I stayed with hotfix .4 and other than occasional nav tracking issues on very long legs i'm having no issues flying it.

I could be wrong but i don't think this was promised as a pmdg study level sim.  I seek to recall Mathis (sp?) at aerosoft saying multiple times the functionality would be comparable to the Aerosoft airbus, basically just the systems a pilot would use on a typical flight.

Well that's their level of depth. 

I would like this aircraft at some point for use with Delta V, but being like there Airbus is a real turn off. Will have to keep on eye on it for another month before I decide.

I like they made pop up's unlike the airbus. Thats a big plus for me.

Is the FO side a mirror of the Captain's side or have they stopped that rubbish as well?

 

 

1 minute ago, Nyxx said:

(...)

Is the FO side a mirror of the Captain's side or have they stopped that rubbish as well?

 

No mirroring in the CRJ, the two sides are independent. You could activate all pop-up displays (both sides) at the same time, and even opt for continuing display rendering in the VC despite the active popups. (Default is, with popups active, the VC displays are off.)

There's also an option to switch off the offside displays in the VC.

I have no issues undocking the popups, dragging them to a 2nd screen and resizing them.

Now, let's get rid of the (L)NAV issues, give me the rest of the system details (medium-depth only is requested) in a SP and I'll be a happy camper ...

 

Good to hear.

4 hours ago, regis9 said:

I could be wrong but i don't think this was promised as a pmdg study level sim.  I seek to recall Mathis (sp?) at aerosoft saying multiple times the functionality would be comparable to the Aerosoft airbus, basically just the systems a pilot would use on a typical flight.

Actually he has stated in the past that it wasn’t going to be like the Airbus series and more systems focused.

 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/33966-aerosoft-da-crj-preview-released/&page=85&tab=comments#comment-542851

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/33966-aerosoft-da-crj-preview-released/&page=88&tab=comments#comment-553345

 

At some point the goal of the project may have changed, but I don't remember seeing an official statement about it.

Also, the AS CRJ is 25% more expensive than the AS Airbus. Without the virtual F/O from the Airbus and without deeper system modeling, how would AS explain the price increase?

Still, my expectation is "mid-level with a plus", not study level sim. The potential is there, but some CRJ systems need to catch up (... with the release date, LOL!)

It's getting slightly absurd (just slightly ):

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126270-pressurization-systemdescent-mode/&do=findComment&comment=837968

 

"Strange as it sounds, we also do not know if this is a bug. We got tables that are exactly as it is now implemented, but we agree, it is damned weird and we'll try to find more information and might redo that system."

I think you're correct.  It seems that they may have used the manual isobaric hold mode as the main pressurization method.  

That explains why a short flight I did from KJAC to KWYS at 13,000 ft forced my cabin altitude down to almost sea level when it shouldn't have moved more than 200 ft or so. This is also how I discovered there was no control of the system either. None my attempts to manually get the cabin back up around 6600' worked.

55 minutes ago, BrianW said:

(...)  It seems that they may have used the manual isobaric hold mode as the main pressurization method.  (...)

 

Confirmation bias.  

In the CRJ, some systems do work in a weird way. (Arming thrust reversers? Seriously???) FCOMs are always imprecise one way or the other, but RW CRJ manuals are even worse.

Guess, Aerosoft peeps expected the CRJ pressurization system to be ... exotic as well, so they implemented a documented manual mode as an assumed automatic one. It could have been sooo much easier, folks ...  

On 8/22/2017 at 1:41 AM, Gone said:

 

Actually ... yes:  

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126156-further-systems-refinement-frank-do-not-read-this/

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126270-pressurization-systemdescent-mode/

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126382-more-on-tcas-tas-and-ras-missing/

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126320-fake-tcas-relabs-selection/

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126220-the-final-word-on-maximum-wx-radar-tilt/

 

 

Ahhh, I see what you're after. For $50.00 you want the real thing with every point to the dot. Sure, there are a few things they will fix and Aerosoft is working on them diligently , but reading your posts at Aerosoft, I see your intentions. (By-the-way, if you think you have so much knowledge I strongly encourage you to develop one of these babies for us, and get ready to make some serious money.. will you?) No? ....then ???? 

Therefore, when I hear (or read) people asking for a "study level" add-on, I shyly* ask:

- Are you a pilot trainee?

-  Are you willing to spend $200 million ++ for a study level ...hmmm... a/c or sim?

- If your favorite add-on is the best planet earth has seen (lol) or a "study level" a/c; then why (tell me why) isn't that "...." not being used by NASA, Lockheed Martin,  CAE, Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Flight Safety International, etc, etc as a Study Level Sim ? 

Ooooops, and back to reality. 

Cheers !

I would just be happy if it worked right.  Too many bugs to fly and it has been in the hanger after 3 flights.  Wish I could just get my money back and wait patiently for FLS320 :)

Darcy

7 minutes ago, joemiller said:

(...) "study level" add-on (...)

 

M8,

mid-level is what I've been saying and mid-level bugs are what I've been reporting. The things you quoted have been working in mid-level aircraft like the ...

• feelThere ERJ v2 (40 USD)
• AS A32x (50 USD)
• F1 ATR 72-500 (45 USD)
• F1 Fokker 70/100 (50 USD)
• and many more

FYI, the AS CRJ 700/900 is 60 USD.  

How dare you point out flaws Gone, how dare you  big fans hate that, just hate it  and then we have to read rubbish like this.  

2 hours ago, joemiller said:

 

Ahhh, I see what you're after. For $50.00 you want the real thing with every point to the dot. Sure, there are a few things they will fix and Aerosoft is working on them diligently , but reading your posts at Aerosoft, I see your intentions. (By-the-way, if you think you have so much knowledge I strongly encourage you to develop one of these babies for us, and get ready to make some serious money.. will you?) No? ....then ???? 

Therefore, when I hear (or read) people asking for a "study level" add-on, I shyly* ask:

- Are you a pilot trainee?

-  Are you willing to spend $200 million ++ for a study level ...hmmm... a/c or sim?

- If your favorite add-on is the best planet earth has seen (lol) or a "study level" a/c; then why (tell me why) isn't that "...." not being used by NASA, Lockheed Martin,  CAE, Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Flight Safety International, etc, etc as a Study Level Sim ? 

Ooooops, and back to reality. 

Cheers !

 

8 hours ago, Darcy said:

I would just be happy if it worked right.  Too many bugs to fly and it has been in the hanger after 3 flights.  Wish I could just get my money back and wait patiently for FLS320 :)

Darcy

I really hope AS can fix the dreadful FMS NAV tracking soon - I want to be able to enjoy this aircraft but in terms of NAV, it is as close to unflyable as I'd personally define it, at the moment.

I still think it's caused by the extremely shallow bank angle the AP commands!