How is the Aerosoft RJ with update V 1.0.1.1?

The enroute LNAV with long directs seems a lot more stable, but now the SIDs and STARs are a lot less precise. Also the turns are pretty awkward, the plane will bank, start to level off, then begin to bank again, sometimes more sharply, until it is on the correct path. The LNAV still needs work, and I'm not sure how some of this stuff got through beta, but it's a step in the right direction at least.

I know there are a lot of apologists for this sort of thing here, but it's clear that this product was (and still is) just not ready for release, right? (I know, it's ironic given how long it was in development.)

Maybe I've just forgotten how things used to be, but it sure seems like a lot more addon aircraft are being released these days in a sort of sub-beta state (in fairness, even saintly PMDG released their 777 with significant FBW logic issues, although they're usually one of the few exceptions to this trend). I genuinely don't remember it being like this before. A real shame.

James

What's funny to me in hindsight were all the negative comments by potential CRJ customers regarding the parallel open beta of a comparable aircraft, the TFDi B717. Most claimed that they would rather wait for a polished product than to endure testing a half finished aircraft.

As it turned out, with the CRJ we got a BOGO deal. I'm not sure that there's a lesson to be learned here other than a small software team (Yeah, Aerosoft is "big" but the CRJ team was just a few people) never can develop a complex product from scratch without the assistance of a diverse beta team.

From what I can tell is that CRJ was made by one man.  But still the hype was there and is it only me that I always notice that Aerosoft planes are super buggy as they are released and it is filled with tons of bug fixes for so many months and then they release something else.  It is like the product isn't fully stable but it is passable.  

I guess this what happens when you contract your work to other developers.

Hoping that CRJ updates get real stable and then I will probably get it.

I am also quite disappointed as a customer.  Not only is it a one man operation as Skywolf mentions, but it seems to be part-time gig for him.  In the latest version, performance has also taken a hit and is now considerably inferior to the 717.  I am expecting all this to be addressed eventually but not anytime soon.  UTLive is in the same boat development-wise.  One developer, part time gig.  Sad.

 

  

Yes, it's disappointing, but I have to give Aerosoft some credit, it seems they are trying to fix the issue, and like SkyWolf said, I think it's just one man with thousands of customers demanding fixes all at once. 

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

What's funny to me in hindsight were all the negative comments by potential CRJ customers regarding the parallel open beta of a comparable aircraft, the TFDi B717. Most claimed that they would rather wait for a polished product than to endure testing a half finished aircraft.

As it turned out, with the CRJ we got a BOGO deal. I'm not sure that there's a lesson to be learned here other than a small software team (Yeah, Aerosoft is "big" but the CRJ team was just a few people) never can develop a complex product from scratch without the assistance of a diverse beta team.

In my opinion, the lesson learned from the CRJ (and also from the B717) experience is, from the developer side, to never again offer a product as "finished", when the developer knows or suspects that is still in an early stage and will need more work/development, It's always better to release a product as an open alfa/beta at a reduced price instead, for those who may want to jump in from the beginning. Take the example of ChasePlane, released as a open alfa, a well-managed product from the commercial point of view, and a complete success, although being an addon of different nature.

I have no immediate plans on buying the CRJ (and the B717 as well), until I know it is a completed project.

Cheers, Ed

 

Quote

- [Fixed] Some more improvement in NAV turn calculation. Still needs a bit of fine tuning due to some over- and undershoots.

 Unfortunately the official FAA formulas for turn radius and turn distance anticipation are not applicable as is.

 Right now, the anticipated turn distance has to be multiplied by 1.35 to avoid a massive overshoot.

1

Seems to me they are adding a constant for leading turns, which is never going to work. It also looks like the formula they are using is a no wind formula. (If they are talking about the standard FAA turn formula.) There is a book on Amazon about GPS math that includes computing turns in a wind environment and with changing airspeeds. Math was above my pay grade as a simple Instructor Pilot. Too many Greek letters!

 

4 hours ago, Mitch24 said:

Yes, it's disappointing, but I have to give Aerosoft some credit, it seems they are trying to fix the issue, and like SkyWolf said, I think it's just one man with thousands of customers demanding fixes all at once. 

I understand they have sold thousands of copies. Each purchaser becoming a "beta" tester, albeit unwittingly. I have to feel sorry for the developer who now has a great deal of beta tester reports to sort out!  The Chase Plane approach appears to be the way forward here. Release it as alpha/beta first and then purchasers know what stage it's at before parting with money.

I recall a similar project, some time ago, of a 727 over on X Plane. That was a little gem of an aircraft and these solo developer guys who devote their expertise on single projects obviously have a "labour of live" approach?  

How many of the issues are discovered by simmers using P3dv4?  Could it be that the upcoming LM update may help fix some issues? Pure speculation of course.

Our hobby is certainly in a state of flux. Not much fun having to constantly apply hot fixes, patches and "upgrades"!

Also, this sim was released across multiple platforms, FSX to P3dv4, so perhaps that may have something to do with it?

Good luck to the dev anyway!

 

 

It's just like there airbus all over again. A bought the TDFi 717 and find it very nice within 3.4 when I used the option to let the gfx handle the displays the performance is fine.

The way they talked on the aerosoft forums when beta testing you would have thought they had beta testing down to a fine art. Hum....

It will get there but when!