Aerosoft CRJ released

[Prpn 366]

Second flight went a bit better, but still not all that great. I experienced the below:

Autopilot not keeping correct speed in CLB mode (seems mostly in Mach numbers)
LNAV undershooting and/or overshooting turns (was seen a lot in previous AS CRJ releases)
APPR mode tried to fly me into the ground. Says that GS is captured but just progressively goes further below it. Also a problem that I encountered a lot in the P3D version.
Advisory VNAV window on MFD is garbage. Says 1 minute to go to TOD at 25nm out. That's quite a ground speed then. Same issue seen in P3D version.
Advisory VNAV window on MFD got stuck saying 0 minutes to TOD with a distance of 22nm to go to TOD. This was some 15nm after the 1 minute/25nm to go. Same issue seen in P3D version.
Advisory VNAV window on MFD doesn't show rate of descent required to next altitude restriction. Seems also carried over from P3D version.
Still can't delete altitude restrictions in the FMS. Seems also carried over from P3D version.

It is still a nice addon, flies pretty decent in manual mode and looks great. Performance and flight model also seems a bit closer to the real thing than it ever was in P3D and FSX. I may seem like I'm bashing it, but it is more disappointment in seeing the same issues return year after year, release after release. This was supposedly a rebuild from scratch, right? Good job rebuilding the same issues. And the dev should know about these as well, I posted them in their forum ages ago for the P3D version, but they seem happy to ignore them and subsequently recreate them.

[Ricardo41 5,948]

To me, not being able to load an MSFS generated flightplan, without having to engage in some cumbersome work around, is a 100% deal breaker. 

Not sure why Aerosoft can't what the WT group can do. 

In addition, I always use default ATC, so I need to be able to at least - the WT CJ4 mod does this without any problems - to "sync back" the flightplan to MSFS.

[regis9 4,012]

6 hours ago, rickjake said:

If using the FBW A320, your TCA Throttle may be configured in the MSFS option controls as "Axis Throttle 1 (0-100%) and "Axis Throttle 2 (0-100%).  If this is the case, the CRJ may not see it.  Create a new profile for the TCA Throttle and bind the AXIS to "Axis Throttle 1" and "Axis Throttle 2"  (the option without the (0-100%).

What is the difference between Axis Throttle and Axis Throttle (0-100%)?

[crimplene 631]

2 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

To me, not being able to load an MSFS generated flightplan, without having to engage in some cumbersome work around, is a 100% deal breaker. 

Not sure why Aerosoft can't what the WT group can do. 

In addition, I always use default ATC, so I need to be able to at least - the WT CJ4 mod does this without any problems - to "sync back" the flightplan to MSFS.

Yes, this is unfortunate. It has it's root in the programming, as far as I understand. WT uses JS and can therefore access internet data and internal flightplan data. The CRJ is a revised/worked over port from older C++ code which is compilated to WASM. The WASM engine in MSFS is sandboxed and can't access the flightplan data. I have no clue how complex it would have been to port the relevant code to JS using WASM sub-routines for calculation. As far as I understand Aerosoft waits for Asobo to implement communication protocols between WASM module and the rest of the sim.

If I misinterpreted something, please intervene. 😉

[neucoas 82]

18 minutes ago, Prpn said:

It is still a nice addon, flies pretty decent in manual mode and looks great. Performance and flight model also seems a bit closer to the real thing than it ever was in P3D and FSX. I may seem like I'm bashing it, but it is more disappointment in seeing the same issues return year after year, release after release. This was supposedly a rebuild from scratch, right? Good job rebuilding the same issues. And the dev should know about these as well, I posted them in their forum ages ago for the P3D version, but they seem happy to ignore them and subsequently recreate them.

Agree 100%. It's quite sad to see the same problems *again* after 3 major version. 

[neucoas 82]

10 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

To me, not being able to load an MSFS generated flightplan, without having to engage in some cumbersome work around, is a 100% deal breaker. 

Not sure why Aerosoft can't what the WT group can do. 

In addition, I always use default ATC, so I need to be able to at least - the WT CJ4 mod does this without any problems - to "sync back" the flightplan to MSFS.

Well, even the WT guys say that the feature is highly experimental and bug prone, and do not recommend using it. 

You could set up the flight plan on Msfs and then program the FMC. That should work without problems. I read of people doing exactly that. 

[Farlis 2,281]

48 minutes ago, Prpn said:

This was supposedly a rebuild from scratch, right?

Most definately not.

It clearly uses what was already programmed for the older versions and was then translated using the new programming tools. What is probably completely new is the flightmodel.

But the avionics modelling is likely to be 95% a portover translation.

Same with the model. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Farlis

[regis9 4,012]

If you build a flight plan in Simbrief and import it into both MSFS and the CRJ you should have matching plans without having to manually enter it.  

[cmorg 124]

I'm not quite understanding the preference for or reliance on the MSFS flight planning tool and being able to have it preprogrammed when you get on the flight deck.  I get that it's quick, cheap, and easy,--just like me--, but if you take the time to set up SimBrief Downloader with the proper filepath, it's just a few extra steps from being like the simbrief import the FBW20N has.  As far as I understand, the MSFS flight planner should work with it once AS is able to sort the WASM sandboxing and/or use MSFS's navdata , which in my opinion is quite questionable in the first place, however it obviously works for others, so that's just my take on it.

Personally, I enjoy entering the flight plan myself, but I fly mainly in the US where even a long journey only has a half-dozen waypoints and maybe an airway here or there, so it's not tremendously tedious.

Edit: I did neglect to consider the impact on the in-game ATC, so I can certainly see how that would be a concern.  I think @regis9has a good solution above.  Also, if you're using the in-game ATC...thoughts and prayers...

Edited March 17, 2021 by cmorg

[Ricardo41 5,948]

10 minutes ago, neucoas said:

Well, even the WT guys say that the feature is highly experimental and bug prone, and do not recommend using it. 

I've used this feature on every flight and haven't encountered any issues.

[Bobsk8 12,669]

14 minutes ago, regis9 said:

If you build a flight plan in Simbrief and import it into both MSFS and the CRJ you should have matching plans without having to manually enter it.  

The Simbrief downloader which I always use has a selection for the Aerosoft CRJ, so it should send the plan automatically if you check that box. 

[CJ1045 469]

Yes, let alone the much higher price I would not buy this as it does not support the MSFS flight planner. I find it quite ironic that this plane does not do something as fundamental as that but the Bredok 737 does.

CJ

[Farlis 2,281]

12 minutes ago, cmorg said:

I'm not quite understanding the preference for or reliance on the MSFS flight planning tool and being able to have it preprogrammed when you get on the flight deck.  I get that it's quick, cheap, and easy,--just like me--, but if you take the time to set up SimBrief Downloader with the proper filepath, it's just a few extra steps from being like the simbrief import the FBW20N has.  As far as I understand, the MSFS flight planner should work with it once AS is able to sort the WASM sandboxing and/or use MSFS's navdata , which in my opinion is quite questionable in the first place, however it obviously works for others, so that's just my take on it.

Personally, I enjoy entering the flight plan myself, but I fly mainly in the US where even a long journey only has a half-dozen waypoints and maybe an airway here or there, so it's not tremendously tedious.

Not to mention that at this current stage the default flightplanner has some serious limitations.

Maybe that will change in the future, but even if it does it will probably take a while before it makes its way back on the agenda. And by a while I mean at least 18 months. 😉

[Chock 17,769]

9 hours ago, Drumcode said:

Use Simbrief Alan, I'm surprised you aren't already. 

That's not really the issue though. The issue is that Aerosoft were at great pains to point out two things concerning this particular add-on: One was that it was designed from the ground up to be native to MSFS and the other was that they were, in making this thing, assisting with the development and functionality of the SDK, making this thing essentially a 'test case' for the SDK and its functionality and production methodologies.

Given that this is the case, the notion that it is incapable of using the built-in flight planner - of the sim it was specifically designed for - is frankly, ludicrous. Fundamentally stated, this should not have been a particularly not a massive problem to negotiate: The sim lists a bunch of waypoints in a flight plan, the FMC of the add-on also lists a bunch of waypoints in a flight plan. These waypoints have the same names and identifiers, so it's no more of a problem than having your word processor read a sentence, then load or save that as an ASCII file, .txt file or .doc or whatever.

So yes, it can use something like simbrief or whatever, but if it can read and use that format, then why wasn't it designed to convert/use another format? And we're not talking about some alien language here, this is the format the sim itself uses, which even comparatively simple default aeroplanes, and fairly simple add-on aeroplanes such as the Carenado 182 and the Virtualcol Beech can use with no problem.

It's not an insurmountable issue for most flight simmers who would want to use a more complex aeroplane in a more realistic manner, but a plane designed for this sim, and sold on the built-in market for this sim, should be able to use the basic functions of this sim. They need to sort that out. It's lazy, poor design and that's all there is to it.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Chock

[RXP 2,338]

2 hours ago, MarkW said:

Regardless of which device you are using or if you use FSUIPC or not, the issue is you have a problem with how the device is read in the registry.  Following these steps should fix it. 

This is an old article. Logitech is offering the correct "registry reset" files for each of their hardware here:

https://support.logi.com/hc/en-us/articles/360023194074-Recalibrate-controller-axes-RegEdit

PS: this support page is supposed to have them all, otherwise you can search for others:
https://www.qwant.com/?q=site%3Asupport.logi.com+Recalibrate

Edited March 17, 2021 by RXP