Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dreamflight767

How's the CRJ with the new update?

Recommended Posts

How is the Aerosoft RJ with update V 1.0.1.1?


Aaron Ortega

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D 3.4 GHz 8-Core Processor, Asus TUF GAMING X570-PLUS (WI-FI) ATX AM4 Motherboard, Samsung 980 Pro 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive, SAMSUNG 870 QVO SATA III SSD 4TB, Asus TUF GAMING GeForce RTX 3090 24 GB Video Card, ASUS ROG STRIX 850G 850W Gold Power Supply, Windows 10 x64 Home

Share this post


Link to post

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.


Ryzen 9 3950X / RTX 2080 Ti / 32GB DDR4 (3200MHz @ 14-14-14-34)

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Upvote 2

Active Pattern: MSFS2020 | In Long term Storage: Prepar3d  

How I Evaluate Third Party Sim Addon Developers

Refined P3Dv5.0 HF2 Settings Part1 (has MaddogX) and older thread Part 2 (has PMDG 747)

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

  

  • Upvote 4

Ilya Eydis, PPL, ASEL

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

  • Upvote 1

Cheers, Ed

MSFS Steam - Win10 Home x64 // Rig: Corsair Graphite 760T Full Tower - ASUS MBoard Maximus XII Hero Z490 - CPU Intel i9-10900K - 64GB RAM - MSI RTX2080 Super 8GB - [1xNVMe M.2 1TB + 1xNVMe M.2 2TB (Samsung)] + [1xSSD 1TB + 1xSSD 2TB (Crucial)] + [1xSSD 1TB (Samsung)] + 1 HDD Seagate 2TB + 1 HDD Seagate External 4TB - Monitor LG 29UC97C UWHD Curved - PSU Corsair RM1000x - VR Oculus Rift // MSFS Steam - Win 10 Home x64 - Gaming Laptop CUK ASUS Strix - CPU Intel i7-8750H - 32GB RAM - RTX2070 8GB - SSD 2TB + HDD 2TB // Thrustmaster FCS & MS XBOX Controllers

Share this post


Link to post
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!

 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
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!

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post

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!

  • Upvote 1

David Murden  MSFS   Fenix A320  PMDG 737 • MG Honda Jet • 414 / TDS 750Xi •  FS-ATC Chatter • FlyingIron Spitfire & ME109G • MG Honda Jet 

 Fenix A320 Walkthrough PDF   Flightsim.to •

DCS  A10c II  F-16c  F/A-18c • F-14 • (Others in hanger) • Supercarrier  Terrains = • Nevada NTTR  Persian Gulf  Syria • Marianas • 

• 10900K@4.9 All Cores HT ON   32GB DDR4  3200MHz RTX 3080  • TM Warthog HOTAS • TM TPR • Corsair Virtuoso XT with Dolby Atmos®  Samsung G7 32" 1440p 240Hz • TrackIR 5 & ProClip

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...