19 minutes ago, Chock said:

It doesn't really need its static wicks either, but the promotional product video on this thread covered checking those on a walkaround, thus that's where they're pitching this in terms of realism. So the point is, what I want is a simulator with an airport environment which at least has a stab at realistic collision detection for the GSE if it's going to have an airliner which is intending to be realistically using that stuff, particularly since the visuals are a large selling point for the thing and it has the word simulator in its title.

This shouldn't be too hard for an experienced game developer like Asobo to create; it only requires an additional pivot point on a pushback rig in the 3D environment and some better collision detection. And let's not forget that in making this thing, Aerosoft is supposed to be telling Asobo what the SDK needs in terms of that stuff and collaborating with them on it. This is an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is in development terms to make this sim better than previous ones.

I’m pretty sure some developer will make GSE. As Asobo stated they go “wide”, meaning they not going to focus on something that 3rd party can make.

 

18 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I’m pretty sure some developer will make GSE. As Asobo stated they go “wide”, meaning they not going to focus on something that 3rd party can make.

 

True, but Asobo and MS still have to facilitate the environment and its parameters which make that sort of thing actually possible. And that is presently what Aerosoft have been working on with Asobo for the SDK in concert with this particular add-on; sending stuff back and forth to narrow down what the SDK needed in terms of functionality. This is what many TPDs are waiting on, so this particular add-on aeroplane from Aerosoft, and what it brings about, is much more critical in this regard than most other things.

This is where Aerosoft could certainly be proactive in ensuring that sort of thing is doable by developers, without them having to jump through hoops or compromise on how they go about stuff. Because it surely cannot have escaped their attention in testing how bad this aeroplane would look on pushback with a lifting tug model intersecting with the entire nose of the aeroplane.

Otherwise we're potentially going to have small regional airliners such as this, plus the EMB 135 and 145, the ATR 42 and 72, Dornier 328, BAe146 etc, which are all potentially going to end up being made for this sim, then reliant on a pushback system which lazily used lifting tugs instead of tugs and bars, simply because it was a bit easier in terms of pivot points, and in doing so simply ignoring the fact that the model for the tug is visually crashing into the aeroplanes all the time and looking bloody awful.

I'm not suggesting this is the end of the world and it won't stop this from being a good add-on aeroplane, after all, lots of people start their flights on the runway. But if you're going to model an airport system, then like anything else, it's either worth doing right, or not at all, unless you are prepared to have it being a half-assed attempt which could have been better.

Edited February 25, 20215 yr by Chock

I have the distinct impression that a lot of folks have never bought an Areosoft plane. Aerosoft's modus operandi is spelled out right here in the interview linked above:

"The CRJ is going to be the first fairly complex payware airliner released for Microsoft and Asobo’s new sim..."

"As you know we focus a lot on the actual day-to-day work for the pilot and the aircraft is just the ‘tool’ for that.

They help a lot in that aspect by telling us what they do during every flight and what they almost never do. Pilots would rather have these things correct than a CU message that has never been seen in a real cockpit because the conditions simply never happened.

Do you know how many times an APU caught fire in an CRJ? We could not find any, so we don’t care about those things."

This is classic boiler plane Aerosoft. The exact same statements were made years ago when Aerosoft released its first plane."

Now, if you don't really mind and are happy with having a "fairly complex airliner", with certain features not working as expected/not working at all because the good folks at Aerosoft "don't care about those things", then, fine, go ahead purchase your heart out. And if you then try to bring these issues up in Aerosoft's forum, you'll be told that they talked to 300 pilots and were reassured that these conditions "simply never happened."

 

 

It's all down to how you want to look at it.

The cynical POV of what Ive seen from the two vid's on youTube. "the First thing you do is check the circuit breakers" Why does AS model circuit breakers? No, so why look at them at all? Countless things are pointless, I started one my walk thought PDF sheets that I do for every aircraft I fly. From the first Vid this is what came out about what you need to do

BATT………………………………………………………………………..ON

 

MASTER WARNING…………………….……………………………....OFF

 

FIRE DETECTION………………………….…………………………..TEST

 

APU POWER FUEL BUTTON…………………………………………...ON

 

APU…………………………………….……………………………….START

 

WAIT FOR………………………………………………………………...AVIL

 

HYD 3A……………………………………………………………………...ON

 

IRS 1&2………………………………………………………………..TO NAV

 

POS INIT PAGE 1……………………………………………...ENTER ICAO

 

POS INIT PAGE 2……….GPSS1 SELECT……………………..….ENTER

 

NAV LIGHT………………………………………………………………….ON

The walk around vid was an insight in what a real crew do, but totaly pointless for a sim pilot as none of the checks are going to be any diffrent after doing them a 1,000 times to the first time if you really want to do them? AS dont do failers so why check the brakes? lol

AS History on there aircraft Ive talked about a lot and am not going over it again. Its in the past. As for there surport team. I better not say I will get banned.

Now the possitive POV

The CRJ looks really stunning and it will not be a "studly level" sim. But if it does work for a day to day flights and feels and works as good as it looks then...great. I am willing to give it a try, not think of it as a FSL aircraft and just hope its a great aircraft for short hopes. For the price and if they do get it right under what they say, then I am all in, I really hope they do.

Hope Mr F ( he does not like his IRL name named but am not calling him "Dude") other vidios are more instrutive on what we really need to know and that is great to learn from him. He is IMO one of the AS genuin nice guys. I look forward to seeing them F. Thank you for them.

 

 

Edited February 25, 20215 yr by Nyxx

Is it in the air yet or still parked at the gate or hangar next to the Concorde X.

2 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

I have the distinct impression that a lot of folks have never bought an Areosoft plane. Aerosoft's modus operandi is spelled out right here in the interview linked above:

"The CRJ is going to be the first fairly complex payware airliner released for Microsoft and Asobo’s new sim..."

"As you know we focus a lot on the actual day-to-day work for the pilot and the aircraft is just the ‘tool’ for that.

They help a lot in that aspect by telling us what they do during every flight and what they almost never do. Pilots would rather have these things correct than a CU message that has never been seen in a real cockpit because the conditions simply never happened.

Do you know how many times an APU caught fire in an CRJ? We could not find any, so we don’t care about those things."

This is classic boiler plane Aerosoft. The exact same statements were made years ago when Aerosoft released its first plane."

Now, if you don't really mind and are happy with having a "fairly complex airliner", with certain features not working as expected/not working at all because the good folks at Aerosoft "don't care about those things", then, fine, go ahead purchase your heart out. And if you then try to bring these issues up in Aerosoft's forum, you'll be told that they talked to 300 pilots and were reassured that these conditions "simply never happened."

 

 

But this is how AS models their aircraft: fly from A to B with no failures. They even have a correct price tag for that. Just recall how much did you pay for the Airbus family and how much did you pay for the FSL ones.

I did buy both because I realy liked how FSL implemented some stuff like ATSU etc. BUT I NEVER EVER simultated a failure with it. I also have PMDG (where I set failures because servicing and operating hours) but I also did not encounter ANY failures.

If you don't like the fairly complex simulation with no failures then wait for FSL to make the CRJ from scratch an buy each version of it for 120€ or buy the entire line for 500€.

Another thing to mention: have you seen shared cockpit on FSL or PMDG? This is what I enjoy, not programing an ENG failure, spend 30 min to program a flight and ending it in 10 because a bird strike. Yeah...you could do that but look at the price tag.

Edited February 25, 20215 yr by GEKtheReaper

@Nyxx your POV is valid but let me ask you: how many ACFT do you know simulating wear and tear (IIRC only PMDG has that option and it can also be accelerated to actualy see some wear and tear)? But even with those settings, I never encountered any wear and tear on my 737.

Most DEV let you choose specific system failures to encounter in the flight (if I'm not mistaking). This of course makes sense if you are training for real world operations but hey...this is a game of simulation.

So yeah..it's a point of view the same in flight programming and fuel loading, and boarding....why should some invest in GSX L2 to see some modelled persons walking to the ACFT when neither one stumbles and falls to the ground? <- this is just an ironic view.

We do have a simulation here and not the real thing! Some have different views and different expectations.

2 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

I have the distinct impression that a lot of folks have never bought an Areosoft plane. Aerosoft's modus operandi is spelled out right here in the interview linked above...

I suspect that's a bit of projection right there. I doubt there's too many Avsim users who haven't bought something from Aerosoft, but because they were aware of what they are getting, they aren't all getting vocally up in arms about stuff which they were perfectly aware of at the point of sale.

You, on the other hand, appear to regard a company not adding in complex and rarer failures in its product, and so not charging for what's not there, as some sort of shady practice, by using terms such as 'M.O.' when discussing it.

This stuff is not a secret, everyone is well aware of what Aerosoft does and does not offer in its fifty quid products. Nobody is expecting a Level D simulator here, and to be honest Aerosoft is right, the CRJ is indeed a very reliable regional aeroplane with systems which work well.

 

Edited February 25, 20215 yr by Chock

16 minutes ago, GEKtheReaper said:

@Nyxx your POV is valid but let me ask you: how many ACFT do you know simulating wear and tear (IIRC only PMDG has that option and it can also be accelerated to actualy see some wear and tear)? But even with those settings, I never encountered any wear and tear on my 737.

Most DEV let you choose specific system failures to encounter in the flight (if I'm not mistaking). This of course makes sense if you are training for real world operations but hey...this is a game of simulation.

So yeah..it's a point of view the same in flight programming and fuel loading, and boarding....why should some invest in GSX L2 to see some modelled persons walking to the ACFT when neither one stumbles and falls to the ground? <- this is just an ironic view.

We do have a simulation here and not the real thing! Some have different views and different expectations.

I am quit happy to take the CRJ for what its worth, all I ask for is what we get works well. Nothing more. Its not a PMDG or a FSL.

21 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

all I ask for is what we get works well.

^This^ couldn't agree more!

2 hours ago, Chock said:

e honest Aerosoft is right, the CRJ is indeed a very reliable regional aeroplane with systems which work well.

 

I have enjoyed the Aerosoft Aibus A320\A319's for years in P3D and FSX.  It works for my needs, never had problems.  I am not keen of failures as I have a hard enough time doing procedures, anything unexpected would not be a good thing.🥶 I am not a pilot. The CRJ has really evolved over the years from when it was first released and it is what MS2020 needs at the moment. 

Edited February 25, 20215 yr by simon747

To each his own. The Aerosoft way of doing things is PERFECT for my kind of use. I owned a few PMDG's in the (far away) past and my favorite add on of all time was the Majestic Q400 but the first thing I always did after installing them was to disable all failures. I like to experience what a real world pilot experiences during a regular day and I am not interested at ALL in things going wrong unexpectedly. (We already have software bugs for that LOL! Sorry, couldn't resist.) So I am very happy Aerosoft is doing exactly what I'd like them to do! Of course, if you like to be surprised by failures and that makes your day I can understand this CRJ won't be the real deal for you but for me it is. But I never liked paying extra for things I never used so... bring it on!

Personally I’ve never used the failure functions of any aircraft.  Just not my thing, I enjoy having my flights go as expected (maybe I’m just boring haha).

So to me, whether an aircraft allows me to simulate normal flying A to B, or if it has extra stuff like potentially defective circuit breakers, I’m happy either way.  I enjoy the PMDG/FS Labs aircraft not because they have a bunch of extra features, but because they work exceptionally well in flying A to B, almost without exception.

If Aerosoft’s (or other’s) aircrafts do the same, I’m a happy customer.  

For me failures are very important. I already use a program called random failures thats available on github and aditionally enabled Failures in onair (still pretty limited there).

I don't want every flight ending in a Emergency. The reason is that you need to change the way you fly. And do it for a real reason and not just play pretend. If I fly with an Xcub over a large body of water I get a problem if my engine dies. So I adjust this by changing the flight planning to minimise the risk. And I will probably use the float version in the future. I want the engine to blow up if I over stress it enough. 

Why would I do the boring pre flight check if it will never be for a reason? Why monitor instruments in flight if they will never be relevant? By not using failures you basically cut of a huge part of the simulation, even if the failures are very rare.

On the other hand that program exists and the developer is still active with it and if it is the first "complete" aircraft besides the modded ones that just works well that would be a plus. 

Edited February 25, 20215 yr by kakihara123

1 hour ago, kakihara123 said:

Why would I do the boring pre flight check if it will never be for a reason? Why monitor instruments in flight if they will never be relevant? By not using failures you basically cut of a huge part of the simulation, even if the failures are very rare.

I'll most likely be using this CRJ in Air Hauler, which does randomly fail the odd thing anyway, so even if this thing doesn't have built-in failures, it will still get them when I use it.

But with regard to doing the pre-flight checks and monitoring the instruments, you do that to ensure that no important steps are forgotten and not merely to see if things are working. For example, when you do a walkaround, it's to ensure things like doors are shut properly, panel fasteners are secure, chocks are out, control locks are removed, pitot tubes and static ports are clear, GSE is clear, loose seatbelts are secured, balance calculations are correct, fuel is not contaminated, and so on. None of that is really equipment failure-related, it's so you don't screw up. Similarly, when you monitor the instruments with a scan every so often, it's to make sure you are doing what you are supposed to be doing.

There have been plenty of crashes where people didn't monitor the instruments properly and crashed as a result of it. Just two examples: Eastern Airlines Flight 401, where the crew became distracted by a busted gear config light bulb, the the crew accidentally knocked the yoke whilst all of them were discussing the failure to get a green light for the gear even though it was just a bulb and the gear had actually extended. Knocking the yoke disengaged the autopilot and put the aeroplane into Control Wheel Steering mode and set it into a descending turn. Nobody out of the four people on the flight deck was watching the instruments and so they failed to notice the plane was heading for a swamp. Similarly, Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 crashed because nobody out of the three people on the flight deck that day, including a check pilot, was monitoring the fact that the autopilot had put the throttle to idle, increasing the descent rate and lowering the airspeed, owing to a radar altimeter fault which registered the aeroplane as nearing touchdown when it was still at altitude and thus closing the throttle, causing it to drop to stall speed and undershoot the runway.

In both cases although the accidents did have failures as the catalyst for the events, it wasn't actually the faults which were the direct cause of the accidents, it was the failure to notice that the aeroplanes were in flight conditions which were not intended, and this would have been noted easily if the crews had been monitoring the instruments. The instruments themselves didn't have anything wrong with them at all.

I've been guilty of this kind of distraction myself once. I was on a winch launch in a glider and there was a vibration from the winch cable which just happened to be at the exact frequency to make the panel vibrate, which was in turn making a slightly loose screw on the panel spin around, creating an unusual buzzing noise. I was very nose high as you are on a winch launch and became distracted by that buzzing from the panel instead of monitoring the ASI. As a result, the airspeed dropped dangerously low before I eventually noticed this and was shocked to see it dropping to the point where a stall was going to occur very soon, which if it had developed into a spin, would almost certainly have been fatal. Fortunately I did notice this and got the nose down, but it was a salutary lesson I learned that day; it certainly could have been a lot more serious than it was.

That's why you always monitor the instruments. 🙂

Edited February 25, 20215 yr by Chock