26 minutes ago, WestAir said:

IMHO it's impossible to simulate a complex aircraft system without simulating failures. An example on the PMDG 737 series is when you sit on the ramp with the doors open in the hot Phoenix AZ sun. By the time you're ready to take off you'll get a MASTER CAUTION and a ZONE TEMP light in one of the cabins. This little warning caused havoc with new simmers who didn't know why they were getting alerts, but if you simulate the entire bleed air system, the ambient temps and open doors MUST give you this failure. Period. Another example is when flying in cold weather and you've chosen the wrong Jet A fuel type. The fuel can freeze. These aren't failures, they're the simulation reacting to your choices as pilot in command - which IMHO is a necessary part of "study level".

 

 

Im all for that kind of simulation, but thats just properly simulated systems not necessarily failures.   If some of you remember the PMDG MD-11 (My fav) and on one of my flights at cruise, the air temp was -61 which resulted in my fuel freezing up. My error was not fueling up with type B fuel to withstand those temps.  That is awesome but not necessarily a failure just part of the environment and systems simulated properly.  Redid the flight jet fuel B, and no problem.  

To code all the failures just takes a whole lot of extra coding, manpower, resources etc. Think this could be saved.  However all the systems should be coded to the highest degree that accounts for enviromental changes too.  Just my thoughts. 

48 minutes ago, CJ1045 said:

I don't think more than 10% of MSFS users use VATSIM.

 

CJ

I don't think more than maybe 0.2% of MSFS users use VATSIM. 🙂 Probably not even when you coun't people login into VATSIM so they can use Chartfox charts.

Edited March 3, 20215 yr by crimplene

1 hour ago, CJ1045 said:

I don't think more than 10% of MSFS users use VATSIM.

CJ

It's probably not even ten percent. Although the percentage of vatsim users who imagine it's critical to everything will be up near to 100 percent 🤣

12 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I haven’t really got the time to learn how to fly it to be honest. And what do you do at altitude, stare at clouds and count the time down until approach? (Like in real life, I spend enough time in them, when not in a pandemic). 
I try and stick to GA. it’s involved, I just wish there were an A2A or like with wear and tear features. 

I’ll sit on the fence for this one and wait until the dust settles. If it turns out to be better than good, I might free up a few nights and learn how to use it. 

Dont worry Ian, if you want a stiped down easy to follow walk through I am making one its 80% there, I make them for all aircraft I fly. So happy to send you a copy if you feel it would help? speed up the learning.

42 minutes ago, HighTowers said:

Im all for that kind of simulation, but thats just properly simulated systems not necessarily failures.   If some of you remember the PMDG MD-11 (My fav) and on one of my flights at cruise, the air temp was -61 which resulted in my fuel freezing up. My error was not fueling up with type B fuel to withstand those temps.  That is awesome but not necessarily a failure just part of the environment and systems simulated properly.  Redid the flight jet fuel B, and no problem.  

To code all the failures just takes a whole lot of extra coding, manpower, resources etc. Think this could be saved.  However all the systems should be coded to the highest degree that accounts for enviromental changes too.  Just my thoughts. 

Agreed. I guess it's just our definition of failure that determines what we mean by study level. The Aerosoft aircraft do not model stuff like ambient temps affecting the bleed air system, or fuel temps, or anything that will result in the systems breaking down and all those handy redundant systems taking over. IMHO that makes their aircraft not study level.

As for selectable failures (APU Fire), having those included don't make a sim study level, but if you spent the time to model every system interaction (down to the inertia of a turn changing the fuel gauge reading as the fuel sloshes in the tanks), you've already spent the manpower and resources to make "fuel gauge readout failure" a 10 minute job to include, because the underlying systems are already simulation. Hence why I feel like robust failures come hand in hand with a true study level simulation.

We all can agree about what "study level" is. Here is my take.

Highest) FSL A320

2nd) PMDG - Q400 - MadDog - A2A

3rd) nothing here.....

4th) Captain Sim - AS A320 - CRJ

5th) Caranardo 

6th) Default

MSFS wt = around 4th could push to 3 with time. The CJ4 is great with the chart mod to come and if they fix pitch mod etc...#3

I simply hope the CRJ fills a big cap for another year till we get the PMDG MAX. AS are never going to be like PMDG etc nore are they designed to be, just enjoy it for what it is. Proberly the best aircraft we will have in MSFS for some time.

Edited March 3, 20215 yr by Nyxx

Sorry didnt read through the whole thread, but answer me this: Will the CRJ have custom nav logic like the WTcj4, or will it use the default navigation logic for the fms? If it uses the default, then Im not picking it up even though it looks nice.

Edited March 3, 20215 yr by Andreas Stangenes

44 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Dont worry Ian, if you want a stiped down easy to follow walk through I am making one its 80% there, I make them for all aircraft I fly. So happy to send you a copy if you feel it would help? speed up the learning.

Sure yes plz 

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Sure yes plz 

Just PM me your email Ian 

Edited March 3, 20215 yr by Nyxx

19 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Proberly the best aircraft we will have in MSFS for some time.

Best is so subjective...  there are so many types of simmers..  there are flight simmers, there are aircraft simmers and then there are those that just wanna fly.

Then there are those on Avsim,  those on the MSFS forums  and those who never bother to touch a forum and soon to be lots of Xbox users and who knows what that market willl want.

For some, their ideal aircraft is one that you jump into,  CNTL-E to start and expect to be able to use the a/p or whatever to get where they are going and just enjoy the "feeling" of flight.

At the other end of the spectrum are those that want every detail of the aircraft with failures who spend longer getting ready to fly than flying because once they are in the air, they wind up the sim speed and expect it to stop at top of descent so thay can do the landing.

Both of these are almost always incompatable with each other in terms of what they want the aircraft tyo be capable of.

The answer, of course, is that neither one nor the other is right or wrong,  the answer is that everyone should be able to use the program as they want to.  If both extremes, and therefore by defenition, all those inbetween are happy, then the sim has fulfilled it's purpose.

What seems to be an issue though is those who vere one way or the other automatically assume that anyone else is wrong in how they use the sim and should be denigrated.

It's time that people understood that none of these options are right or wrong, just that they may not suit you, but just because it doesn't suit you doesn't mean it's wrong.

For me,  if it can't accept a flight plan from MSFS flight planner.. then I won't be buying it,  but I sincerely hope that those who do buy it enjoy it.. but it's not my place to define other peoples enjoyment or experiences 🙂

Graham

5 minutes ago, Moria15 said:

Best is so subjective...  there are so many types of simmers..  there are flight simmers, there are aircraft simmers and then there are those that just wanna fly.

Then there are those on Avsim,  those on the MSFS forums  and those who never bother to touch a forum and soon to be lots of Xbox users and who knows what that market willl want.

For some, their ideal aircraft is one that you jump into,  CNTL-E to start and expect to be able to use the a/p or whatever to get where they are going and just enjoy the "feeling" of flight.

At the other end of the spectrum are those that want every detail of the aircraft with failures who spend longer getting ready to fly than flying because once they are in the air, they wind up the sim speed and expect it to stop at top of descent so thay can do the landing.

Both of these are almost always incompatable with each other in terms of what they want the aircraft tyo be capable of.

The answer, of course, is that neither one nor the other is right or wrong,  the answer is that everyone should be able to use the program as they want to.  If both extremes, and therefore by defenition, all those inbetween are happy, then the sim has fulfilled it's purpose.

What seems to be an issue though is those who vere one way or the other automatically assume that anyone else is wrong in how they use the sim and should be denigrated.

It's time that people understood that none of these options are right or wrong, just that they may not suit you, but just because it doesn't suit you doesn't mean it's wrong.

For me,  if it can't accept a flight plan from MSFS flight planner.. then I won't be buying it,  but I sincerely hope that those who do buy it enjoy it.. but it's not my place to define other peoples enjoyment or experiences 🙂

Graham

OK very sorry.

Best small airliner....That OK?

56 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Dont worry Ian, if you want a stiped down easy to follow walk through I am making one its 80% there, I make them for all aircraft I fly. So happy to send you a copy if you feel it would help? speed up the learning.

That's amazing Dave. May I get a copy too, please?

6 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

OK very sorry.

Best small airliner....That OK?

most accurately simulated small airliner  I will go with..  but if ( FOR ME) it doesn't get bought because it's missing something I would like,  then it wouldn't be best small airliner  (FOR ME) 🙂 and I think it's important to not make people feel, even subconciously that there is a "best" when for them it's not 🙂

Yeah, so sue me for being pedantic, but I think it is an important distinction 🙂

GRaham

P.S  don't be sorry.. it's a discussion, there is no right or wrong in this, just opinions, and everyone has one 🙂

Edited March 3, 20215 yr by Moria15

33 minutes ago, WestAir said:

That's amazing Dave. May I get a copy too, please?

Sure just PM your email.

If you cannot programe a flight plan into an FMS then any airliner or even a CJ4 then dont fly them. What on earth would happen if ATC gave you a direct or a diffrent runway to the flight plan as the wind changed?  Even a departing runway can change from a flight plan if the wind is changing.

I wish the CRJ would take an import from Simbrief. But I will still build a plan from it and take 2 mins if that, to enter it. For all I know the CRJ IRL might not even have away to import company flight plans. Even then I still see MSFS ATC giving me a diffrent runway to Simbief as the wind is low. So if someone is not capable to do the very basic things like enter a flight plan/SID/STAR/PERF then stay away. Or just stick to the closest thing to a toy FMS.