3 hours ago, anden145 said:

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

Yes, many times. The PFD & MFD layout and errors they simply refused to fix. I even put their version side by side with the actual RW PFD to show the differences and how much it would improve readability and realism (many users complained about the tiny font used in some places on their version of the PFD, the real one is much better in this regard).

The DIR INTC page issues and other direct to issues have been reported many times and have been "on the list" for about 4 months now. After getting some very rude responses to constructive feedback I simply gave up.

14 hours ago, kaosfere said:

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.  🙂

No offense taken. :)

I should have explained my intention when I posted that link. The point I'd like to make is that despite all the useful automation in modern airplanes you still need to be able to understand what the aircraft is doing and to take over control in case of need. Even if you turn off all failures, there might still be bugs in the FMGS that make corrections (or even handflying an airliner) neccessary.

16 hours ago, Prpn said:

Yes, many times. The PFD & MFD layout and errors they simply refused to fix. I even put their version side by side with the actual RW PFD to show the differences and how much it would improve readability and realism (many users complained about the tiny font used in some places on their version of the PFD, the real one is much better in this regard).

That's interesting to hear. I find it difficult to read the text on the 43 inch TV that I use as my PC display.

As a workaround I've set up multiple custom views to zoom in on different areas of the cockpit.

On 8/15/2021 at 11:37 PM, regis9 said:

This is very true, especially if one is used to an A320 or 737 level of automation.  CRJ keeps you on your toes, even more so than the Q400 IMHO given the higher speeds involved.

For this reason alone I will finally get it.