2 minutes ago, Daytona125 said:

If this is the case my next purchase will definitely be the Fenix A-320. I just want a plane that works as it should. I would love my beloved 737 but if it doesn't have radar I'm not spending(probably a lot of money) on something that doesn't fit(for me).

MSFS is very much a “work in progress” from a development standpoint. More and more features are being added to the SDK with each new version, but access to clouds/precip and terrain for C++/WASM has not yet been added. It is not a case that the CRJ will “never” have these features.

There are some significant advantages to using WASM. Although the CRJ has six independent glass displays, the aircraft tends to have very good frame rate performance for most users (compared to some of the default airliners), due to the fact that the underlying display code is based on C++.

The WT CJ4 mod is an excellent update to the default CJ4, but at the moment, the copilot’s displays and FMS simply mirror those on the pilot’s side, while in the CRJ each display and both FMSs are completely independent just as they are in the real aircraft. This comes from the long-standing mature C++ code base for the aircraft that predates MSFS. WASM allows that existing code to be used in MSFS. 

2 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I believe Fenix said their A320 won't have terrain & weather radar either, for the same reasons that PMDG and Aerosoft won't.  I don't have the link but you can search for it - I think it's something Aamir from Fenix said before.

Thanks abrams.

Darn it. I hope someone(other than Carenado and FBW) comes up with something we can use. Guess it's now a waiting game. Come on OSOBO!!! Glad I didn't delete my X-Plane and P3D last week like I was going to.

1 minute ago, JRBarrett said:

MSFS is very much a “work in progress” from a development standpoint. More and more features are being added to the SDK with each new version, but access to clouds/precip and terrain for C++/WASM has not yet been added. It is not a case that the CRJ will “never” have these features.

There are some significant advantages to using WASM. Although the CRJ has six independent glass displays, the aircraft tends to have very good frame rate performance for most users (compared to some of the default airliners), due to the fact that the underlying display code is based on C++.

The WT CJ4 mod is an excellent update to the default CJ4, but at the moment, the copilot’s displays and FMS simply mirror those on the pilot’s side, while in the CRJ each display and both FMSs are completely independent just as they are in the real aircraft. This comes from the long-standing mature C++ code base for the aircraft that predates MSFS. WASM allows that existing code to be used in MSFS. 

Thank you JRBarrett, this gives me hope. Other than the lack of radar for the CRJ I absolutely LOVE my Aerosoft CRJ. And, like I said, this plane has great potential and I can't wait for these thing to work on all the planes. In fact(other than the radar thing)this plane is, in my opinion in my top 5 airliners in all the sims, including anything from the big names like PMDG, Majestic, Leonardo, this plane is right up there. Aerosoft does have a hit with the CRJ, I can't wait for OSOBO to get it out.

11 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

So it seems like you have created some freeware airport mods with MSFS and you have also worked with the XML gauges in MSFS, so you know far more about the MSFS SDK than I do.  What you are saying though about Javascript & HTML - you seem to be implying that Javascript & HTML cannot be used for rendering graphics in MSFS, even 2D graphics?

No! JS/HTML is in fact the default graphics system for MSFS displays. It is what all of the default glass cockpit aircraft use, as well as new upgrades like the G-1000 NXi. Since it is the default way of generating graphics, it currently has more features and SDK support than C++/WASM/NanoVG. 

The problem is that a (glass) display can either be rendered using JS/HTML, or WASM/NanoVG, but not both. Analog gauges (like the many engine instruments in the PMDG DC-6) can be driven totally by XML code in which case JS vs. WASM is not an issue.

16 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

There is no possible way to extract the location and intensity of clouds and precipitation  from within the MSFS weather system without a documented API. Such an API exists for gauges and displays written in JavaScript/HTML (which is the case with all of the default MSFS aircraft) but there is (as yet) no corresponding API for gauges and displays written in WASM. The entire CRJ is a WASM project. It is not a case of “laziness” or not trying hard enough.

The internal workings of the MSFS weather system are completely undocumented. Aerosoft cannot simply “hack into” the running MSFS process to try to extract cloud and precip information. For one thing, they would have no idea where to look, or how the data is structured even if they knew where to find it.

There is also no way to mix JavaScript/HTML displays with WASM displays. It has to be one or the other. If Aerosoft were to re-code all the CRJ displays and system logic from the current C++/WASM to JavaScript/HTML, they would basically have to scrap the entire CRJ project and start over from scratch.

An API has to come from Asobo to provide documented system calls to extract the required weather information. That has not yet been implemented for WASM.  I am quite sure that Asobo is very aware that Aerosoft (and any other developer which will be creating WASM-based aircraft add-ons) wants and needs such an API, but it has not yet been provided. This may have to wait for the “major” overhaul of the Live Weather system that is supposed to happen sometime in 2022. This is entirely speculation on my part - I have no definite information on that one way or the other.

You are correct that the SDK is not needed for “everything” an add-on does. As it happens, the entire CRJ FMS, much of the navigation logic and most of the aircraft systems are completely custom, and operate outside of the current SDK. But weather radar is a completely different animal. It is 100 percent dependent on MSFS exposing its internal data to the add-on in a documented way, and (at the moment) that simply does not exist for WASM.

Jim I understand what you are saying (I get your point about precipitations location, etc.) , I just think that Aerosoft is not pushing the boundaries enough. Why is it that other developers found a way around it? I didn't want to name anyone, but look at Fenix and the wiper implementation for example, they found a way around it. Aerosoft response was, "the rain is coded on the inside of the the windshield". Nothing is perfect, even in the real aircraft (very impressed with your expertise in all these aircraft). Anyways, it is what it is, I still enjoy the CRJ, just wishing for a these 2 features to make their way at some point in time.

Take care,

John.

Does anyone know if you really need to keep so much throttle in on final IRL?  It seems off. 

Edited November 11, 20214 yr by aniiran

Just now, aniiran said:

Does anyone know if you really need to keep so much throttle in on final IRL?  It seems off. 

It's accurate. With full flaps the CRJ is very very draggy. 

I was seeing way too high N1 numbers in the CRJ700, probably will not purchase the 900/1000. You should see around 57-62% N1 fully configured on final, depending on weight and weather conditions.

5 minutes ago, Prpn said:

I was seeing way too high N1 numbers in the CRJ700, probably will not purchase the 900/1000. You should see around 57-62% N1 fully configured on final, depending on weight and weather conditions.

That's pretty much what I get. I was hovering around 60 to 65 this morning landing in very gusty conditions in South Dakota. 

I still don't get that after 1 years, we still cannot update the CRJ in the content manager without going into APPDATA folder and delete whole aicraft. Aren't they not testing marketplace install ?

Dumb question...is there a way to import a flight plan made in MSFS into the FMS of the CRJ directly?? (I do know how to create a Flight Plan in Sim Brief, but rather like the built in flight planning).

Thanks,

 

Steve

21 hours ago, Beagle12 said:

Does Aerosoft supply a user guide with this new aircraft ?

I read somewhere last night that several manuals are included.

Hi,

I can understand that weather radar need an API but what about GPWS. It is working from a database I guess so it should be working independently from the sim ?

My greatest complaint about the CRJ is about the LNAV system. It is not consistent at all and needs to be more robust. Same for the VNAV prediction system. It should be a priority in my opinion.

Also, my understanding is that CRJ1000 is full VNAV capable. What about the sim? It is one of big difference between the 700 & the 1000

Pierre 

3 hours ago, Pochi said:

Hi,

I can understand that weather radar need an API but what about GPWS. It is working from a database I guess so it should be working independently from the sim ?

My greatest complaint about the CRJ is about the LNAV system. It is not consistent at all and needs to be more robust. Same for the VNAV prediction system. It should be a priority in my opinion.

Also, my understanding is that CRJ1000 is full VNAV capable. What about the sim? It is one of big difference between the 700 & the 1000

Pierre 

Pierre ,

The 900/1000 are no diffrent from the 500/700 just a few changers in the EFB and fuel burn,and ofc the model. We are talking AS here not FSL/PMDG. Hence the £18 charge. 🙂 

Yep, that’s why I won’t upgrade the 700 is nice enough for me.

Pierre