Feelthere Developing New Ejets for P3D 4.4

[LecLightning56 33]

19 minutes ago, C2615 said:

Oh,no, The aerodynamic is as bad as the old one.

Just did some quick test

LRC FL300, very typical

For E190, with 10200LB, the FMC gives me LRC for M.66, but AOM gives me M.72

manual Speed to M.72 the aircraft gose FF:1640PPH and N1 on 75.7

on AOM, for 50000kg weight, the FF should be 1056Kph(2330pph) N1 should be 83.5

 

For E170, with 82000LB, FMC LRC is M.68,AOM M.67, so that's OK

But, with M.68, FF GIVES 1200PPH. while manual gives 1756PPH under same condition.

and N1 as low as 77.2 rather than 83.2 on the AOM.

 

So.... as "good" as the old one.... that makes my fuel plan from AOM's SFP chart useless,  always overweight on landing....

I had backed up my original version aerodynamic tweak, I'll see if it works with the new one then....

Despite initial praise for this product by various individuals, I am inclined to feel that looks can be deceptive in terms of actual performance and it does sound a little half-baked. Also the price tag is extremely off-putting, so will pass until either there is a sale or more definite improvements are announced to its characteristics.

[HighTowers 1,434]

Hmm fascinating... Some users including real world pilots of the aircraft that the flight dynamics are really good, reacts very similar to their real flying experience, heck many beta tested and complained about it initially and got FT to change alot of things, and yet on the flip side, others have a totally different negative experience to its flight characteristics.  What gives?   There more to it being different SOPs between companies.  The only thing I can think of would be different configurations onboard, but that really shouldnt have that much of an impact at all.  Different spec computer performance perhaps giving a different feel to the aircraft?  Everything is in the eye of the beholder, and screenshots/videos may not convey the same visual as physically seeing it on your monitor. 

[francy25 130]

15 minutes ago, HighTowers said:

Hmm fascinating... Some users including real world pilots of the aircraft that the flight dynamics are really good, reacts very similar to their real flying experience, heck many beta tested and complained about it initially and got FT to change alot of things, and yet on the flip side, others have a totally different negative experience to its flight characteristics.  What gives?   There more to it being different SOPs between companies.  The only thing I can think of would be different configurations onboard, but that really shouldnt have that much of an impact at all.  Different spec computer performance perhaps giving a different feel to the aircraft?  Everything is in the eye of the beholder, and screenshots/videos may not convey the same visual as physically seeing it on your monitor. 

I have experience only on the E195: for what I have seen at the moment the aircraft is not really well made. I had to set the trim a 8UP to land it with flap 5 which is not even close to the real figures. Fuel capacity is totally wrong: real plane takes 13192Kg of fuel while this stops at 9330 (and I suspect that also the weights are wrong). Takeoff trim settings are way off, TO Thrust settings are not working, whatever FLEX TEMP you set  it will give you always the same N1 value. The MCDU is incomplete: TO and LDG Pages are incomplete (No flaps setting, no temperature compensation).
Anti Ice logic is not working (remains on for all the flight), FMA on takeoff gives you the wrong mode (LNAV is engaging while rolling, it should remain to ROLL and then switch to TRACK and at 400ft LNAV kicks in).

These problems goes beyond the possible configurations that the plane can have.

All this for 60$ (120$ if you buy all 4 planes)? Unacceptable.

[C2615 319]

I should make myself very clear, I'm not qualified on EJets, and my company don't have any. The "Airplane Opreation Manual" I'm refering to is something "I found online" . So no guarantee on my side. But personally I'd rather believe these manual than feelthere's job, I tuned the old Ejets with it's cruise table, and gives me very good trip fuel usage as the flight plan chapter gives in the same manual.

It's very common for add-ons from "that age", with proper manual and knowage, I can say ifly737 is about 10% more on fuel, PSS757 and Feelthere 737CL is as way off as the old Ejet dose. I did some tweaks to them , but some developer did not permit me to share that, and they are all very old by now...

Bad news is, the .air data is very different with the V3 version compare to the old one, unlike I can just put if from FS9 to P3Dv4 version. If I got time, I might try to make a mod for that, but noguarantee. Maybe it's better to let Feelthere to fix that...

Systemwise, I feel Feelthere's Ejet and 737CL is not that far behind AS3XX though.

[kiki 89]

3 hours ago, LecLightning56 said:

. Also the price tag is extremely off-putting, so will pass until either there is a sale or more definite improvements are announced to its characteristics.

There are not too many companies in this hobby who understands this formula: decrease your price with 30% and increase your sells with 50%.

[B777ER 2,484]

8 hours ago, francy25 said:

Bought it (175 - 195 since I fly the 195 IRL), some first impressions:

- Some MCDU pages are missing (like Flaps selection at TO and LDG, RTE send you to FPL, FIX page is incomplete)

-Start Up procedure is ok, couple of thing missing (some EICAS messages)

- AP is way too violent

- in TRS TO-3 is missing

- can't set the altimeters to STD: the click spot it's hard to find

- Anti Ice remains ON after TO and never turn off during flight.

- PFD/ND are a bit hard to read in some moments and some fonts overlaps

- VC model is too big and proportions are wrong (not too big deal for me)

- It's nice to hand fly

-FPS are great, really light on the sim.

- External model is super (even if on the 195 the 2R door is too big)

- Pitch during the Approach it's WAY to high (on the 195): at flare I was at almost 20° with Flap 5.

Hope to see some updates in the future to address some of these things, I think that 60$ it's a bit overpriced...for that money it should be better.

In the words of Simon Cowell, "that'll be a no from me".

[Benjamin J 751]

It sounds to me like they might have taken some shortcuts in the simulation of the different variants. The RL pilot that did that series of Youtube videos was using the 175 I think and he seemed quite pleased with the simulation. Some of you that seems more critical seem to be using thr 190 and 195... I wonder if Feelthere took a shortcut and took parts of the 175 to simulate other variants, or vice versa...? Some of the things I hear could potentially also be due to operator-specific options, though certainly things like fuel capacity are unlikely to be due to such differences.

At any rate, I thank you all for being guinea pigs 🙂 I'll probably wait and see if this gets any better and if yes I'll probably go for the 175/195 as the vast majority of airlines I'm interested in appear to go with those types.

[Shomron 251]

I'm surprised to see all of these drawbacks.

This was a considered a very good airliner back in the days.

I thought the only thing aging were the looks.

Question is if I was pleased with the previous version this version will suffice as well?

 

[Vali 83]

Is it me or the nose is closer to the ground than in the reality? I do not know but it looks strange to me, it is like the front landing gear is compressed.

[757FO 143]

Looking at the online manual, it seems that they did not even bother to implement lighting as the real thing, panel lights are either ON or OFF. That is unacceptable in today's standard, I never ever land an airplane at night with the flood lights on, and reading the other feedback from other simmers, I am going to pass on this, it is way too pricey for what is being delivered IMO....

John.

 

[Arklight1 140]

8 hours ago, slait said:

Though, if you want all four models you are looking at $120, so it is in the neighborhood. Too rich for my blood.

 

If you add both packs to your cart, a $20 instant credit is applied. 

[JasonPC 173]

The lights are just as bad as the old version. They didn’t even bother to fix the issues with them. The internal cab is blinded by the landing lights.

[chapstick 2,757]

7 minutes ago, JasonPC said:

The lights are just as bad as the old version. They didn’t even bother to fix the issues with them. The internal cab is blinded by the landing lights.

That’s sad.

[Vali 83]

10 minutes ago, JasonPC said:

The lights are just as bad as the old version. They didn’t even bother to fix the issues with them. The internal cab is blinded by the landing lights.

Yes, that I found it also as a bad choice. I gave them this feedback.

They really need to correct and improve the lighting, is still very outdated regarding this. I like what they did but they really need to polish it up now.

I made a screenshot of the landing gear, as I mentioned above:

[ckyliu 1,749]

Well this was going to be a day one purchase for me. But based on feedback here and the expensive pricing, I am going to sit tight until more positive feedback arrives, it's patched, or it goes on sale. It seems it was rushed to be released before Christmas and shortcuts were taken.

$100 for the four variants compared to Aerosoft A320 family bundle at €80 which has more variations and engines in it, makes the new E-jets look overpriced. Similarly the Aerosoft CRJ700/900 bundle is €75 and seems to be higher quality.