.01 now.   Then a quick flight to test that Nav tracking!  :)

[Nyxx 6,993]

List if you're too lazy to click link

1.0.10    Rev 269

- [Fixed] Fuel/Time calculation updating on legs with ToC/ToD

- [Fixed] MFD SAT/TAT indications no longer locked to -14/-28

- [Fixed] Late turn to new direct leg

- [Checked] DME Autotune update (no issue found)

- [Fixed] Wrong CoG/trim calculation for CRJ-900

- [Fixed] CTD when holding is part of the flightplan

- [Fixed] (DIR) not commanding a turn (turn condition not met)

- [Added] Pilot-defined waypoints on LEGS page (PBD, PBPB, ATD, Lat/Lon, Lat/Lon shorthand)

- [Added] Pilot-defined waypoints on DEFINE PILOT WPT page (PBD, PBPB, Lat/Lon)

- [Added] Loading and saving of named pilot-defined waypoints

- [Changed] Moved userwpt.txt from NavData folder to "<Documents>\Aerosoft\Digital Aviation CRJ"

- [Added] vPilot support (transponder mode and squawk ident)

- [Added] Center of Gravity indication on DAVE Payload page

- [Added] Takeoff Trim indication on DAVE Payload page

- [Added] Sensitivity for autopilot disconnect by yoke not configurable via DAVE Options page 3/3

- [Fixed] Fuel Used now resets if aircraft is powered down

- [Fixed] Landing time on FLT LOG page

- [Added] MFD HSI/NAV mode glideslope indicator

- [Fixed] AP/APU/XPDR event trigger optimization

- [Fixed] PFD/MFD: VORx/LOCx red and boxed when no signal is received

- [Fixed] (INTC) to DME arc transition

- [Fixed] Improved drawing of DME arc and radius to fix legs

- [Fixed] Further turn radius fine tuning

- [Fixed] Wrong distance and time indication for next waypoint in MFD window

- [Fixed] Yoke issues!

- [Fixed] APU Start in flight

- [Fixed] Turn radius fine tuning

- [Fixed] VNAV and ToD calculations

- [Fixed] Missed Approach procedure calculations

- [Fixed] General distance, time and fuel calculations

- [Added] DAVE: Flaps 20 takeoff speeds option

- [Fixed] 2D Panels: Possible CTD on resizing

- [Fixed] DAVE: Doors reopening when clicking "CLOSED" twice

- [Fixed] TOD Indication in MFD VNAV window (TOD time & distance not correct yet)

- [Fixed] WXR: Increased gain

- [Added] Additional measures against string buffer overflow CTDs

- [Removed] Crash Handler

- [Fixed] FMS: NAV Tracking

- [Fixed] FMS: TTG/Fuel calculation on directs

- [Fixed] FMS: TTG/Fuel calculation on legs with ToC/ToD

- [Fixed] HGS: FD indication

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

10 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

(...)

- [Added] Pilot-defined waypoints on LEGS page (PBD, PBPB, ATD, Lat/Lon, Lat/Lon shorthand)

- [Added] Pilot-defined waypoints on DEFINE PILOT WPT page (PBD, PBPB, Lat/Lon)

(...)

 

Excerpt, if Nuno is too lazy to read it all  

 

@Nuno Pinto: Nuuuuunooooo!!!!!

[Nuno Pinto 1,394]

I got it i got it and i did read it all lol.

Thing is, i didn't buy the CRJ (I got the B717 instead, remember?), so i'll have to check at my friend's house ASAP.

Thanks for the heads up!

[Mitch24 194]

1 hour ago, JYW said:

Thanks @Gone - Downloading v1.01 now.   Then a quick flight to test that Nav tracking!  :)

Please report back. I am very interested If I should keep this one in my hangar or fly it again!

[nealmac 260]

I can't check it out until later. Apart from the LNAV issue, can anyone that was having problems with being unable to connect/disconnect the GPU, wheel chocks etc, the ice detection bug, and hiding the yoke, confirm that they have been fixed?

[JYW 2,977]

Quick test flight completed.

• FMS NAV (and specifically DTO and STAR tracking) seems spot on.   I did a DTO to a waypoint 160nm away and the CRJ tracked to it perfectly, right "on the line".   Seems great.
• Yoke removal clickspot is back, and the yoke can be toggled without having to load a default aircraft now. Eg. it just works.
• No issues for me with GPU, wheel chock removal, etc.   All worked fine.

The only issue I had is that I still could not import a flight plan (created in Simbrief, with their new output specifically for the AS CRJ).   The FP appears in the route list, but clicking on it results in "LOAD ERROR".    Same error when I try putting the FP name into the COROUTE ("Route") field of the FLPLN page.

I think most will be pretty happy with the update.  I do still think the product has a long way to go though.  Especially on sounds;  both engine sounds (which IMHO are still very weak) and also immersive additions like V1, VR callouts, etc.  It still feels like the product is only really providing the bare minimums and I think we're used to more now.

The glareshield cowelling that sits right in front of the pilot's view desperately needs to be re-textured too!    It looks like 256 resolution textures.

Click the image to see what I mean.

........and in the real CRJ700 :-