3 hours ago, captain420 said:

I don't really enjoy having to manage speed, throttles, descent, etc.

wouldn't an A320 be the best choice then?

14 hours ago, captain420 said:

Yes, I found out that the CRJ is not my cup of tea due to some of the reasons above. It's more of a hands-on plane. What I don't like about it is you have to monitor speed, throttles, descent, etc. I'm more used to the automated planes such as A320, 777, 747-8 and prefer them over the CRJ. It's a nice plane, but just not for me. I like automation because it gives me more time to take in the amazing visuals that MSFS has to offer.

This is not against the poster, but this post makes me laugh because it reminds me of the time we had G-3s, G-5s and G-550s in our fleet at the same time. The G-3 had no auto throttles. You could tell who hadn't flown the G-3 in a while because they would be all over the place with speed. If you didn't crack the throttles back after the gear handle light went out after takeoff, you would get fast quickly and risk over speeding flaps. If you didn't use fuel flows in the RADAR/VFR pattern, your speed would be all over the place. Even in the advanced aircraft I fly, you have to know how to hand fly and judge how the aircraft is performing. 

Some people will fall into a trance where they hit a few buttons and blindly allow the aircraft to progress. This is definitely a setup in real world flying. When I'm in VNAV on descent, I use techniques in the back of my mind to figure out what descent rate I need to make the restriction to compare against what the AP/FMS is doing. I need to know right away if I can't make it so that I can tell ATC. Even the most advanced aircraft will experience certain failures that require some hand flying. But, you are right, automation does allow you to focus else where. If you ever want a workout, the CRJ is a good choice. If you fly it enough, you will still have time to take in that beautiful scenery. Your habit pattern and scan skills will allow it.

Rick

4 hours ago, Torsen said:

Except I can't stand the sandwiches any more 😉

There’s an option to turn off the food service announcements, i think it’s labelled as a low cost carrier option or something like that in the EFB (based on my experience as a passenger in CRJs it should be the default option!)

3 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

The CRJ is bascially an old rust bucket with a whole lot less automation

I remember when everyone was frothing at the mouth to get the original CRJ during its long production process, a RW CRJ pilot made a comment on a forum that anyone who is excited to fly the virtual CRJ has clearly never flown one in real life 🙂

@captain420

Children Of The Magenta Line - YouTube

16 hours ago, btacon said:

$50.00 US from Aerosoft. I have about 10 hours in it (ver 1.06). I’ve been flying a test route I use for all of my MSFS 2020 planes. I have learned so far that:

* The aircraft demands precision 

* If you fall behind it will quickly punish you

* If you keep up or better yet...stay ahead of the aircraft it is an absolute joy to fly. All aspects: departure, cruise, and arrival / landing. 

For me the aircraft performs crisply, looks stunning and again for me and me only...it is the best $50.00 I have spent for any plane in a sim for a long, long while. 

YMMV,

-B

i also bought it 2 days ago....Aerosoft has done an amazing job so far.  I bought over $500 worth of payware aircraft/software this weekend for my 3 sims(p3dv4, xp11 and msfs) to occupy myself this fall/winter.  Time to click on those .pdf manuals.....see you all in Spring 2022😁

 

my purchases on weekend:

 

Aerosoft Aircraft CRJ 550/700 14 Aug 2021

PMDG DC6 MSFS

146 Professional (for X-Plane 11) Date: 15/08/2021

PA-28R Turbo Arrow III/IV (MSFS) Date: 11/08/2021

ONCOURSE SOFTWARE - PF3 - ATC AT ITS BEST FSX P3D MSFS FS2004    08/15/2021

FEELTHERE - EMBRAER E-JETS E170 AND E190 V3 P3D4.4+    08/11/2021

Airfoillabs-C172SP Cessna 172SP Skyhawk Xplane 11 8/15/2021

plus..don't laugh at me, i'm only human😁

captain sim 777 msfs

bredok 737 msfs

Edited August 16, 20214 yr by Beerz

2 minutes ago, Beerz said:

Airfoillabs-C172SP Cessna 172SP Skyhawk Xplane

should have known that, I would have sold you mine, not used much, still "as new", won't use it ever again 😊

3 minutes ago, turbomax said:

should have known that, I would have sold you mine, not used much, still "as new", won't use it ever again 😊

i also have the A2A p3dv4 planes that i bought years ago.....i need these GA Aircraft to study at home for my PPL Training👍

2 hours ago, turbomax said:

wouldn't an A320 be the best choice then?

Not in its current state.

You still have to calculate and monitor the descent on your own, because so far that part of the flight computers logic is not yet simulated. One would either have to wait until Flybywire have progressed far enough in their work, or wait on the Fenix, or the Aerosoft version of the busses.

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

You still have to calculate and monitor the descent on your own,

something every airline pilot, not only Sullenberger, should be capable of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapag-Lloyd_Flight_3378

but what about the wonderful CJ4 from Workingtitle then?

Edited August 16, 20214 yr by turbomax

7 hours ago, Prpn said:

Up to everyone to decide for themselves. The prices have shifted quite a bit for the market in MSFS, but even so... remember the PMDG Jetstream 41? That released at $45 and was a heck more accurate and a faithful reproduction than this CRJ. What bugs me a bit with AS is that with one hand they feed you the line that it is the most complex addon and with the other hand they slap you in the face with "it is only meant to simulate normal day to day ops" if you point out a flaw. And even normal day to day ops are not simulated properly. 

Besides that, they have had years and years to get this aircraft right, and years and years of sales at €50 for the CRJ X, €75 for the CRJ "Professional", and according to their own claims already tens of thousands of sales in MSFS, which makes it a million dollar plus revenue product by even a low guesstimation. 

But they can not even get the layout and text sizes on the displays right, fail to make a functioning direct-to function and more of those kind of simple, simple mistakes. If you do not get those basics right, is it still even a decent approximation?

Interesting. Have you raised these (reasonable) points at their forums? Just curious.

3 hours ago, Belgarath said:

Children Of The Magenta Line - YouTube

I apologize in advance for the slight tangent, but... I always have mixed feelings about this video being shared in conversations like this as it often is.   (And, @Belgarath, I'm not trying to read into your intent here at all, it's just something I've noticed when this has come up before, so please don't feel like I'm making assumptions about why you shared it.  Though a little more context would have been helpful. 🙂 )

It's one thing to be aware of the genuine risks of automation dependency -- it's a matter of concern in real world aviation.  But one of the awesome things about flight simulation is that we are free to pick and choose which parts of the "real world" we actually want to engage with, and the literal world of possibilities means that everyone can find their own personal niche to explore.  It's that richness of diversity, and the way it can open your eyes to new experiences that you may never have thought of before,  that is one of my favorite things about flight simulation as a hobby (and now, for me, a profession).

The video linked is a good one, and as someone who gravitates heavily towards challenging stick and rudder flying, steam gauges, and minimal automation, parts of it really resonate with me.  But it often seems to pop up when a user is expressing their preference for "easy" flight (as @captain420 has here) in a way that feels like it's trying to be corrective, perhaps even condescending:  "You should do something different, see here for why."  It's in line with the tendency that some -- but by far not all -- of the more "serious" simmers have to dismiss folks whose niche is not as intricate in some way as their own, even if there's just as much passion in it.

When we do that, which at times is all too often for my tastes, it can lend to a rounding off of one of those many facets of the flight sim gem, and a dulling of its luster.  And that's a loss to all of us.

I guess my point is:  perhaps it's not too helpful to respond to someone who's talking about their preference for automation by dropping a link to that video, at least not without commentary explaining why it's relevant in a way other than just to say "you're doing it wrong".  If the discussion turns to automation dependency, or it otherwise becomes apropos, by all means, whip it out.   But be thoughtful when you do it, and careful not to give the impression that you're just trying to yuck someone's yum.

That's all.   Sorry for the tangent (and, again, I'm not commenting on the OP's motivation as an individual at all) but it's a thought I've had a number of times recently seeing that video shared.  Plus, I'm just back from a week's vacation and feeling contemplative, so I wanted to get that off my chest.  🙂

Edited August 16, 20214 yr by kaosfere

Its interesting, I enjoy VFR in GA airplanes, IFR in GA airplanes, and the automation of the CJ4. All of those require some thought, and different skill sets. Depends on my mood. When I want to watch Netflix while the CJ4 quickly whisks me across the country, it is a great airplane for that. That is about the biggest airplane/jet I will fly in sim though.

Just gave to add this quick mental math descent formula guys:

Altitude to lose (just thousands) x 3 = TOD

example: you're at FL450 and going to an airport that's elev. is 5000', 45 x 3 = 135, minus the 5000 elevation (5) means TOD is 130 nm from destination.

Descent rate is 5 x your ground speed.

example: 400 knots GS x 5 = about 2000 feet per minute required. This will go up and down with the environment so just keep doing the math as GS fluctuates.

There's other variations but this one works well to get you pretty much on a 3 degree path. Also works for crossing restrictions.. 

 

 

 

I will say that both manual aircraft and heavily automated aircraft take some work. You have to know what it takes to make a manual aircraft do it what it do. You also have to be vastly familiar with an aircraft's automation and fully understand it so that you can mange it and always know what it's going to do before it does it. 

I will tell you that taking a fist full of iron and taking it up, point to point, and back down into an approach to landing flawlessly gives a feeling of accomplishment when pulling into the gate or parking. Makes you smile as you flick the fuel levers off and hear those engines hum as they spool down. It also makes the beer at the bar taste that much better. Heavily automated aircraft has a similar effect as well.

Rick

4 minutes ago, pilatuz said:

Just gave to add this quick mental math descent formula guys:

Altitude to lose (just thousands) x 3 = TOD

example: you're at FL450 and going to an airport that's elev. is 5000', 45 x 3 = 135, minus the 5000 elevation (5) means TOD is 130 nm from destination.

Descent rate is 5 x your ground speed.

example: 400 knots GS x 5 = about 2000 feet per minute required. This will go up and down with the environment so just keep doing the math as GS fluctuates.

There's other variations but this one works well to get you pretty much on a 3 degree path. Also works for crossing restrictions.. 

Don't forget about the Mach. Mach is a good wag at how many miles a minute you are going. Good quick way to figure out how miles it will take when dealing with crossing restrictions.