Aerosoft CRJ 500/700: Buy or Not?

[Seth2021 291]

CRJ is by far one of the best aircraft on MSFS right now. Great fps +  smooth cockpit ( no glass cockpit refresh rate  issues etc) with out stutters.

 

[in2tech 588]

I enjoy it a lot, depends on the person apparently and what you are looking for in an aircraft. Not everyone is the same or has the same needs as others!

[Prpn 366]

Without going in to details, it is not very accurate compared to the real thing (I fly them for a living). And support is, politely described, 'lacking' at best IMO. There is a lot of simply writing problems off as user error then locking the threads, and lack of will to change proven inaccuracies.

In my opinion, money is spent better else where, but there are also plenty of people who do enjoy the plane and do not need support so YMMV.

[lownslow 35]

For me, if I'm spending 50eur+ on an addon airplane, then I expect it to be VATSIM-ready. I would not be comfortable flying the CRJ on VATSIM, so that is my review. From memory, rnav is wonky, adding sids/stars can result in some very much unwanted behavior, and approaches were very hit and miss. I was very excited for this aircraft when they were getting ready to release it and I have to say that Aerosoft did disappoint. A complete polar opposite experience with the PMDG DC-6.

[haskell 298]

I really enjoy flying it for the most part. They have pretty much fixed the glideslope issue (no issues since the last update.) But today I would have been shot down by the Air Force. I was on the KDCA RNAV 19 approach and for some reason it ignored a turn and flew me right over the White House. So, yeah, that would not be good. I was able to salvage the landing but that is one place you DON’T want to be off-course.  

Edited July 11, 2021 by haskell

[RobJC 2,069]

Thanks again for all the input, guys. I will at least wait for another update or two to see if the issues are resolved. 

[fakeflyer737 992]

6 minutes ago, RobJC said:

Thanks again for all the input, guys. I will at least wait for another update or two to see if the issues are resolved. 

They won't be. 

Edited July 11, 2021 by fakeflyer737

[heavy1216 35]

I love it

[heavy1216 35]

2 hours ago, lownslow said:

For me, if I'm spending 50eur+ on an addon airplane, then I expect it to be VATSIM-ready. I would not be comfortable flying the CRJ on VATSIM, so that is my review. From memory, rnav is wonky, adding sids/stars can result in some very much unwanted behavior, and approaches were very hit and miss. I was very excited for this aircraft when they were getting ready to release it and I have to say that Aerosoft did disappoint. A complete polar opposite experience with the PMDG DC-6.

I fly on Vatsim with it all the time and haven't had any issues.

[regis9 4,014]

To each there own but I think that if anyone is holding out on this aircraft due to any minor issues that may remain they are missing out.  I fly it quite happily and successfully from A to B on a regular basis and have a lot of fun doing so.  

The CRJ and the FBW A320 are certainly the best airliners in MSFS right now.  It’s not overly expensive either.

Edited July 11, 2021 by regis9

[Nyxx 6,993]

Tonight I few the CRJ for the first time since the first week of release. I thought it was bad. "S" turns to follow flight path, the route would be all other the place if you did a Direct, GS capture was a joke. So its been in the hanger ever since.

Today a saw a Vid on youtube saying how its now "fixed"

So I thought I would DL the new version and give it a try again.

Well, it picked up the NAV route great going from HDG, it followed the route fine no "S turns worth talking about. It also captured and flow the GS spot on. It was a joy to fly down and land. It also was really smooth on takeoff.

So all in all I thought it was good. I did enjoy it and it has always looked stunning.

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Nyxx

[Nyxx 6,993]

A little update.

After flighting the DC-6 none stop from release, i will say two things that I have learned big time is smoothness and thinking well ahead.

So now I have done around 6-7 flight in the CRJ latest version. 

It can and does rotate super smoothly before pitching up for V2. Really nice to do.

It now follows the route well, but one thing i see it do almost every time is when climbing at 290 KTS it begines its turn to soon, straightness out to point at the route line and then turns again almost perfectly to capture the path, why it needs to turn to soon every time is just silly. But its not a big deal and its not "S" turning all the time to find it. 

Selecting VS and following the VNAV is easy and nice to do. It now has captured the GS everytime and flys it perfectly. Its also very nice to land smootherly. 

All in all, i like it and enjoy it, and if you know me am not a fan of AS at all, but I like to be fair and this CRJ seems fine for what it is. A day to day flight and enjoying it for what it is. All good. It might not be like the real thing, I have no idea on that, but all the flights I have now done I enjoyed unlike the release version that after around 6 flights went in the bin/hanger.

I dont see any reason now that anyone should not enjoy this. AS need to still fix the way it turns and nail them turns perfectly.

I also find personly the iPad interface could be a lot better on the state of the aircraft. If a Door is "open" why not make the Button Green? If its closed make it Red. If the GPU is connected again make it Green, Red for not connected. So simple. Also I cannot find a way to save a default starting state? can you set one? AS.....sigh!..O and no am not going to post any feed back on there worshipers forums.

But to conclude if your thinking about buying this, go for it now its fine. Its also a stunning  looking aircraft inside and out.

Flight into Rome last night.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Nyxx

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, Nyxx said:

I also find personly the iPad interface could be a lot better on the state of the aircraft. If a Door is "open" why not make the Button Green? If its closed make it Red. So simple.

Not normally how it is on a real aeroplane where door lock annunciators are concerned; usually indicators are green when they are locked (as in you are 'good to go'), and red when unlocked (as in 'not good' it needs attention before you go).

[Nyxx 6,993]

29 minutes ago, Chock said:

Not normally how it is on a real aeroplane where door lock annunciators are concerned; usually indicators are green when they are locked (as in you are 'good to go'), and red when unlocked (as in 'not good' it needs attention before you go).

Either way would be good Alan. 

[JRBarrett 3,071]

On 7/11/2021 at 1:45 PM, haskell said:

 

I really enjoy flying it for the most part. They have pretty much fixed the glideslope issue (no issues since the last update.) But today I would have been shot down by the Air Force. I was on the KDCA RNAV 19 approach and for some reason it ignored a turn and flew me right over the White House. So, yeah, that would not be good. I was able to salvage the landing but that is one place you DON’T want to be off-course.  

 

That is an RNP approach which neither the real nor simulated CRJ is capable of flying.

In the real aircraft, no RNP approaches (at any airport that has them) will appear in the FMS ARR page as selectable options. At KDCA, in a real CRJ, the only approach options for runway 19 will be the LDA-Y and LDA-Z.

At present, there is no easy way to filter RNP RNAV approaches out of the FMS Nav database in the sim version without running the risk of eliminating standard RNAV(GPS) approaches that the CRJ can fly with no problem. Some RNP approaches may load OK but those that contain multiple curved RF leg segments will not display correctly on the MFD, and the autopilot absolutely will not (and cannot) fly the approach correctly.

One of the main reasons that the real CRJ cannot fly complex RF legs is that this requires an autopilot that can use a continuously-variable bank angle while executing a turn. The real CRJ autopilot can only use one of two fixed bank angles when turning: either 12.5 or 25 degrees. The sim version has the same limitation.