8 hours ago, jpe828 said:

Unless I am mistaken, that is not in MSFS 2020?

Yep.

Just Flight Arrow and CRJ are probably the closest right now. At least from my lack of knowledge and experience. The Neo is pretty good and its getting there. I say the CRJ but it still has a few issues. Even the JF has a few to work out but they will get there. I look forward to the JF Turbo version as well the other CRJ variants. Great. As I type this my FMS is completely frozen. No offense to Aerosoft but they really should have had more beta testing before release. I will consider "study" level for my own taste when they fix AP/ILS and CTD issues.

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by Sonosusto

36 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

Just Flight Arrow and CRJ are probably the closest right now. At least from my lack of knowledge and experience. The Neo is pretty good and its getting there. I say the CRJ but it still has a few issues. Even the JF has a few to work out but they will get there. I look forward to the JF Turbo version as well the other CRJ variants. Great. As I type this my FMS is completely frozen. No offense to Aerosoft but they really should have had more beta testing before release. I will consider "study" level for my own taste when they fix AP/ILS and CTD issues.

So CTD are often with crj? 
 

are there any autosave addons for that case? 

15 hours ago, Chock said:

I agree that it's nice and it flies quite nicely, even if it doesn't want to stall or spin. And it looks pretty and has a great VC with brilliant texturing, possibly the best of any VC of all. But it ain't no study sim.

You can literally leave the cowling vents shut, stick the parking brakes on, firewall the controls, watch the gauges go all the way past the redline to the stops, leave the throttle and pitch levers fully forward, go away, roast a chicken, come back and the thing's stick ticking over perfectly like a Timex. The real thing would have been a pile of burnt ashes if you'd done that.

OK, that is not really my flying style.. 🙂

2 hours ago, Sonosusto said:

Just Flight Arrow and CRJ are probably the closest right now. At least from my lack of knowledge and experience. The Neo is pretty good and its getting there. I say the CRJ but it still has a few issues. Even the JF has a few to work out but they will get there. I look forward to the JF Turbo version as well the other CRJ variants. Great. As I type this my FMS is completely frozen. No offense to Aerosoft but they really should have had more beta testing before release. I will consider "study" level for my own taste when they fix AP/ILS and CTD issues.

As has been said in this thread and countless others I've seen and taken part of over my 40+ years in the community, the term Study Level is not only ill defined, it's completely subjective so every single person out there has a different idea of what it actually means and I'm afraid that will never, ever change.  As such, and because it causes so many disagreements, sometimes fights, and at the very least bad or terribly incorrect statements, I belive the term should be removed from our vocabulary, in haste.

The CRJ was not designed to be a study level sim and I don't think it ever will be.  It's designed to be a highly functional aircraft for normal operations and that is all.

Having worked many of the projects for flight sim software I'll bet most everyone in this thread have used (or at least heard about), I will tell you that EVERY airliner that is released has issues, issues that are worked on post release.  I've already explained why this is in another thread so I won't do so again here except to say it's always been that way and will likely always be that way.  Shoot, we spent 6.5 years working on the Majestic Dash 8 Q400 and we still had issues that were found post release.  Unless people are willing to pay $500 to $1600 per aircraft, this is just the way it's going to be (and that has little to do with the quality of the testers).  So many people are under grave misconceptions about flight sim software development, and even with my heavy background in techincal program management I was too... and I hammered PMDG back in 2008 when they released the NGX.  A few years later I was working my first  major flight sim aircraft and 6 months later I was terrible embarrassed about what I wrote to PMDG... I just didn't understand.

Maybe some day I'll do a podcast on the how and whys of flight sim development so that people will understand, I just have to find the time to do it.

Best wishes you guys!

 

1 hour ago, DaveCT2003 said:

As has been said in this thread and countless others I've seen and taken part of over my 40+ years in the community, the term Study Level is not only ill defined, it's completely subjective so every single person out there has a different idea of what it actually means and I'm afraid that will never, ever change.  As such, and because it causes so many disagreements, sometimes fights, and at the very least bad or terribly incorrect statements, I belive the term should be removed from our vocabulary, in haste.

The CRJ was not designed to be a study level sim and I don't think it ever will be.  It's designed to be a highly functional aircraft for normal operations and that is all.

Having worked many of the projects for flight sim software I'll bet most everyone in this thread have used (or at least heard about), I will tell you that EVERY airliner that is released has issues, issues that are worked on post release.  I've already explained why this is in another thread so I won't do so again here except to say it's always been that way and will likely always be that way.  Shoot, we spent 6.5 years working on the Majestic Dash 8 Q400 and we still had issues that were found post release.  Unless people are willing to pay $500 to $1600 per aircraft, this is just the way it's going to be (and that has little to do with the quality of the testers).  So many people are under grave misconceptions about flight sim software development, and even with my heavy background in techincal program management I was too... and I hammered PMDG back in 2008 when they released the NGX.  A few years later I was working my first  major flight sim aircraft and 6 months later I was terrible embarrassed about what I wrote to PMDG... I just didn't understand.

Maybe some day I'll do a podcast on the how and whys of flight sim development so that people will understand, I just have to find the time to do it.

Best wishes you guys!

 

I only started to try to learn some C# a few days ago so I cannot talk much about the programming side.  And while I understand your point  ( I actually work in customer service and much of it tech support), there are still some issues in software that I simply don't get. Stuff like the U turn bug for the base sim. It i simply stupid to release something with such a glaring bug that Q/A simply cannot miss. 

I really want to get the CRJ and the main reason I did not yet is actually Onair, since I'm a bit too poor. But I also have the possibility to use the CJ4, which seems to have way less bugs and doesn't cost me anything extra.  

No visible icing is a REAL bummer for me. Coming from X-Plane with no icing at all (without modding and even then...) this is one of the things I love about MSFS. Yeah it might not be too realistic, but it is miles better then nothing at all. 

I'm reading a bit too often on this forum and discord about the various problems with the Autopilot and flight plan systems on this plane. The Cj4 has this mostly figured out so it is a bit lame to buy a plane to have such downgrades in this area. 

Now if I would KNOW that this will get fixed and improved in the not too distant future I would not have much of a problem with it, but from hearing about products from you guys in the past I'm not too sure about that. Seems like some bugs are left from some previous version of the plane. So why did those never get fixed in the old version? I don't care about recycled code, do what is the most effective, but then it should be without issues...

 

On 3/22/2021 at 3:03 PM, Chock said:

Aeroplane Heaven one is coming, but apparently PMDG are threatening to do one (again). There's a Boeing 247 on the way as well and with a bit of luck Carenado will shove their Beech 18 into MSFS too.

The Beech 18 would be wonderful in MSFS ! 

AHS712D Alvaro Escorcia KSGR

AirHispania Virtual Airlines

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by wlix261

21 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

OK, that is not really my flying style.. 🙂

Just in case anyone thought I was being mean about the AT Simulations Piaggio/Focke-Wulf P.149 in terms of engine management, whilst it is true that it isn't very 'A2A' in that regard, it is still one of the nicest aeroplanes you can get for MSFS with one of the best VCs of anything out there and it flies beautifully - doesn't spin very well though, but I'm not especially bothered about that until the sim has that aerodynamic update, so I do actually recommend it as a really great VFR tourer (and even for IMC if you are feeling daring):

 

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by Chock

19 hours ago, kakihara123 said:

I'm reading a bit too often on this forum and discord about the various problems with the Autopilot and flight plan systems on this plane. The Cj4 has this mostly figured out so it is a bit lame to buy a plane to have such downgrades in this area. 

One of the eternal mysteries of  flight simming: people pay good money for products that have fewer features than what's available for free. 

It's like someone offers you free dinner at a 2-Michelin stars restaurant, and you're, like, nah I think I'll get a couple of whoppers instead.