What do I miss the most in Aerosoft CRJ

[regis9 4,014]

10 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

There are no VFR sectionals or whatever they call them outside of the US but there are low/hi enroute plus IAPs. 

They’re supposed to be coming, though they’ve been saying that for a while now.  Hopefully soon.

Even with that piece missing my Navigraph subscription is certainly among my best cost/benefit ratio flight simming expenses.

[DAD 2,652]

9 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

You mean you can do that with the Honeycomb Bravo?

Nope sorry, just mouse dialing

[RALF9636 1,959]

15 minutes ago, DAD said:

Nope sorry, just mouse dialing

Okay. That works for me as well of course.

[SimFx 61]

21 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

I'm away from my PC so can't check right now but if memory serves me well not all the autopilot modes can be set with the corresponding button on the Honeycomb Bravo. Some may work, but some do not.

Right. I am not on my PC either, but from memory I definitely have HDG, NAV, APP, ALT, and VS buttons working just fine. On top of that, speed, vertical speed and heading can be dialled in, altitude does not unfortunately. Not being able to dial in an Altitude is what annoyes me most, especially in VR fiddling with the cockpit Alt dial is a real pita.

[Farlis 2,287]

7 hours ago, bumpywindshear said:

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

Will drive the cost up to PMDG levels.

[Chock 17,769]

10 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

To be honest, I don't think it lacks that much for the intent it was shooting for and the price it came in at. If I was going to be picky - and I realise most of this which follows is indeed picky - but since you asked, here we go...

This first one is more a criticism of the main program than the add-on itself, where we either have available, a dinky little ride-on push cart, or a massive Aerotech-style towbarless affair, both of which are entirely unsuited to pushing regional airliners back. I think we're in the hands of GSX or FS2Crew for a solution to this, but in the interim, watching the default towbarless tug crashing into the visual model of this CRJ in a pushback turn is visually awful, and that's a shame to see it when Aerosoft have made such a lovely model of the CRJ. I wish they could have knocked up a MULAG model for the pushback which used a proper towbar.

I realise of course that from a programming standpoint, it is easier to model a pushback vehicle which contacts the nosewheel directly, since this then only requires one pivot point for the sim to calculate, but of course the reason you do have a towbar-type tugs pushing stuff such as the ATR, EMB-147, CRJ, Do328 etc, is because they are too low to clear a lifting tug's structure, so this is a problem which is only going to get worse as we get more regional jet and turboprop add-ons for MSFS. 

Fun fact about the CRJ here by the way - unlike many airliners, but quite common on regionals, it doesn't actually use a steering bypass pin on the nose gear. Depending on the variant, it either automatically disconnects the steering from the hydraulics when you open the ground power access panel via a little switch which works the same as the one on you fridge which turns the light on when you open the door, or in some variants there is a cockpit switch which activates the steering bypass.

I have a similar issue with the GPUs in the sim and again this is more of a criticism of the sim's infrastructure for GSE than an issue with this CRJ itself, but it doesn't alter the fact that it looks bad. At most airports the ground power is fed from a cable either coming out of a ground plug, or off an extending pantograph, it's only really on remote stands that you tend to see GPUs, and even then, they are rarely massive trucks like we see in the sim; far more common are the towed units. Seeing that big GPU truck backing into the aeroplane models in MSFS makes me cringe (and it's not how it is done anyway, you drive in a circle to end up alongside the thing so you don't risk hitting the aeroplane). For this CRJ, I'd have preferred to see just the ground power door opening and a power cable trailing away toward the head of the stand, which would not be a difficult thing to model so long as it could inhibit the appearance of a GPU truck in the sim if you called for ground power.

It'd be fun to see air start units too. Although the CRJ is very reliable in terms of its APU and I've only ever had to air start one of them, which is not something I could say about its rival - the EMB-145 - those things would quite frequently require an air start unit, at least in my experience, it'd be fun to be able to do this procedure. Again this is a base sim issue rather than a problem specific to this particular add-on, but it would have been fun to be able to do an air start, not least because of the volume - you've gotta hear one of those things to appreciate how loud they get. They weigh a ton too, anyone who has ever towed one will tell you that, and anyone who has ever reversed one into position should get a medal!

Another one is all the switches on the back cockpit wall. It'd be great if all the circuit breakers functioned as well, but expecting that on a forty quid add-on is asking a bit much, so I'm not really complaining about that, it'd just be nice if it was the case. Even if they just popped in and out and didn't do much else it would be kind of fun and might even be something which modders could have at.

More realistically in terms of a function I'd hope would be forthcoming at some point, would be the ability to utilise the default flight planner. This is a fairly serious shortcoming of the add-on and I certainly hope they address it. It seems to me that an add-on designed for this sim ought to be able to use one of its included functions and relying on external flight planners rather than making the thing entirely self contained, is a flaw in the product in my opinion.

Again a visual thing, but not an uncommon sight, I'd like to see some activity around the cabin door during loading. You usually have the cabin crew chatting with a TCO about what can and cannot go in the cabin of the CRJ, since it is small, and so there's always a lot of activity near the airstairs on a CRJ during a turnaround. On most airliners with an airbridge, we can leave this to our imaginations since you can't really see the front cabin door with the jet bridge attached to an A320 or 747, but on a CRJ, it looks a bit lonesome on the ramp without this activity around the door. The attendants on a CRJ certainly do earn their pay.

I'd kind of like to see some kind of load plan stuff going on for the thing too, which might be allied to the ability for it to use the default flight planner. It's quite common on CRJs to carry ballast, certainly on the longer variants such as the 900. This is because the main cargo hold is right in the tail and it was designed to be in balance with a cargo hold which matched the amount of passengers it would carry. As a result, if not many people are bringing heavy bags and what they do bring is going in the lower fuselage hold and there isn't much in the rear hold, it quite often needs some bags of lead shot in the rear hold to get it in balance. These are typically 20kg sacks full of either stones or lead shot, and you quite often need to throw five or six of these in the tail to have the thing balance properly.

I'd like it if the fuel panel on the exterior opened and functioned too. This is on the starboard side near the wing root and it's kind of fun to faff about with it in real life, or just to watch its counter when fueling up. More visually pertinent, would be the inclusion of cones around the aeroplane when it is chocked. In reality you tend to stick several cones around aeroplanes such as the CRJ on a turnaround because it'd be easy to hit a wing or engine with a vehicle, so it normally has a cone one metre off each wingtip and one off the tail, sometimes there'll be cones placed near the engines as well, although this is more often the case on the EMB-145.

It'd be nice to have a co-pilot model in the cockpit too. Not everyone wants this of course, so it'd have to be a toggle I suspect, but it's always a bit weird to look over at the right seat of an airliner and not see anyone sat there. Funny story on this incidentally. There were two absolutely drop-dead gorgeous co-pilots who used to fly the SAS CRJs I worked on (and trust me, when I say beautiful, I mean absolutely a solid ten in anyone's book, the kind of women who'd be able to tell Johnny Depp to get in the queue lol). This, plus the fact that the CRJ is  easy to work on, was among the reasons why everyone on my shift wanted to work on those flights. Those beautiful co-pilots are definitely something I miss on this CRJ model. 🤣

I can't say it would break my heart if none of these things happened, although I genuinely do think at the very least it should be able to use the default flight planner.

[Treetops45 1,082]

 - Being able to use the MSFS Flight Plan, (follow the Magenta line on NAV)

- Reduced exhaust emissions visibility, it's like following a diesel bus when I'm  tucked in behind.

T45

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Treetops45
Clarification

[RALF9636 1,959]

31 minutes ago, Treetops45 said:

 

- Reduced exhaust emissions visibility, it's like following a diesel bus when I'm  tucked in behind.

T45

 

If you mean the heatblur, the effect is way overemphasized in the sim.

You can disable the effect:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/how-to-disable-unrealistic-heat-blur-effects-from-airliner-jet-engines/331020

Edited March 19, 2021 by RALF9636

[RXP 2,338]

8 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

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

I'm sorry to intervene in a topic pertaining to a fellow 3rd party product, but actually I feel compelled to, no less because Jorg himself told every 3rd party devs in many Q&A "if this is good for the CRJ, this is good for every other 3rd party" (I'll let you meditate on this phrase).

So here is what Mathijs is saying about buttons binding:

Quote

I assume a lot of these comments come from people without a lot of experience in flight simulation. It has always been that when you make your own code for, say a gear extension, the default key bindings will no longer work. To make that work you need either drivers from the hardware manufacturers or some module that 'translates' the code.

I agree with him because this is true, and you can't blame Aerosoft for the platform not delivering the means.

I can't help wondering though, given they have had the privilege working daily with Asobo devs hand-in-hand, did they raise this question, and if they did, what is Asobo doing about this?

I strongly believe, even if this doesn't sound like this, Aerosoft has done what they could given the state of the SDK and the "platform", and to answer the topic, what do I miss the most from the CRJ, is Asobo coming forward and sharing with other 3rd party developers what they've been adding and changing thanks to this close collaboration in building this aircraft.

Edited March 19, 2021 by RXP
shorten to the point

[tpete61 227]

12 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

Hopefully you were aware of these items not being implemented and did not buy the product if these are deal breakers.

I would say one should hold off if these items are a requirement. I myself don't call any of these flight simulator planes "study level".

Some have more realistic implementation of systems then others and that's about it.

Maybe the next tube liner released will meet your needs in this regard. I wouldn't hold out much hope though right now with the state of this game.

 

[Nyxx 6,993]

24 minutes ago, tpete61 said:

Hopefully you were aware of these items not being implemented and did not buy the product if these are deal breakers.

I would say one should hold off if these items are a requirement. I myself don't call any of these flight simulator planes "study level".

Some have more realistic implementation of systems then others and that's about it.

Maybe the next tube liner released will meet your needs in this regard. I wouldn't hold out much hope though right now with the state of this game.

 

All he is saying is this is his "WISH LIST" nothing about "deal breakers" "study level" or any put down at all, just his "WISH LIST"

Edited March 19, 2021 by Nyxx

[Chock 17,769]

24 minutes ago, tpete61 said:

I would say one should hold off if these items are a requirement. I myself don't call any of these flight simulator planes "study level".

As noted, this isn't a critical list of what it's missing, or even a particularly serious feature request list, since that would be better directed toward Aerosoft itself. I think people expecting something of study level (TM) - whatever that is - are fondly imagining they could go on the cheapest flying school course ever if they think 40 quid would get you anything more than a few cups of tea at an aviation school dealing in some real study. It costs more than that for a printed poster of the real thing's panel for use as a study aid. 🤣

Conversely, for those with more realistic expectations, it's a really worthy add-on and it's fun to speculate on other things which might make it even more fun. That's really what this particular thread is about.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Chock

[Nyxx 6,993]

This is a nice link for you all

https://flightsim.to/c/liveries/aerosoft-crj-700/

[Treetops45 1,082]

1 hour ago, RALF9636 said:

If you mean the heatblur, the effect is way overemphasized in the sim.

You can disable the effect:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/how-to-disable-unrealistic-heat-blur-effects-from-airliner-jet-engines/331020

The fix works.

Thanks

T45

[Petraeus 147]

4 hours ago, Matchstick said:

Are LVARs available to manipulate in something like Spad ?

Yes, there are, and in many cases seem to have the same names as in the P3D version.