Feel free to drop your by and share you thoughts. This is not a bug thread but a wish list

1. Weather/Terrain (especially terrain radar as it most useful in MSFS)

2. Import MSFS flight plan functionality

3. Navigraph EFB integration

4. V1,V2 calls

5. Visual icing

6. Cabin access

1. Fully Agree

2. Fully Agree

3. Not a Navigraph user, but am considering it

4.Fully Agree

5 Could not Disagree More. Until they fix the icing visuals, I would rather they just not use them. Waaayyy overdone in the current state

6. Actually, you can. It is a low poly, low res interior, but you CAN get in there. I set up my wing views to look through the windows, similar to the FBW320. I set up 4 wing views that way, all looking through a different window, and it works pretty well.

Edited March 19, 20215 yr by GACSavannah
My horrid spelling skills

8 minutes ago, GACSavannah said:

 

3. Not a Navigraph user, but am considering it

 

Hey there.  I recently bit the bullet and decided to upgrade to Ultimate yearly for about 85 USD (everything and charts).  I mainly did this because I'm a huge fan of the WT CJ mod.  Additionally I don't get out of the US much and I wanted the ability to do so (IE navigate) and shoot approaches.  There are no VFR sectionals or whatever they call them outside of the US but there are low/hi enroute plus IAPs.  All charts can georeference (display your plane on chart) either via the Navigraph app and/or on the WT CJ.  There is also a night mode with inverted colors - which I prefer all the time for readability.

Overall I'm quite impressed so far but it does seem pricey right away...but I bought a whole year so it should be worth it.

Thanks Ryan. I typically just use SkyVector for any charts or plates, and of course they pretty much always have them because they cater to the real world, but have been considering Navigraph only for the integration, as you mentioned. I'm just trying to decide if having that integration is worth the price.

There is a trial period I think 7 days maybe?  Try that!

I don't get this constant complaint about the "overdone" icing as a reason to not include visual effects.

The aircraft maker gets to choose the icing map texture that corresponds to 100% structural icing. So just make 100% more understated. 

Is everyone flying around with the 'visual icing only' option set and no performance impacts of icing? It makes no sense to me to have 0 visual representation of icing because then you have no visual clues to go off of when flying. 

1. Shared CP (like their busses have).

2. Virtual CP crew with interactive checklists (as we are used to like their busses have).

3. Service based failiures, adjustable via factor (as we are used to like the PMDG`s have).

4 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Feel free to drop your by and share you thoughts. This is not a bug thread but a wish list

1. Weather/Terrain (especially terrain radar as it most useful in MSFS)

2. Import MSFS flight plan functionality

3. Navigraph EFB integration

4. V1,V2 calls

5. Visual icing

6. Cabin access

1) Yes

2) No, why use that?, when you can use Simbrief and inport your flight into the FMS. 

3) Yes

4) Yes

5) yes

6) No wish for that at all.

 

Edited March 19, 20215 yr by Nyxx

Interactive checklist would be wonderful.

Using the MSFS flightplanner would be great.

Are there tooltips at mouseover? If not, why not?

Is it realistic that the left APU button has no visual clue if on or off?

44 minutes ago, bumpywindshear said:

Virtual CP crew with interactive checklists (as we are used to like their busses have).

Oh yes, this would be nice but:

M.Kok from Aerosoft state in the past (release CRJ P3D version) that these feature will available only to the Aerosoft Airbusses. As a unic feature for the busses 

I´m pretty shure FSCrew will make this part.

 

14 minutes ago, crimplene said:

Using the MSFS flightplanner would be great.

At time ASOBO/MS dont give accecss to all MSFS interal sources for 3. party developer.

M.Kok wrote that the CRJ can´t use the flightplanner waypoints for example due access restrictions from ASOBO/MS.

 

I miss using control devices like the Honeycomb Alpha and Bravo or Streamdecks in particular for lights and autopilot.

Currently many functions are not usable because the default key bindings do not work with the Aerosoft CRJ.

https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/160861-bindable-buttons-inop/

 

5 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

6. Cabin access

You can do that, there is a video in youtube about how to create wing views, use that method to save a custom view for the cabin. I have done this 

2 hours ago, ngc3000 said:

Oh yes, this would be nice but:

M.Kok from Aerosoft state in the past (release CRJ P3D version) that these feature will available only to the Aerosoft Airbusses. As a unic feature for the busses 

I´m pretty shure FSCrew will make this part.

 

At time ASOBO/MS dont give accecss to all MSFS interal sources for 3. party developer.

M.Kok wrote that the CRJ can´t use the flightplanner waypoints for example due access restrictions from ASOBO/MS.

 

As far as I understand, it is the sandboxed WASM code that has no access to certain things  while JS code has.

3 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

I miss using control devices like the Honeycomb Alpha and Bravo or Streamdecks in particular for lights and autopilot.

Currently many functions are not usable because the default key bindings do not work with the Aerosoft CRJ.

https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/160861-bindable-buttons-inop/

 

And note the typical gaslighting from Kork. 

26 minutes ago, crimplene said:

As far as I understand, it is the sandboxed WASM code that has no access to certain things  while JS code has.

I dunno, maybe use "JS code", then?

15 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

And note the typical gaslighting from Kork. 

I dunno, maybe use "JS code", then?

Try that proposal on the Aerosoft guys. 🙂 As far as I know they used WASM (because they of course used their existing C++ programming) and wait for ASOBO to find a method allowing WASM code access to all the data. For Javascript they would have had to code more or less from scratch - and not only the Hartmann guy but a whole team. So we would have had the CRJ not now but in 2023.

There might have been the possibility to reprogram only small parts and combine both. I am no expert in this but I think that should've been a possibility.

Edited March 19, 20215 yr by crimplene