Been messing around in the 175, and to add to the woes it just started raining in the cockpit ☔. Hopefully a mod will be made to make it a bit more flyable, and some better cockpit graphics.

6 hours ago, garlicbread11 said:

Been messing around in the 175, and to add to the woes it just started raining in the cockpit ☔. Hopefully a mod will be made to make it a bit more flyable, and some better cockpit graphics.

Yeah the rain and clouds in the cockpit are the absolute nail in the coffin for me for this mod.  

Don't hold your breath.  The answer from Jose in Jeremy's post pretty much says it all.   

But the fact that its unflyable may get them to fix it.  However, I have a feeling that it flies the way it does because Jose thought he could just put in the old air file parameters from the old P3d version and do some tweaking, but it has resulted in a completely unstable airplane. Then he tweaked the best he can for his limited knowledge and said "see it flies..technically."

2 minutes ago, aniiran said:

Yeah the rain and clouds in the cockpit are the absolute nail in the coffin for me for this mod.  

Don't hold your breath.  The answer from Jose in Jeremy's post pretty much says it all.   

But the fact that its unflyable may get them to fix it.  However, I have a feeling that it flies the way it does because Jose thought he could just put in the old air file parameters from the old P3d version and do some tweaking, but it has resulted in a completely unstable airplane. Then he tweaked the best he can for his limited knowledge and said "see it flies..technically."

That's the thing I get from this cat... "Lemme tweak some stuff and maybe it works good enough" seems to be the approach of this developer. Nothing about this indicates any sort of in-depth testing of ANYTHING prior to release. I mean... has HE flown it? Like... an actual full-length flight from beginning to end, with an ILS approach. 

9 hours ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

It's the CJ4. I don't use HD and disabling CJ4 fixes it. My communication with the developer I posted above very clearly explains how big of an issue this is. 

Yup. It's the CJ4 mod. Thank you.

However, even without it, the AP isn't really functional. It's a pity.

7 hours ago, garlicbread11 said:

it just started raining in the cockpit 

 

1 hour ago, aniiran said:

rain and clouds in the cockpit 

  

 

Yikes

22 hours ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

Dear Customer,

 

We apologize the horrible impression you have of our model. With respect to your alert using different displays, we aren’t secure what is your affirmation or based in what information, because MSFS works with SAME CODE for all process, displays only follow RESULTS not EVENTS. If you are using an external software to test, I can not promise this work. But the inconvenience you mentioned with Autopilot is not you are indicating. We change complete the Autopilot because nor Airbus nor Boeing works with Embraer logic (at least with Autopilot setting included in panel). Additionally, we don’t modify or send code to PFD in CJ4, you can use both models at this time, and this does not affect nothing. We are only calling the gauge to send information INTO our model, NOT modifying CJ4 gauge or its behavior.

 

Our Autopilot does not use NAV to adjust route or follow a flight plan, NAV and APP are used as LOC mode only or manual approach for ILS (VOR/LOC). As this MSFS remove the option GPS/NAV for Airliners code, it’s necessary separate both codes. We separated with FMS button, and this is the only command used to follow FMS flight plan as it was indicated in Video tutorial 5. Just read the last comment of user @Israel, who corrected his review in simmarket when follow our indications.

 

“ If you wish would avoid this “abruptly down”, you need first set Altitude, VS value and button activated (not ALT) or FLCH with a speed inserted in FMS first and after modified in SPEED KNOB if you wish adjusted it, also FMS button activated too and after all this select AP. Take in mind, the button NAV is not used with FMC navigation, please use FMS. NAV or/and APP is used only to follow VOR LOC frequency or ILS, replacing the old GPS/NAV in FSX because in MSFS the airliners do not use this option now.”

 

The PFD used in our model was most close to real used by EJETS, for this reason we selected it because we are working in our own PFD, but this is a loooooong work, securely for the next year. However, it works very fine with our model and shows information we requested as the code ask to it. Take in mind this is a new Flight simulator, Asobo and Microsoft removed several codes used through 20 years, this obligates to all developers on market, to use several parts of them, approved by Asobo too, while we work in a new gauge. If you comment after all this is use as example AEROSOFT and their CRJ, this is not applying, AEROSOFT and ASOBO are partners begging the project MSFS, they have years of distance to all of us.

 

Just see Captain Sim, to release their 777 with own code, they will need 2 years at least to release a decent product as they used to their clients. They only tried to provide one of their models momentarily as the new code allows, while finding a solution to the complexities of the situation. We are still experimenting and the only way to do it is on the fly. If not, would not exist more than props using as example the Diamond DA62 included as example in SDK and with analogue cockpits. Including PMDG in their DC6 recently used the GPS default in C152, why? Because create one currently is very delayed and high cost.

 

We don’t modify the CDU A320 for two reasons: First, we developer for Begginers and Flight simmsers it’s our mainly target, we search avoid instructions additional. If you know A320 FMS, don’t worry, you can use this, it’s the same. And second because we are obliged to respect the copyright of the Asobo, who made it, we cannot modify and add as our own, ungauged that is not ours. Same for the PFD and MAP used in our EICAS. In 737 they included the code of 787 because not all have Deluxe MSFS who include it and with the permission of ASOBO they included the code modified in their product, but the logic it’s the same, they had to use what exists, there is no other way to do it for now.

 

This message is not searching bad relations or inconvenience with you, unlike, we search you understand why we development this product so and what is our flight plan to respect. See our Beech 99, the first turboprop for MSFS. Result of this test, our partner NextGen (my Son) created his Bandeirante working fine. Now we are working in an overhaul with all logic found for this product and securely before to end this year our ERJ will be updated and improvement.

 

God bless you!

 

Kind regards,

 

JOSE J GONZALEZ

CEO & Owner

 

My response:

 

 

Jose,

 

I appreciate you reaching out and trying to explain the situation. But just because some Israel on SimMarket is fine with the “it’s ME, not the product” reasoning, it doesn’t mean all of us are that naïve. Here is the bottom line – your aircraft, whatever reasoning you may provide, DOES NOT WORK WELL AT ALL. The entire reason to purchase 3^rd party aircraft is so that they would be AT LEAST on the level of default aircraft that comes with the sim. I own LITERALLY every aircraft that was ever released for MSFS (and about 70 or so on P3D v5)… It’s not about the money to me, I have a good career and I am able to purchase all these aircraft for the purposes of reviewing them for the users of the sim and help them make a decision on whether to buy or not to buy aircraft. I barely ever post SimMarket reviews because their review system is useless – most of the negative reviews don’t even get published. I only did that so that you would hopefully see it. I am also not trying start any wars and there is absolutely NOTHING personal about any of this – I am sure you’re a lovely guy trying to do his best. This is strictly business and professional. I don’t EVER ask for any sort of refunds or any of that stuff – that’s not my prerogative. I have volunteered as a tester for 2 developers on some of their products so that am able to find and point out issues to them BEFORE their products get released. Because at release there WILL be bugs, but they shouldn’t be MAJOR bugs – that makes the aircraft simply not ready for release. SO… here are point by point things I feel are worth pointing out. Again, none of this is a personal attack – let’s talk aircraft and the issues I have with your products!

 

1. Let’s not even compare this to Aerosoft, PMDG, etc… Let’s also be FAIR in terms of the project’s scope. This is not meant to be a study-level aircraft. What exactly does that mean? Well, it’s pretty clear – basic functionality is all there, but lacks simulation of specific hydraulic, electrical systems, etc… BUT it’s at least on the level with DEFAULT aircraft – THAT means, WORKING AUTOPILOT THAT BEHAVES SIMILAR TO THE REAL AIRCRAFT. Keep in mind that all default Asobo planes are able to operate in VS, FLC, and NAV modes.
2. Let’s just compare this (AND your Beech 99) to the work your son has put out. The Bandeirante is not perfect. But it’s pretty good – the textures are passable (cockpit and external). There WAS that initial cloth separator behind the pilot seat that was AWFUL to look at, but I pointed it out to him on release day and he has fixed it since. Much better. My only problem with that aircraft is – the weather radar is INOP (even though Carenado has that VERY SAME piece of equipment and it works – mind you, Carenado ALSO doesn’t do study-level, but in their aircraft, all the basic systems you need work really well and visually they are STUNNING to look at). Also, his RMP gauges are wrong and it’s hard to fly it by numbers because your prop levers don’t really do what they should do in terms of engine performance reflected on the gauges.
3. So let’s look at your Beech 99 first and how it compares to Bandeirante – visually, it’s a DISASTER. That overhead console with the 2004 looking mesh/texture work? But whatever, let’s not even harp on the visuals. Let’s talk about how it works… Autopilot DID get better. Mind you, it’s still not perfect, but it mostly works – the biggest problem is when you engage it while climbing, it tends to nose down for a while even though VS is positive rate in the enabled mode… BUT!!! You have DEFAULT G1000 and it DOESN’T EVEN HAVE A FUNCTIONING RANGE KNOB!!! That makes the MFD pretty useless! How do you implement a DEFAULT ASOBO system and manage to not even make it work the way it does EVERYWHERE else? That’s a MAJOR problem. Besides that… currently the Beech 99 is flyable. Nicely done on the external model, but an eyesore to look at and REALLY UNPLEASANT to fly at night because most of the gauges on the panel and NOT SUFFICIENTLY ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT. So now I have to limit the flights to daytime only. The G1000 range knob kills it.
4. The E-jets – 170 and 175. That cockpit door is pixelated 1998 thing. Doesn’t look well. Whatever. The external model is pretty decent. I can’t complain there. BUT THE AUTOPILOT IS A DISASTER. This aircraft (which in real life HEAVILY relies on Autopilot) is currently NOT flyable. I DID set up the speeds in FMC as per tutorial. None of that matters. First of all, if you want to change your speed with autothrottle active, you should just be able to do it using the dial on the control panel (which currently doesn’t have a tooltip indicating speed selected)… If you have that speed selected, when you activate FLCH mode, it should climb or descend to SELECTED altitude and control pitch to match that speed. That’s how autopilots work. BUT. Your assigned altitude knob likes to reset itself to previous value. I have to keep changing it in order for the aircraft to get to the altitude I need. So FLCH mode deactivates itself whenever that happens. It’s horribly buggy. Moreover… If the AP is TURNING, it won’t maintain SET ALTITUDE! It will usually ascend or descend for an unknown reason. Forget about ILS – localizer hunting is an issue. It’s easier to just fly approaches by hand because you can never predict what the autopilot does.
5. A vast majority of MSFS forum users uses the Working Title CJ4 mod. It modifies the default Collins ProLine system in that aircraft to bring it very close to study-level. It’s almost perfect. Your aircraft simply won’t work with that mod. Working Title is now working for Asobo and will be gradually incorporating all their work on the Garmin units and CJ4 into the base sim. So you can expect that the CJ4 mod will eventually be a part of the sim and WILL LIKELY BREAK YOUR AIRCRAFT. You really should download that mod and do a test with your aircraft. You will see what I am talking about. These third party avionics packages WILL BE a choice most serious simmers use and third party aircraft developers ALREADY SUPPORT THEM – JustFlight and Carenado even incorporated support for PM50 GTN750 mod into ALL THEIR AIRCRAFT! PMDG’s DC-6 works with the PMS50 GNS430. MilViz will ALSO enable GTN support in their upcoming C310. So… this is a suggestion I really hope you take. Download the free CJ4 mod. Take a look at the CJ4 and see what it does there. And see how your aircraft is completely incapable of working with it because there will be no flight plan. Here is the link. Working Title CJ4 - Intro

 

So… Bottom line is that a product should work on a BASIC level even in aircraft that isn’t study-level. When you release a jet with a broken autopilot, horrible cockpit textures, AND an incompatibility with a WIDELY USED CJ4 mod (cause it shares systems with CJ4)??? The question you have to ask yourself is… why would anyone want my Embraer 170/175 when they can use a close to study-level CJ4 that comes FREE?

 

So I hope this clarifies a few things.

 

 

Cheers and regards,

 

Jeremy Smirnov, M.D.

They make it sound like it will be study level "next year", while in reality their FSX/P3D version is just as bad.

I mean they seem like "nice guys" (/one "nice guy"?), and on P3D the pricing would be okay-ish. But when you can buy the CRJ or - god forbid - a high fidelity DC-6 for 50$, you cannot seriously demand half of that price for something ten times worse. The new MSFS customers might accept some shiny fake aircraft like CS 777, but if you deliver something that is outright ugly (by MSFS standards) AND doesn't even work without 50 akward work-arounds, you have to expect a lot of unhappy customers. Again, they are rather honest about it and I like that, but they seem "surprised" that MSFS-people complain about that particular "work".

EDIT: Then again it sells like vaccine on Simmarket (no.1 for MSFS in all categories), so maybe they shouldn't care at all...

Edited June 25, 20214 yr by Fiorentoni
Reality check

59 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

They make it sound like it will be study level "next year", while in reality their FSX/P3D version is just as bad.

I mean they seem like "nice guys" (/one "nice guy"?), and on P3D the pricing would be okay-ish. But when you can buy the CRJ or - god forbid - a high fidelity DC-6 for 50$, you cannot seriously demand half of that price for something ten times worse. The new MSFS customers might accept some shiny fake aircraft like CS 777, but if you deliver something that is outright ugly (by MSFS standards) AND doesn't even work without 50 akward work-arounds, you have to expect a lot of unhappy customers. Again, they are rather honest about it and I like that, but they seem "surprised" that MSFS-people complain about that particular "work".

EDIT: Then again it sells like vaccine on Simmarket (no.1 for MSFS in all categories), so maybe they shouldn't care at all...

It also hit the Marketplace last night. All I hear are complaints about this junky aircraft. There isn't even a single plane on SimMarket with such a low star rating, and that says A LOT considering SimMarket doesn't publish a lot of negative reviews. This thing is bombing in terms of what it provides. Unfortunately, it's a success in terms of sales. F Virtualcol... that's all I got. 

Holy word not allowed we are seriously living in the new twilight zone, but hey if the consumers are buying it up like that, it is what it is.

Pretty much every add-on ends up briefly being the number one seller for the week on simmarket the week it gets released.

I don't trust SimMarket anymore. I have bought many addons from them in the past and never reviewed them even if they had minor problems. Several days ago I wrote a 1 star negative review of the VIRTUALCOL - EMBRAER 170/175 because I was frustrated with its performance. I watched all the 7 video tutorials and spent more than 3 hours trying to figure out how the AP works in this plane, I did not even reach to performing an ILS landing because the nose of the plane just dives down.

Unfortunately, they never published my review.

In the end, I learned from this experience to make a blacklist of the markets and developers to avoid in the future.

50 minutes ago, kmasmael said:

I don't trust SimMarket anymore. I have bought many addons from them in the past and never reviewed them even if they had minor problems. Several days ago I wrote a 1 star negative review of the VIRTUALCOL - EMBRAER 170/175 because I was frustrated with its performance. I watched all the 7 video tutorials and spent more than 3 hours trying to figure out how the AP works in this plane, I did not even reach to performing an ILS landing because the nose of the plane just dives down.

Unfortunately, they never published my review.

In the end, I learned from this experience to make a blacklist of the markets and developers to avoid in the future.

nothing wrong with simmarket , but i see people buying asap stuff  and then if they are not satisfied , put the the blame there.

virtuacol is a known creator with a not so good reputation, its the buyers decision to buy for them.

 

No comment on the Embraer, but I was surprised to hear that their son created the Bandeirante, I really enjoy that aircraft.

I've sadly deleted it. It's really not usable for me. 
 

-It's won't work if you have the WT CJ4 and Salty 747 mods installed.

- The auto throttle does not work properly.
- The autopilot is very unrealistic and only partly functions if you abide by some bizarre rules not present in the real aircraft.

- Make any mistake with a button press or any failure to follow the scripted rules and the plane enters an unrecoverable nose dive. Once the autopilot becomes messed up there is no going back.

Its a pity. I'm hoping the Dev will see sense and put in some time to sort it out.

18 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I've sadly deleted it. It's really not usable for me. 
 

-It's won't work if you have the WT CJ4 and Salty 747 mods installed.

- The auto throttle does not work properly.
- The autopilot is very unrealistic and only partly functions if you abide by some bizarre rules not present in the real aircraft.

- Make any mistake with a button press or any failure to follow the scripted rules and the plane enters an unrecoverable nose dive. Once the autopilot becomes messed up there is no going back.

Its a pity. I'm hoping the Dev will see sense and put in some time to sort it out.

Hopefully a mod appears on Flightsim.to eventually, but pretty poor someone in the community has to fix a payware aircraft again.

2 hours ago, HYPE said:

No comment on the Embraer, but I was surprised to hear that their son created the Bandeirante, I really enjoy that aircraft.

Yeah that is interesting. It sounds like dad needs to reach out to his son quick, or his reputation will be forever tarnished if he doesn't make it right.  What Irritates me most about this Is that Virtualcol (1 guy actually) knows how to make the displays, he just took the "close enough , this will make money.' approach.  The P3D version was low res but it's obvious he knows how to make custom gauges and make the aircraft operate correctly. 

I found my review for the VC A220 from 2019

3 stars "This is the plane that I knew virtualcol was capable of. Great textures, okay simulations in the cockpit, cockpit looks correct from all videos i have seen, it has ok flight dynamics, decent sound. A believable representation of the A220 with out any major flaws. Good FPS. Exterior model is very good for screen shots. Not a study level airplane obviously but a really solid effort from Virtualcol. I recommend buying it. Now go back and fix the E-175/195 package to this standard. You guys really tuned out a much better effort on the ATR the second time around."

"A believable representation of the A220 with out any major flaws."  (A what a low bar to begin with)

Well that didn't last long, lol.

He just needs to be consistent and take his time and then he can make airplanes that are worth money. But he doesn't, hopefully this is a wakeup call.

Edited June 26, 20214 yr by aniiran
add review of the A220