5 minutes ago, Farlis said:

outside chart navigation.

You need to be more specific with this.  Because the glass panel cockpits use Javascript, from what the WT and FBW devs said.  So outside data can be accessed from the internet using Javascript.

21 minutes ago, Chock said:

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.'

Thanks Alan! Your enthusiasm has done it again. I'll get it as soon as MSFS fixes the fps issues that it introduced after the last update. I'm limited to NZ right now, but I hope I can fly in Spain. Is there a Spain livery with initial release? TKS

Just now, Farlis said:

One should only ever gain functionality and not lose some.

But we have indeed gained functionality with this CRJ. Not as much as we could admittedly, but certainly it offers a lot more than any of the default airliners do and at this point we're still only six months down the line with MSFS.

It took literally four years after the release of FSX for FSL to merely announce that they were making their A320, and six years after that for it to actually make it into the sim. That's ten years after the release of the main program, and up to that point we were hearing the same story we're hearing here, i.e. 'it's not possible to replicate the systems of an A320 realistically in FSX'. When you look at it like that, we are of an order of magnitude further down the line with MSFS than we were with FSX. Even when P3D showed up, it took them five stabs at it to get it where it is today, and it took most developers longer than six months to get their already existing FSX add-ons into P3D, and when they did, they sure as s*** weren't forty quid either.

21 minutes ago, Chock said:

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.'

I think you are a different kind of simmer than some of the people that are not as enthusiastic about the CRJ, like me. You seem more of a casual simmer, I like my addon to at least have a baseline correct performance approximating the real thing. The current CRJ has a looooot of issues that make it unnecessarily challenging to perform a full flight using normal procedures. And not issues like "a door is missing on this building and it is six inches too tall" that you referred to before.

1 minute ago, Prpn said:

I think you are a different kind of simmer than some of the people that are not as enthusiastic about the CRJ, like me. You seem more of a casual simmer, I like my addon to at least have a baseline correct performance approximating the real thing. The current CRJ has a looooot of issues that make it unnecessarily challenging to perform a full flight using normal procedures. And not issues like "a door is missing on this building and it is six inches too tall" that you referred to before.

For $50 US dollars is probably a good value. PMDG at twice the price will have more of what you are looking for. We need to wait and see what PMDG can pull off in the platform.

7 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

You need to be more specific with this.  Because the glass panel cockpits use Javascript, from what the WT and FBW devs said.  So outside data can be accessed from the internet using Javascript.

But not with WASM, because it is sandboxed. And if you want to build an add-on without switching between coding languages (I assume for efficiency and performance reasons) then there are limitatations at this point.

7 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

You need to be more specific with this.  Because the glass panel cockpits use Javascript, from what the WT and FBW devs said.  So outside data can be accessed from the internet using Javascript.

I believe it's due to the CRJ being done in WASM (I could be wrong) and at this moment in time WASM can't access certain things. One of them being the weather data to do the weather radar as you can with the HTML/Javascript setup. 

5 minutes ago, Chock said:

But we have indeed gained functionality with this CRJ.

On the platform,yes. But on the aircraft itself, which is an updated version of their already existing add-on we lost functionality because of coding restrictions.

10 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

The consensus is, the tools are available in the current MSFS SDK for high fidelity planes ("study level" if you really want to use that term). However, the developer may need to write new code to achieve this with the MSFS SDK.

Yep, that's why the HUD is not collided on the CRJ, one of the dev told me that they tried to use P3D code and it did not work.

Well code is here and working on the Asobo 787

2 minutes ago, Prpn said:

baseline correct performance approximating the real thing.

If I remember some of your posts than you fly/flew the CRJ in real life, correct? would be curious then as to whcih correct performance you refer to. and I mean this serious. I am for sure a casual simmer and the depth of the CRJ is enough for what I can digest between calls and webex meetings :-). and yes, I also did not read that manual. all fine with some base work and knowledge on my trip to KEYW right now at FL280 but I am already now scared to do the RNAV09 approach knowing that I will barely bring it down in once piece with too much nose up and left/right wobbling at low(er) airspeeds. coming back to my question then, is that normal during approach (when you do something wrong like me) or is that exactly the correct performance you are missing?

20 minutes ago, DJJose said:

Thanks Alan! Your enthusiasm has done it again. I'll get it as soon as MSFS fixes the fps issues that it introduced after the last update. I'm limited to NZ right now, but I hope I can fly in Spain. Is there a Spain livery with initial release? TKS

The plane is really smooth even with the fps problems.  I was actually surprised. Managed to complete 4 flights with my gpu running at 55% and fps at ~28

46 minutes ago, Prpn said:

I think you are a different kind of simmer than some of the people that are not as enthusiastic about the CRJ, like me. You seem more of a casual simmer

If you think that, then you clearly haven't read any of my reviews on Avsim back from the day, covering things such as the 737, 727, 707, A300 etc. Some of those reviews made War and Peace look like a pamphlet. 😄

How many reviewers do you know who went to the extent of going finding a real 707 (actually it was a 720, but pretty much the same thing), checking that out, buying a set of manuals for the thing and reading all of those, just to review a Captain Sim 707 of all things and be able to say, with genuine knowledge of what I was talking about, whether its EPR gauge readings were correct? 🤣

I've been a qualified pilot for 25 years and been messing about with flight sim stuff for about as long as that too, and I've worked on the CRJ for real a lot as well, so I do appreciate realism, and if you ever fly an A320 and grab that SOP binder off the shelf and read that, you're welcome, because it was me who produced that thing. But none of that really relates to this more than to say that, what I am when it comes to flight sim stuff, is a pragmatic flight simmer who can appreciate various products and their targets and price points for what they are, be they super-complex FSL A320s and Majestic Dash 8s, or cheap and cheerful Virtualcol jump in and go affairs. I will be just as enthusiastic when reviewing a 20 quid add-on as I will a 200 quid one, in relation to what these products are both aiming for.

This CRJ is pretty much slap bang in the middle of those things, perhaps maybe 60 percent (TM) of the way toward nerd level realism. Yes that does mean that you can't use it in the same way that you'd use say the FSL A320, but much of what you do in terms of realism for your flight sims is in the eye of the beholder anyway.

If you expect an FSL-style affair in MSFS at a 40 quid price tag, which is less than a third of the price of that FSL product, then you're looking at this thing the wrong way. It's like expecting a film made for young teens to appeal to an older audience, then slagging it off because it doesn't meet those ill-placed expectations. It's not the film that's the problem, it's the incorrect expectations of the person.

Thus my enthusiasm for this product is allied to its intended target, and that's what all reviews should be like if they are an honest appraisal of the product at hand. Anyway, I'm off to write a sternly worded letter to the author of this thing. It's outrageous, do they think we are children?

Edited March 18, 20215 yr by Chock

11 minutes ago, DAD said:

If I remember some of your posts than you fly/flew the CRJ in real life, correct? would be curious then as to whcih correct performance you refer to. and I mean this serious. I am for sure a casual simmer and the depth of the CRJ is enough for what I can digest between calls and webex meetings :-). and yes, I also did not read that manual. all fine with some base work and knowledge on my trip to KEYW right now at FL280 but I am already now scared to do the RNAV09 approach knowing that I will barely bring it down in once piece with too much nose up and left/right wobbling at low(er) airspeeds. coming back to my question then, is that normal during approach (when you do something wrong like me) or is that exactly the correct performance you are missing?

Things like being able to climb at 25-30 degree pitch up and 6000+ fpm after takeoff while maintaining speed with a normal load of pax... Not slippery enough during descent, the low speed stuff does not feel right either. But just in general, I expect to do a bit more, stuff you'd do on a daily basis in normal operations that is simply not implemented. Like deleting altitude restrictions at waypoints. Some might say the price is right, I don't agree. Even accounting for inflation, the PMDG Jetstream 41 from 10+ years ago had more system depth and was way more complete than what you get now from Aerosoft for more money. 

But, different kind of simmers, different personal standards, different ideas on value for money etc.

My guess: the disruption age has come to the FS world. Some shops will take advantage of the self-imposed-or- not delays of  PMDG and the like to jump in and write new code. Will it take time? Yes. Is that a losing proposition? Far from sure. I could imagine that even with eventually very good ports based on legacy code by PMDG and co., the consumer will have more options and may well turn towards the newcomers because of added functionality, better FPS, etc.

Time will tell.

29 minutes ago, Farlis said:

But not with WASM, because it is sandboxed. And if you want to build an add-on without switching between coding languages (I assume for efficiency and performance reasons) then there are limitatations at this point.

The WT and FBW A320 mods that use Javascript seem pretty efficient to me.  Switching languages is not ideal but my point stands, some of the features can be done with Javascript.  You said the capability wasn't there which isn't true, if the developer is willing to use the tools necessary to get access to those features (ie. using Javascript if needed).

I think you should dig through some of the WT and FBW developer responses about MSFS.  There is a lot more capable for the developers if they are willing to use the necessary language and necessary tools to achieve what they want. 

Edited March 18, 20215 yr by abrams_tank