2 hours ago, virtuali said:

We are surely not sitting on any sidelines with GSX, it's progressing very well.

Sorry. I used the wrong expression and in doing so insulted your company. I should have stayed quiet.

Thanks for the prompt and courteous rebuttal my friend.

Edited March 18, 20215 yr by WestAir

2 hours 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.

I've read posts from a few RL CRJ pilots who claim that it flies pretty well.

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

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.

My point, which I made poorly, was that there may not be a difference in 3PD release date between full steam ahead and waiting.

Does anyone know how long it would take to rewrite the code for the PMDG or FSLabs to be compatible with MSFS2020 without waiting for updates to the SDK?

Edited March 18, 20215 yr by WestAir

59 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

And are those like "critical" for the release? 

It was a poor example on my part. I wanted to emphasize the logistical difficulties of a today release with the current SDK.

How do you charge full price for a product with 40% the capabilities of its P3d counterpart? Do you charge per update as functionality is made available, or full price with an IOU?

How do you handle the subsequent firestorm from players who are expecting a 1:1 transition and find most everything doesn't work? Does your reputation survive?

9 minutes ago, tweekz said:

I've read posts from a few RL CRJ pilots who claim that it flies pretty well.

Exactly, but as ever, we'll hear some saying that it does, some saying that it doesn't. When I hear one of these saying 'I've got ten million hours on the CRJ and this switch is not making the right sound', I just think, 'oh shut up, you tw*t, it's a forty quid add-on, not a 17 million quid Level D motion simulator'.

But what else is new in that eh? It's like that with pretty much every flight simulator add-on aeroplane and I think a lot of it comes down to one's personal attitude towards stuff. I mean, I know Manchester Airport like the back of my hand from having lived near it and worked at the place a lot, so it'd be easy for me to start being a twonk and slagging off the Macca Sims MSFS version of it by saying the Jet 2 Hangar is six inches too long, or there's a door missing from the building next to the jet bridge on stand 27, but how much of a tool would I be if I did stuff like that with an add-on which I paid six quid for?

Edited March 18, 20215 yr by Chock

6 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Does anyone know how long it would take to rewrite the code for the PMDG or FSLabs to be compatible with MSFS2020 without waiting for updates to the SDK?

Well if they wrote a poor code that doesn't follow proper coding principles but it works, then from my view that will be their problem. At least TFDi is aware of this and they are coding their MD-11 in modular way that can easily later work in MSFS once they are done from the P3D version (they replied to my comment and confirmed this).

 

1 minute ago, WestAir said:

It was a poor example on my part. I wanted to emphasize the logistical difficulties of a today release with the current SDK.

How do you charge full price for a product with 40% the capabilities of its P3d counterpart? Do you charge per update as functionality is made available, or full price with an IOU?

How do you handle the subsequent firestorm from players who are expecting a 1:1 transition and find most everything doesn't work? Does your reputation survive?

First how missing weather radar or terrain radar makes it 40% missing? And second, I don't see the problem with that, like how Aerosoft is doing and they already made it clear in their FAQs, once this is added to the SDK, it will be eventually added to the add-one as free updates. 

6 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

Well if they wrote a poor code that doesn't follow proper coding principles but it works, then from my view that will be their problem. At least TFDi is aware of this and they are coding their MD-11 in modular way that can easily later work in MSFS once they are done from the P3D version (they replied to my comment and confirmed this).

 

First how missing weather radar or terrain radar makes it 40% missing? And second, I don't see the problem with that, like how Aerosoft is doing and they already made it clear in their FAQs, once this is added to the SDK, it will be eventually added to the add-one as free updates. 

I concede I do not know enough about the situation to fairly answer you. If I tried I'd be guessing, or worse, lying.

I like to think all our favorite developers want their products released more than we do, and that they have pretty understandable reasons why their products aren't yet here.

My first few posts were rough examples of why that may be. Sorry if I mislead you into thinking I had more answers than I did. 

1 hour 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?

Simulate a CRJ...

18 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

First how missing weather radar or terrain radar makes it 40% missing?

Well what do you know?!! Turns out this was actually a pretty good guess 🤣

 

Edited March 18, 20215 yr by Chock

2 minutes ago, Chock said:

Well what do you know?!! Turns out this was actually a pretty good guess 🤣

 

Under my tombstone it will read: "Proof that a broken clock is right twice a day." 😂

3 minutes ago, xender said:

Simulate a CRJ...

A real CRJ, highly unlikely.

My point is that "a good sign" to me would be if I can fly a full flight from start to finish without issues. With the P3D version I was never able to complete a full flight.

i hope that users are at least able to load a flight plan and engage the AP and are able to complete a flight without any issues.

Just now, DJJose said:

A real CRJ, highly unlikely.

My point is that "a good sign" to me would be if I can fly a full flight from start to finish without issues. With the P3D version I was never able to complete a full flight.

i hope that users are at least able to load a flight plan and engage the AP and are able to complete a flight without any issues.

Yup, can confirm I managed that one. Here's my toy aeroplane coming into Paris from Manchester; that was my first go with the thing and I hadn't even bothered reading the manuals at that point either. I suspect a lot of the 'this doesn't work' complaining is more a case of: 'I couldn't be @rsed reading the manual and expected it to be the same as the 737, and when it wasn't, I thought it was broken.'

7 minutes ago, DJJose said:

A real CRJ, highly unlikely.

I dont own it yet but i have seen real crj pilots praising it. mmmm. Im missing something here?

 

So, no terrain radar, no weather radar, can't read default MSFS flightplans. Lemme go get my credit card......

10 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.

There are also still gaps in the SDK so that stuff like the precipitation data, outside chart navigation or even the windshield rain effect for the wipers is not available at this time.

So while the first steps have been done, I'm sure there was mutual feedback on what the SDK needs in the future. There is stuff the new sim can do that was impossible before, but there is also stuff that the new sim can't do, what was possible before. And that is where there is work to be done.

One should only ever gain functionality and not lose some.