Release of Aerosoft CRJ good sign?

[virtuali 4,421]

2 hours ago, WestAir said:

At the end of the day, the fault lies with ASOBO. It's the reason PMDG aren't the only ones sitting on the sidelines. Next to them sit FlyTheMaddog, GSX, FSLabs, Majestic, QualityWings, etc etc etc.

We are surely not sitting on any sidelines with GSX, it's progressing very well, and we basically completed two of the most important services already, that is the FollowMe and the Pushback, which are the most complex ones, the rest are relatively easy compared to these.

But, before this can be turned into a product that can be released, there's still a lot of work to be done, which doesn't have anything to do with the SDK, it's just  that, considering the MSFS graphic capabilities, we wanted to step up again the quality of modeling/texturing, even from the better PBR models with had in P3D, so we are adding brand new models from scratch, improving a lot the best ones we had in P3D, and threw away everything which was still made in FSX-style (like passengers and some vehicle crews).

Some things might be considered SDK "limitations", but they are not serious enough to stop development. For example, Simconnect is still missing its existing native menu from FSX and the programmable text bar on top to show quick messages (they shows as Tips right now), but we have a temporary custom menu that we can use as a replacement while developing, which in the worse case scenario might still be used in the final product, at least until Asobo will add the proper menu, which should work in any mode, including VR (custom menus like the ones seen in current apps with a menu won't show the menu in VR).

Also, we don't have any of the functions that were added only in the P3D version of Simconnect (MSFS version is derived from FSX), so we don't have the ability to create custom cameras programmatically, we can't attach objects to other object so they will move together automatically, we can't ask the sim if the user clicked on a scenery and obtain the lat/lon coordinates of that click, since all of these were specific to P3D, but it's not that GSX cannot function without them (it surely did in FSX), and several of these features has been asked, not just by us.

So no, nobody is "waiting" here, we are working full time at GSX right now, and it's coming along nicely.

[benh320 5]

I don’t see how it’s a good sign, the aircraft is very far from being decent. The AP is thoroughly messed up. The flight dynamics in MSFS are whacked too - it needs a lot of work.

[devgrp 1,233]

16 minutes ago, benh320 said:

I don’t see how it’s a good sign, the aircraft is very far from being decent. The AP is thoroughly messed up. The flight dynamics in MSFS are whacked too - it needs a lot of work.

Let me guess, the flight model is worse than fsx? I've had 4 flights with the crj and there's nothing wrong with the ap for you to say it's "thoroughly" messed up. Don't know why people are saying msfs flight model is messed up. Must be because we've been flying on rails for so long in fsx and p3d so we think it's the gospel. 

[Ricardo41 5,949]

4 hours ago, WestAir said:

At the end of the day, the fault lies with ASOBO. It's the reason PMDG aren't the only ones sitting on the sidelines. Next to them sit FlyTheMaddog, GSX, FSLabs, Majestic, QualityWings, etc etc etc.

You have it exactly backwards: addon developers need to accomodate to the main platform. If you can't do that, for whatever reason, someone else surely will.

[benh320 5]

10 minutes ago, devgrp said:

Let me guess, the flight model is worse than fsx? I've had 4 flights with the crj and there's nothing wrong with the ap for you to say it's "thoroughly" messed up. Don't know why people are saying msfs flight model is messed up. Must be because we've been flying on rails for so long in fsx and p3d so we think it's the gospel. 

No I have no idea what the FSX model was like. I usually fly in XPlane and real life. IR multi rated. It’s so far from realistic. The simulator looks fantastic but that’s about as far as it goes. 

[CFIJose 5,485]

I have a simple question. What can I do with this AS CRJ, that I can't do with the CJ4 with all the available mods?

Edited March 18, 2021 by DJJose

[omarsmak30 4,068]

8 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Aerosoft seems to have written new code to conform to the SDK for the CRJ.  It's still possible that some of Aerosoft's code was also converted, but where it could not be converted, they likely wrote new code that conformed to the SDK.

Not completely, is still the same code for both P3D and MSFS since both C++ and use Simconnect APIs, Mr. M confirmed it in the mega thread. Mostly likely they re-wrote things in modular things that can be used with both sims without and different interfaces for each sim. Something like this :

P3D         | MSFS 
interface. | interface
-------------------------
Core code (same code)
------------------------- 

[kakihara123 144]

35 minutes ago, benh320 said:

No I have no idea what the FSX model was like. I usually fly in XPlane and real life. IR multi rated. It’s so far from realistic. The simulator looks fantastic but that’s about as far as it goes. 

I always hear people say that about some ominous flight model. That is way too vague. What is exactly is that unrealistic about it?

[omarsmak30 4,068]

4 hours ago, WestAir said:

Additionally a lot of functionality is not supported with the current SDK. Weather radar, EGPWS, even windshield wipers wiping away rain. If PMDG released their bird today it would have a fraction of the functionality of its P3D counterpart.

And are those like "critical" for the release? 

[devgrp 1,233]

45 minutes ago, benh320 said:

No I have no idea what the FSX model was like. I usually fly in XPlane and real life. IR multi rated. It’s so far from realistic. The simulator looks fantastic but that’s about as far as it goes. 

The flight model feels similar to xp so xp must be unrealistic also. Please tell us why the flight model is so unrealistic

[cavaricooper 2,615]

Bravo Umberto- onwards and upwards! I for one, am very much looking forward to GSX... hopefully there will be just one version this time, with the comprehensive feature set.

C

[psolk 3,040]

1 hour ago, benh320 said:

I don’t see how it’s a good sign, the aircraft is very far from being decent. The AP is thoroughly messed up. The flight dynamics in MSFS are whacked too - it needs a lot of work.

So being you obviously own it and are a RL pilot I'd love your opinion on what with the AP is "thoroughly" messed up and can you expand on what is "whacked" too?   

[honanhal 1,420]

6 hours ago, w6kd said:

The definition of "consensus" is, essentially, that everyone agrees.  Sorry, but no--the developer community is FAR from consensus on the readiness of aircraft modelling tools needed to produce actual high-fidelity aircraft simulation in MSFS at this point.

Yet when you ask specifically what tools are missing that make it impossible to produce high-fidelity aircraft? Crickets...

[Nickbe 401]

40 minutes ago, DJJose said:

I have a simple question. What can I do with this AS CRJ, that I can't do with the CJ4 with all the available mods?

I think you can lose your weather radar and terrain mapping with it. 🙂

But you will be able to carry a lot more passengers.

[Chock 17,769]

It's definitely a good sign, and it does show that we're well on the way, but we're not all the way there yet.

A lot of things which aren't supported by the SDK can still be done. Whether you'd want to do them is another matter of course. Sometimes this is what separates the men from the boys in terms of having at it, that said, the underlying issue with doing that however, is not whether you've got the chops to try, but whether you want to spend time jumping through hoops to achieve something if there may potentially be an easier or less hardware intensive officially supported/enabled way to do these things which is in the pipeline.

Clearly the Aerosoft CRJ demonstrates that you can have a pretty realistic airliner in MSFS, but the fact is that there are some things which MSFS lacks that are in other sims, for example particle effects. These are on the way apparently, but you can doubtless appreciate that for developers, it's a bit of a jam tomorrow situation which until it becomes jam today, would be a risky thing to start betting on being able to use.

A good example of what payware developers face, will doubtless be the experience which the Working Title people will find themselves adhering to now that they are 'officially' in the fold. Whilst being a freeware bunch, they could pretty much do what they wanted and had the freedom to take unorthodox approaches and bend rules to stuff to get things accomplished. We can see this in the negative impact some aeroplane-specific modifications have in rippling down to other things in the sim; there'll be precious little of that allowed when officially on board. On the plus side-however, they might inject a more 'can do' attitude into the proceedings with some forceful personality since they had the get up and go required to do what they did, and let's hope that is the case. After all, how hard can it be to boss around a bunch of computer nerds with the social skills of a wooden plank? 🤣

Edited March 18, 2021 by Chock