Aerosoft CRJ preview pictures

[bobcat999 8,473]

3 hours ago, SP2472 said:

Great looking aircraft for MSFS2020, but I still want a more modern ERJ-175/195. Probably will never happen!

It seems Aerosoft is obsessed with creating the same aircraft over and over.

Darryl

True!  But if they want to get something decent out of the door quickly for MSFS, they probably need to stick to what they know.

I an not really a tube liner kind of guy (although I seem to have an unhealthy love of any type of Boeing 737 for some reason 😁), but if they stick to the price that has been suggested, and it gets good reviews, I will probably buy it.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

2 hours ago, jpe828 said:

We would like it if you did! And then review it for us here... see if it is worth it from a realism perspective.

Hahah just might do that. To be honest, I have always wanted to write reviews for flight sim stuff. Heck, I’ve been in this hobby for over 25 years, I use to remember the long write ups. I couldn’t wait to read them when they came off the press.

[Prpn 366]

On 12/12/2020 at 5:22 PM, cepact said:

Those EICAS pages definitely need some tweaking and look visually a bit jarring with the incomplete engine nacelle depiction.

But more important... I'm assuming the screenshot was taken with engines running already and not while starting, in which case I'm a bit sceptical about the fuel flow. Seems quite low. For example, today on the -900, idle thrust on the ground gave about 275kg/h. And though I fly both the 700 & 900 in various regions with temperatures ranging from +35C to -25C, I don't think I saw idle consumption quite as low as in that shot, but I might be wrong. 

I do see the dev seems to be sticking to the philosophy that a fan vibration value of 1.0 is the good baseline, instead of 0.0 😅.

[jpe828 624]

50 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Hahah just might do that. To be honest, I have always wanted to write reviews for flight sim stuff. Heck, I’ve been in this hobby for over 25 years, I use to remember the long write ups. I couldn’t wait to read them when they came off the press.

As a pilot myself (GA) it annoys me when "gamers" review stuff. It is tough to find someone who actually knows what they are looking at when reviewing an addon. I need more than "look how good it looks".

[tgsweat 144]

4 hours ago, Prpn said:

Those EICAS pages definitely need some tweaking and look visually a bit jarring with the incomplete engine nacelle depiction.

But more important... I'm assuming the screenshot was taken with engines running already and not while starting, in which case I'm a bit sceptical about the fuel flow. Seems quite low. For example, today on the -900, idle thrust on the ground gave about 275kg/h. And though I fly both the 700 & 900 in various regions with temperatures ranging from +35C to -25C, I don't think I saw idle consumption quite as low as in that shot, but I might be wrong. 

I do see the dev seems to be sticking to the philosophy that a fan vibration value of 1.0 is the good baseline, instead of 0.0 😅.

They were looking for some real pilots of the CRJ for beta testing.  Maybe you can hit them up and give them a hand.  

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

5 hours ago, Prpn said:

Those EICAS pages definitely need some tweaking and look visually a bit jarring with the incomplete engine nacelle depiction.

But more important... I'm assuming the screenshot was taken with engines running already and not while starting, in which case I'm a bit sceptical about the fuel flow. Seems quite low. For example, today on the -900, idle thrust on the ground gave about 275kg/h. And though I fly both the 700 & 900 in various regions with temperatures ranging from +35C to -25C, I don't think I saw idle consumption quite as low as in that shot, but I might be wrong. 

I do see the dev seems to be sticking to the philosophy that a fan vibration value of 1.0 is the good baseline, instead of 0.0 😅.

If the engines bothered you, don’t look at the hydraulic page hahah

[Prpn 366]

2 hours ago, tgsweat said:

They were looking for some real pilots of the CRJ for beta testing.  Maybe you can hit them up and give them a hand.  

No thank you, I did that for the original CRJ X and was left with a bad experience. I don’t mean to talk the add on down, just don’t expect very accurate systems modeling. I’m already seeing a bunch of small errors and mistakes that were never fixed on the version for previous sims being carried over to this “all new” product unfortunately. 

[WestAir 2,522]

2 minutes ago, Prpn said:

No thank you, I did that for the original CRJ X and was left with a bad experience. I don’t mean to talk the add on down, just don’t expect very accurate systems modeling. I’m already seeing a bunch of small errors and mistakes that were never fixed on the version for previous sims being carried over to this “all new” product unfortunately. 

To be fair, modeling the CRJ system fidelity is tough. One system affects all the others and external variables change everything in-between. Throw in that no two air-frames run the same and you can see why a sim will always just be a rough imitation.

PMDG/FSLabs/FlyTheMaddog pour heart and soul into coding and research to do what they do, and the price matches the effort. As will the CRJ.

[Bandyka 75]

I fully understand that the aim here is fully realistic functions however do we know if this will support simple GPS flight plans injected from the Sim's planner? Just so to see if "quick and dirty" flights will be possible? 

 

[Ricardo41 5,949]

8 hours ago, jpe828 said:

As a pilot myself (GA) it annoys me when "gamers" review stuff. It is tough to find someone who actually knows what they are looking at when reviewing an addon. I need more than "look how good it looks".

It's a game, therefore it should be reviewed by gamers. I don't see the Pentagon reviewing the Call of Duty series.

[WestAir 2,522]

21 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

It's a game, therefore it should be reviewed by gamers. I don't see the Pentagon reviewing the Call of Duty series.

Logical fallacy. The FAA does review simulators, and simulators are used to train real world pilots.

[Ricardo41 5,949]

5 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Logical fallacy. The FAA does review simulators, and simulators are used to train real world pilots.

Would you be so kind as to link to a FAA review of an Aerosoft addon?

[bobcat999 8,473]

Well there is no harm in it being reviewed by both actually, but this will mainly be aimed at simmers ('gamers') rather than actual pilots - they get the real ones to play with! 😁

[The Flight Level 2,113]

9 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Well there is no harm in it being reviewed by both actually, but this will mainly be aimed at simmers ('gamers') rather than actual pilots - they get the real ones to play with! 😁

The continuing discussion that will always re-surface. I guess there is no absolute or correct philosophy as we purchase these aircraft based on our preferences through the range of fun to study level. For me personally, the plane does not have to be modelled to absolute perfection inside. It is more about the flight dynamics and a reasonable rendition of the flight deck and a good FMS display that influences my purchases.

[dsmbell 36]

2 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

It's a game, therefore it should be reviewed by gamers. I don't see the Pentagon reviewing the Call of Duty series.

Funniest comment I have seen on here for a long time, good one - really made me laugh!