2 hours ago, hjsmuc said:

Sounds like you have a bit of jitter in your yoke.

I managed to get this mostly resolved by changing the deadzone and the sensitivity for the respective axes. However, no way this bird captures a glideslope for me. I am constantly trying on the same LFBO approach, and in parallel with the FBW 320. While the latter doesn't make me a better pilot, it does exactly what it is supposed to do. The CRJ doesn't follow the glideslope at all. 

 

1 hour ago, hjsmuc said:

I managed to get this mostly resolved by changing the deadzone and the sensitivity for the respective axes. However, no way this bird captures a glideslope for me. I am constantly trying on the same LFBO approach, and in parallel with the FBW 320. While the latter doesn't make me a better pilot, it does exactly what it is supposed to do. The CRJ doesn't follow the glideslope at all. 

 

That was talked about over on the Aerosoft Forums.

Hans Hartmann conceded that this an ongoing MSFS bug that ASOBO needs to adress. But after so many people complained about it he caved and decided to write his own GS following code to test over the weekend and then have the implemented if it works.

 

15 minutes ago, Farlis said:

That was talked about over on the Aerosoft Forums.

Hans Hartmann conceded that this an ongoing MSFS bug that ASOBO needs to adress. But after so many people complained about it he caved and decided to write his own GS following code to test over the weekend and then have the implemented if it works.

 

The problem seems to be that the default MSFS systems have been used too often here, and the default systems are not very good. I'd expect that a supposedly high-fidelity payware addon would already have custom glideslope capture programming, rather than this being something that is hastily added in once it is pointed out that the released autoland system is inadequate. 

4 hours ago, Tom_L said:

Nope! Happens to many obviously. Even the pros are affected, here's a video (watch from 3:14:40 on)

 

Lol Hans replies always amaze me. I could picture him now being cranky and cursing with all the words available in the German language dictionary 😂

Ja good, at least he acknowledged it and he will fix it. 

Edited March 18, 20215 yr by omarsmak30

26 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

The problem seems to be that the default MSFS systems have been used too often here, and the default systems are not very good. I'd expect that a supposedly high-fidelity payware addon would already have custom glideslope capture programming, rather than this being something that is hastily added in once it is pointed out that the released autoland system is inadequate. 

I see a design philosophy behind this that is ill advised.

There is so much leftover FSX code in MSFS that has long sinced been fixed and added upon in P3D but Asobo had neither the knowledge nor the access to those changes.

And now the first major add-on tries to act as if the new platform had all the capabilities needed and tries for once not to do what has been done for ages: Adding custom avionics.

I can kind of see the point in trying for once to have the platform developer fix the inadequacies instead of trying to circumvent them with custom systems, like it has been done in the past.

That does make sense for effect systems, but not for avionics, engine parameters and flight management. 

Then again Asobo should fix their default autopilot asap.

Edited March 18, 20215 yr by Farlis

The attitude I am seeing of "that's a sim issue" on things they could legitimately code around (in two days) means I won't be purchasing any Aerosoft addons anytime soon.  Actually the entire holier-then-thou attitude of their forum means I won't be purchasing anything from them. 

Edited March 18, 20215 yr by marsman2020

7 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

Actually the entire holier-then-thou attitude of their forum means I won't be purchasing anything from them.

Yeah that kinda took me by surprise.  This may be my first and last purchase from them.

4 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

The attitude I am seeing of "that's a sim issue" on things they could legitimately code around (in two days) means I won't be purchasing any Aerosoft addons anytime soon.  Actually the entire holier-then-thou attitude of their forum means I won't be purchasing anything from them. 

They do that often, even from FSX and P3D days, blame it on something else lock the thread. Now with MSFS, they found a pretty good excuse to dodge the issues. I hope this situation will change in a year or so with new developers and new fresh blood to MSFS. I think MSFS needs this new fresh blood of developers, similar to FBW and WT. 

 

 

 

Did some flights today, to Palm springs, and Las Vegas from Long Beach Ca.

I have come to the conclusion this plane is possessed by the evil spirits, or was built on a Friday after cocktail lunch.

The thing drops altitude for no reason, when it should be holding,  will not come back with VS, without some disengaging AP,   the thing will not do a RNAV approach on its own, and I can’t ever get it to do ILS.

Where are all the people that ragged on the 737Max.  at least it will fly most of the time, some errors probably with sim, but my 787, my A320NX, and 737 all fly better than this plane in autopilot.

 

Its pretty to look at,  the programming is cool in the flight computer, but thats about where this thing stands with me..

 

Bummer looked promising,  when you go to the Aerosoft forum, the guy nah says everyones issues, and blames users.

This thing should not of made it past the Beta testers,  I can’t believe everyone can blame this on Update 3

Back to flying my 737, at least it does not want to kill me the entire flight, until MCAS goes nuts..

I don't have the CRJ, and now I won't get it. What really bothers me is Aerosoft's attitude, and the positive reviews, some apparently by real airline and CRJ pilots. If I understand correctly what is being reported here, I have to conclude that either these reviewers didn't think the fact that the AP couldn't follow a glide slope was important enough to report to prospective buyers for some reason, or they were unaware because they did not test whether the AP could correctly follow the glide slope. Either way, very discouraging IMO.

Al

Edited March 19, 20215 yr by ark

8 hours ago, Twenty6 said:

 Leads me to believe it's being ported over from P3D code no matter what they are telling everyone.

No sane developer would throw out perfectly functional assets from an earlier version if it is fit for purpose, no matter what the marketing spin doctors say about it

Basically when a developer say "not ported" they will generally mean they started a separate new project and anything that is functionally different like the new textures and new flight model have been done in the new sim (as opposed to "importing" the entire product holus bolus warts and all and patching the import to force it work).  It does not mean they sandboxed the new project and used absolutely no old code, it means they started a new project and they may or may not have recycled old assets.

It may well be some old code snuck in that should not have, that does not make it a port.

If you want something that is guaranteed to be entirely new code you would need to look for a developer that has never made that particular aircraft before.

Edited March 19, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

1 hour ago, ark said:

If I understand correctly what is being reported here, I have to conclude that either these reviewers didn't think the fact that the AP couldn't follow a glide slope was important enough to report to prospective buyers for some reason, or they were unaware because they did not test whether the AP could correctly follow the glide slope. Either way, very discouraging IMO.

Or they got free copies and they don't want to comment too much so they get more free copies in the future

Edited March 19, 20215 yr by marsman2020

...did my 1st flight with it yesterday 3:30h session, learned to fly it while flying it... what can i say, it captured nice & smoth LOC while on a 30 deg cut on RW heading while 500 feet below GS and captured it nicely afterwards. Just stay above 120 knots or it start doing bad things. It followed the path good enough so i disconnected AP at about 500 feet AGL and had a nice landing.

Edited March 19, 20215 yr by bumpywindshear

I keep trying still no,luck. I have flown the palm springs RNAV hundreds of times, and Long Beach ILS IRL.  and I can’t get either an RNAV or a ILS to,work.

Same with LAS 26R ILS,  and KCMA RNAV. any runway.

The times its not trying to just lose altitude for no reason....

I want to like this plane, I really do....but I hope they come out with some patch for this thing... or its the last Aerosoft plane I will buy.  I like their sim, Aerofly2 its awesome in VR, even though you are alone in the world.

 

3 hours ago, bumpywindshear said:

...did my 1st flight with it yesterday 3:30h session, learned to fly it while flying it... what can i say, it captured nice & smoth LOC while on a 30 deg cut on RW heading while 500 feet below GS and captured it nicely afterwards. Just stay above 120 knots or it start doing bad things. It followed the path good enough so i disconnected AP at about 500 feet AGL and had a nice landing.

same here....