Does anybody fly the Aerosoft CRJ Pro?

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, Dreamflight767 said:

this is a SIMULATOR - Simulate: to make a pretense of; feign. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

Some CRJs can have an after-market autothrottle system installed, one such system is Safe Flight Instrument Corporation's AutoPower product, but as far as I am aware it is only available for the 200 series CRJ. 

Of course it's a debatable point as to whether one would want to add one to models which don't have one in real life if the product is described as a simulator. The definition you chose to quote for the word simulate was a bit narrow, for example, the Cambridge Dictionary description for the word simulate includes: 'to do or make something that looks real but is not real', so if we were to go with that description, then yes it is feigning something when you simulate it, but done with the intent of replicating the real thing.

As you say, some pretend aeroplane CRJs for PC-based flight sims do include an autothrottle on their CRJ models (Virtualcol for example). I don't have a problem with that since Virtualcol aeroplanes are not made with the intention of replicating everything in the real aeroplane, but rather they are 'jump in and fly' lookalikes of the real thing which are comparatively simple to operate and come at an affordable price. I like these and I'm not at all snobby about them, I think they have their place in flight simming, in fact I think I have literally every Virtualcol product including of course their CRJ with its autothrottle.

But adding too many convenience features can detract from the challenge and enjoyment - I'm sure it would also be convenient time-wise if FSL had added the capability for their A320 to perform a vertical takeoff, saving me the trouble of even pushing back let alone taxying to the runway, but do I want it to be that convenient? Not really, I can load up a helicopter if I want to be doing that sort of thing, and similarly I wouldn't want that chopper to be capable of cruising at Mach .82 at 43,000 feet either. For the money I'm paying, I want it to be realistic.

So I would expect the CRJ from Aerosoft, with its more serious price tag, to be a more accurate representation of the actual features or lack thereof on the real aeroplane, and not just for the 'nerd factor' either. Like quite a lot of people who work on the real things (not much these days, but I used to do so quite often on the SAS ones), I find it helpful for my real job to know and understand the systems on the aeroplanes I work on and so having some realism on flight sim products for me has a secondary use of helping me with that, and there have certainly been occasions where that's been useful.

An example of the usefulness of this stuff gained from sims and reading manuals for 'realistic' pretend add-on aeroplanes, was on the CRJ's 'rival' if you will - the Embraer 135 - during a start-up and push on one of these for Loganair: There was a tailwind blowing up the jet pipe of the number 1 engine and making it smoke a lot when cranking, so since I was doing the headset and it was my job to ensure that the thing didn't burst into flames lol, I told the crew to hold off on their start until we'd pushed them around to face the other way, whereby the wind would be into the front of the engine and probably actually assist the start rather than making it problematic. This we did, but the delay on cranking the engines up threw the crew off their beat a little bit, and so when they had one engine running but not the other one, they noticed a warning on the ECAM for a 'rudder hardover protection failure'. I was able to tell them that this can occur if one engine is spooled up and the other one is still spooling up, and that the warning will disappear off the ECAM once the engines are both up to speed, since whilst spooling, the system thinks you've lost an engine and so it disables the rudder limiter to ensure you have all the rudder authority you might need when experiencing asymmetric thrust.

So in other words, some realism can have its uses for me even with pretend aeroplanes and their manuals. But even if one never works on the real things, people gain enjoyment from knowing the thing is realistic and that they probably could work the real thing if they had the opportunity to do so.

I do like your idea of putting stuffed animals in the passenger seats of my pretend aeroplanes though, I'm definitely going to try that; I may ask my girlfriend to serve them stuff when I get into the cruise portion of things. And if you've seen any of my youtube channel flight sim vids, you will already know that I frequently wear stupid hats, so if I was at my flight sim wearing a pilot's hat, I'm fairly sure my girlfriend wouldn't even notice anything untoward because she already thinks I'm not right in the head and that she is my 'carer'. 🤣

Edited May 6, 2020 by Chock

[Dreamflight767 312]

9 minutes ago, Chock said:

I do like your idea of putting stuffed animals in the passenger seats of my pretend aeroplanes though, I'm definitely going to try that; I may ask my girlfriend to serve them stuff when I get into the cruise portion of things. And if you've seen any of my youtube channel flight sim vids, you will already know that I frequently wear stupid hats, so if I was at my flight sim wearing a pilot's hat, I'm fairly sure my girlfriend wouldn't even notice anything untoward because she already thinks I'm not right in the head and that she is my 'carer'. 🤣

Sorry, I lead you astray.  Adding stuffed animals would NOT be REALISTIC. Under current circumstance replace stuffed animals sitting in seats with stacks of boxes.

[Chock 17,769]

2 minutes ago, Dreamflight767 said:

Sorry, I lead you astray.  Adding stuffed animals would NOT be REALISTIC. Under current circumstance replace stuffed animals sitting in seats with stacks of boxes.

I thought I'd be okay. As far as I'm aware animals, and especially stuffed ones, cannot contract Covid 19. I'm fairly sure I've proven this too; they are all in my cupboard in very close proximity to one another and none of them have displayed any symptoms, so I will allow them on my flights. 🤣

[Ricardo41 5,949]

4 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

That is a pretty crazy thing to complain about. If the real plane does not have an autothrottle, it would be madness to expect the dev to add one to the plane!

Edit: I was initially bemused by the concept of this complaint, but on further reflection it occurs to me that your best path forward is to complain to Bombardier - or even better, directly to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries - and try to pressure them to add an autothrottle to the real plane, and THEN insist that Aerosoft update their CRJ Pro.

Website: https://www.mhi.com/mitsubishi-heavy-industries-ltd-global-website

Who you need to contact: Seiji Izumisawa (don't have his direct email, but just ask at the link above)

 

Did you bother to read what he actually wrote? He has a kid that demands frequent attention. So please spare us your humor. The local comedy club won't be calling anytime soon. 

[Ricardo41 5,949]

3 hours ago, Chock said:

Jeez, doesn't anybody actually bother to read a post before whining about it?!

I did not write people 'ARE' complaining about it because of it not having an autothrottle, I wrote that 'a lot of the complaints about it WERE..'. Were, as in past tense, i.e. complaining about an issue in the past, when it came out as its 700/900 version. That is to say the mud from the launch of the preceding 700/900 version, which the developers definitely @rsed up, in addition to those issues people had with not having a 'press a button and go' aeroplane where everything is automated, has definitely stuck and tarnished the product's perception. But some of the way Aerosoft has handled matters has not helped either...

It does undeniably have some issues, but they are not showstoppers, so it is still fun to fly. But further to my previous comment about Aerosoft not handling the launch fiasco of the 700/900 well, I think it is outrageous that they then released a tarted up version of the same product and had the gall to charge people whom they really messed about who bought their previously arsed up version, for them to 'upgrade' to a version they've had a stab at fixing. In general, I think Aerosoft are pretty fair, but that decision to charge 700/900 customers for 'upgrading' to the 'Pro' version, really was taking the p*ss and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for that.

Blah blah, still not answering my question: what is "great" about this addon?

I owned the FSX version - what has improved in the "Professional" version except for PBR and Aerosoft replacing "Dave" with  a tablet style EFB?

I eagerly await your detailed break down of the many improvements that Aerosoft has made. 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

2 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Did you bother to read what he actually wrote? He has a kid that demands frequent attention. So please spare us your humor. The local comedy club won't be calling anytime soon. 

Well, you are in a sour mood, aren’t you?

No offense to the guy I responded to, but he originally posted that he wants an autothrottle in a plane that does not have an autothrottle IRL. IMHO, that’s not something that anyone should be requesting from a developer of a payware addon.

Perhaps the sort of person who is more into Borderlands and console gaming might disagree, but I want my aircraft to be true to life, and that is also the general ethos of all of the serious payware developers including Aerosoft. 

 

[JasonPC 173]

7 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Blah blah, still not answering my question: what is "great" about this addon?

I owned the FSX version - what has improved in the "Professional" version except for PBR and Aerosoft replacing "Dave" with  a tablet style EFB?

I eagerly await your detailed break down of the many improvements that Aerosoft has made. 

The only thing I can think of is the cabin pressure bug has been fixed which was never fixed in the old version (it wasn’t a bug in the original release but rather introduced in a patch).

Still has major LNAV issues especially on SIDs. It will follow it fine and then all of a sudden start looping around for no apparent reason. I’m sure this is a great way to make friends with controllers on VATSIM.

It still is prone to some unstable fps but I find as long as you load a default aircraft first, this isn’t an issue. Still most modern P3D addons don’t require you to load a default plane first and I don’t like that you need to do that.

Edited May 6, 2020 by JasonPC

[Chock 17,769]

3 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Blah blah, still not answering my question: what is "great" about this addon?

I owned the FSX version - what has improved in the "Professional" version except for PBR and Aerosoft replacing "Dave" with  a tablet style EFB?

I eagerly await your detailed break down of the many improvements that Aerosoft has made. 

Well, you've listed two of the improvements yourself, but there is also the fact that it added an improved rain effect, and it included the 550 and 1000 variants, so I think we have to acknowledge that adding two more aeroplanes in their entirety, making it have twice as many models as the original product had, would count for something. But as I say, I have the original 700/900 and objected to paying for the 'upgrade' when I think people who suffered all the faffing about with the original version when it came out should have been offered the 'pro' version for a more friendly price than an additional 26 quid, so I don't have the later version. I also think it is a bit on the pricey side as a standalone product at 80 quid. 

So I'm neither suggesting that it is perfect, nor suggesting it isn't without things I don't like about it, for example it tends to work better if you load a default aeroplane first and that isn't ideal for use in Air Hauler, but aside from that being more of an PITA than an insurmountable problem, and going off my own use of it, I've never had it go off the navigation track nor really have any other showstopping issues. So yeah, I think it is great. It's no FSL A320, but it does the job.

[Benjamin J 751]

11 minutes ago, Chock said:

[...]

It's no FSL A320, but it does the job.

I think that basically sums it up for me, too.

@Prpn @ahsmatt7 Just had a lovely light into KSBA. Took a closer look at that reverse thrust... Touched down late at around 140kts (Vref 137kts), and reverse thrust got me down to about 60kts towards the end of runway 7, then took over with some 'decisive' braking. Does this sound somewhat realistic?

To me it felt like the reversers did their job pretty well this time around, better than I remember them doing the first time. But I'll be completely honest with you, it's entirely possible that I didn't ARM the reversers that time before, in my ignorance of what those knobs are supposed to do. So yeah, possible I wasn't actually engaging the reversers at all...

[JasonPC 173]

1 minute ago, Benjamin J said:

I think that basically sums it up for me, too.

@Prpn @ahsmatt7 Just had a lovely light into KSBA. Took a closer look at that reverse thrust... Touched down late at around 140kts (Vref 137kts), and reverse thrust got me down to about 60kts towards the end of runway 7, then took over with some 'decisive' braking. Does this sound somewhat realistic?

To me it felt like the reversers did their job pretty well this time around, better than I remember them doing the first time. But I'll be completely honest with you, it's entirely possible that I didn't ARM the reversers that time before, in my ignorance of what those knobs are supposed to do. So yeah, possible I wasn't actually engaging the reversers at all...

Sounds about right. I've never had a problem slowing this plane down with the reverse thrust.

[NightOfDreams 370]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin J said:

Touched down late at around 140kts (Vref 137kts)

Do you land with the HUD? I like it, not sure if real CRJ pilots use it though.

Edited May 6, 2020 by NightOfDreams

[Prpn 366]

2 hours ago, Benjamin J said:

I think that basically sums it up for me, too.

@Prpn @ahsmatt7 Just had a lovely light into KSBA. Took a closer look at that reverse thrust... Touched down late at around 140kts (Vref 137kts), and reverse thrust got me down to about 60kts towards the end of runway 7, then took over with some 'decisive' braking. Does this sound somewhat realistic?

To me it felt like the reversers did their job pretty well this time around, better than I remember them doing the first time. But I'll be completely honest with you, it's entirely possible that I didn't ARM the reversers that time before, in my ignorance of what those knobs are supposed to do. So yeah, possible I wasn't actually engaging the reversers at all...

As long as you are making it to where you want to get off the runway at a safe speed it is all good. The times when I fly into a 1700m runway the exit is usually around 1100/1200m after the threshold and that does require at least idle reverse and some medium braking at light weights. On that runway though, dry conditions, with a 5-7kt headwind and max landing weight in a CRJ900 you are looking at an actual landing distance (not for planning) of between 1100-1200m. It has a decent amount of stopping power. Just have to watch those brake temperatures. I fly mostly in Northern Europe and don't have to worry about them too much. Only on heavy flights, say full load and 1h30-2h00 flight time (and thus fuel) and OAT of 20C+ do I really need to watch it. 

Most flights on the real plane in my experience don't need anything more than idle reverse and then braking as required to make your exit. I tend to not brake much above 100kts. Idle reverse gets less effective at lower speeds so you roll in the normal braking and by not using the wheel brakes from like 130kts immediately you heat them less as well. During taxi if the speed picks up too much I tend to put idle reverse on one engine only, keeps it in check. I'd rather have an extra reverser cycle than brakes at high temp before we are even taking off :P.

The guy in the FSElite video definitely did not follow normal procedures during startup. I wouldn't let that color the rest of his opinions though, I often just take off without much thought in the PMDG addons as well. Basics stay the same. 

I'm happy some people are happy with the addon. It is just not for me when you know the real thing, as aside from looks, there is just not that much substance for me. And the kind of crappy attitude I got from the developer at multiple stages has put me off the addon as well. The original CRJ X released with bugs noted many weeks before in beta testing and I feel like the plane has never really been finished. I don't have the Pro myself, but just a look at their forums tells me the same story still.

[NightOfDreams 370]

1 hour ago, Prpn said:

I'm happy some people are happy with the addon. It is just not for me when you know the real thing, as aside from looks, there is just not that much substance for me. 

As a complete beginner to payware aircraft, and after flying the CRJ for a month, I'm genuinely interested in what substance you find lacking compared to the real plane?  I like regional airliners and it doesn't seem like there are any other options out there other than the Aerosoft CRJ, which I've been satisfied with until reading this thread since I don't know any better *shrugs*.

Edited May 6, 2020 by NightOfDreams

[Chock 17,769]

24 minutes ago, NightOfDreams said:

I like regional airliners and it doesn't seem like there are any other options out there other than the Aerosoft CRJ

The really good regional airliner out there is the Majestic Dash 8 Q400. In fact, it's not just the best regional airliner out there, it's probably the best airliner of any sort out there if you consider everything it offers.

[Prpn 366]

11 hours ago, NightOfDreams said:

As a complete beginner to payware aircraft, and after flying the CRJ for a month, I'm genuinely interested in what substance you find lacking compared to the real plane?  I like regional airliners and it doesn't seem like there are any other options out there other than the Aerosoft CRJ, which I've been satisfied with until reading this thread since I don't know any better *shrugs*.

Context is important. I fly the real plane, so a sim addon is probably never going to cut it anyway. But basically nothing in the flight dynamics behaves like the real plane, systems don't behave like they should, autopilot does not behave like it should and the list goes on. This sounds a bit snobbish most likely, but please see it in context... If you have never flown the real plane than it will most probably fill a niche and feel like a regional jet. In this case ignorance is indeed bliss ;).