OK, so to summarise the thread:

• exterior modelling, cockpit, controls and most of the flight model are quite good
• there is no auto-throttle but the real life aircraft does not have that either. This a criticism of the real CRJ not the addon
• the attempt to build a realistic FMS that ignores the MSFS in built flight planning works OK for basic flights and can usually import a sim brief flight pan or enter one by hand and fly it, but the FMS has issues when you try and move onto the more advanced stuff like VNAV and approaches.  Basically the bespoke FMS still has some serious issues interfacing with the game in some of the more advanced areas.
• the MSFS icing system is a bit over the top and the addon needs to cope with that a bit better
• the company has moved on to some extent and is not putting enough resources into fixing issues the above issues with the CRJ

Did I miss anything?

 

30 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

OK, so to summarise the thread:

• exterior modelling, cockpit, controls and most of the flight model are quite good
• there is no auto-throttle but the real life aircraft does not have that either. This a criticism of the real CRJ not the addon
• the attempt to build a realistic FMS that ignores the MSFS in built flight planning works OK for basic flights and can usually import a sim brief flight pan or enter one by hand and fly it, but the FMS has issues when you try and move onto the more advanced stuff like VNAV and approaches.  Basically the bespoke FMS still has some serious issues interfacing with the game in some of the more advanced areas.
• the MSFS icing system is a bit over the top and the addon needs to cope with that a bit better
• the company has moved on to some extent and is not putting enough resources into fixing issues the above issues with the CRJ

Did I miss anything?

 

Good summary.  In regards to the FMS, I'd say that, really, the problems relate to normal operations you do on the LEGS page.

• Risky to change the route at all.  Sometimes it puts the fix after the one you click on instead of before.  Sometimes it deletes all or nearly all of everything before the fix you enter.  So, if you missed a fix when you are entering your flight plan and try to add it in the LEGS page, go back and recheck the route.
• You can't delete restrictions (altitudes/speeds) on fixes.  You can change them but, sometimes, that isn't sufficient.  
• Sometimes the airplane stops following the FMS altogether. 
• If you have any discontinuity in the flight plan in front of you, you will not get VNAV nor VNAV Advisory and you won't know until you don't get it.
• No way to set up a Visual final to the runway.  The only thing you can do is load an approach, if it has one, and use it as a guide.

VATSIM can issue instructions all the time that would require you to do these things.  Sometimes a STAR fix has invalid restrictions and should be removed.  In regards to the more advanced FMS features they do quite well. 

• It does have a secondary flight plan that works(!) and you can save your flight plan into it or save your route with a name. 
• The two MCDUs as well as the two MFDs are decoupled and work entirely independently.  E.g. You can show your LEGS page on one and your PROG page on the other.
• It has a working FIX page.

So, an airplane that's already a challenge to fly is even more difficult because you have a hand tied behind your back in regards to the navigation problems.  It's fun, and I love it, but I'd never fly it to a major airport on VATSIM.

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

OK, so to summarise the thread:

• exterior modelling, cockpit, controls and most of the flight model are quite good
• there is no auto-throttle but the real life aircraft does not have that either. This a criticism of the real CRJ not the addon
• the attempt to build a realistic FMS that ignores the MSFS in built flight planning works OK for basic flights and can usually import a sim brief flight pan or enter one by hand and fly it, but the FMS has issues when you try and move onto the more advanced stuff like VNAV and approaches.  Basically the bespoke FMS still has some serious issues interfacing with the game in some of the more advanced areas.
• the MSFS icing system is a bit over the top and the addon needs to cope with that a bit better
• the company has moved on to some extent and is not putting enough resources into fixing issues the above issues with the CRJ

Did I miss anything?

 

900/1000 greater range. Not sure if this was obvious or list worthy.

Edited March 27, 20224 yr by 40track

On 3/26/2022 at 1:37 AM, Prpn said:

So yes, you probably belong in the first group I described. Which is fine and I am happy that you are able to enjoy the product.

If this thing is full of such basic flaws I'm surprised it wasn't clear to me that it has a really bad repution.  I guess I just missed it.  I really enjoyed adding it to my fleet in AH2 and on its maiden voyage from EDDF>EPGD it really handled exactly as I thought it should:  held the line on multiple waypoints just fine.  I inputted for an ILS approach and while it looked fine looking at entries in LEGS page it suddenly would not fly to the next waypoint which I have to assumes means it was aiming for a different waypoint--it was after inputting the runway and transition that I assumed I did something wrong, but I don't know. 

1 hour ago, Noel said:

If this thing is full of such basic flaws I'm surprised it wasn't clear to me that it has a really bad repution.  I guess I just missed it.  I really enjoyed adding it to my fleet in AH2 and on its maiden voyage from EDDF>EPGD it really handled exactly as I thought it should:  held the line on multiple waypoints just fine.  I inputted for an ILS approach and while it looked fine looking at entries in LEGS page it suddenly would not fly to the next waypoint which I have to assumes means it was aiming for a different waypoint--it was after inputting the runway and transition that I assumed I did something wrong, but I don't know. 

Something like that happened to me.  Easiest thing to do is enter your flight plan then save it into the Secondary (for safety's sake).  Then, while still on the ground, enter your arrival and approach.  

But, in the big picture, even if you did screw something up, the airplane should let you fix it.  Maybe, if it happens again, click LSK1 twice to force a Direct To and make sure you're on FMS1.  I'd like to hear if that would fix it.

6 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

OK, so to summarise the thread:

• exterior modelling, cockpit, controls and most of the flight model are quite good
• there is no auto-throttle but the real life aircraft does not have that either. This a criticism of the real CRJ not the addon
• the attempt to build a realistic FMS that ignores the MSFS in built flight planning works OK for basic flights and can usually import a sim brief flight pan or enter one by hand and fly it, but the FMS has issues when you try and move onto the more advanced stuff like VNAV and approaches.  Basically the bespoke FMS still has some serious issues interfacing with the game in some of the more advanced areas.
• the MSFS icing system is a bit over the top and the addon needs to cope with that a bit better
• the company has moved on to some extent and is not putting enough resources into fixing issues the above issues with the CRJ

Did I miss anything?

 

I think you got the icing wrong: It‘s not that MSFS causes icing problems on the CRJ, it‘s the CRJ engine cowl anti-ice set to ON that eats so much thrust, that you will stop climbing after a certain FL. This happens independently from the weather itself. To be honest this isn‘t a problem most of the time since rain clouds are not that high up usually, and I wouldn‘t climb through a thunderstorm anyway.

7 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

the MSFS icing system is a bit over the top and the addon needs to cope with that a bit better

I think this is pointing the finger a bit too easily to the sim, while the problem lies more in the amount of thrust loss by switching on anti-ice which should be fully under Aerosoft’s control. 
 

There sure is plenty to improve in the sim, but this is also used way too easily as an excuse by some developers to not put in any effort to make things work.  

5 hours ago, Noel said:

that it has a really bad repution

Well it obviously depends on your expectations. I was one of the first who said likes it. Which is still true. It flies and behaves fine here. Even with the (basic) FMS functionality. And as said, VNAV and auto throttle are not implemented in the real thing either. So this one just requires more handflying than eg the FBW. Which is exactly the reason why I wanted the CRJ. I usually fly my approaches by hand and always bring it down now after I leaned to handle thrust, pitch and sinkrate. In short. If you like it then continue to do so

I can't recommend the CRJ considering there are plenty of planes in this category only months away.  Aerosoft have abandoned the plane and it was really just a port across to MSFS during the early days of the sim.  They have done well with it but the lack of attention to all of the glaring problems makes it not worth buying.  She looks beautiful texture wise but it is only skin deep. Once the BAE 146 from just flight is out, I doubt I will fly the CRJ again.  To have a plane solidly fly LNAV and approaches will be too much of a luxury to have anything else. 

6 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

I think you got the icing wrong: It‘s not that MSFS causes icing problems on the CRJ, it‘s the CRJ engine cowl anti-ice set to ON that eats so much thrust, that you will stop climbing after a certain FL. This happens independently from the weather itself. To be honest this isn‘t a problem most of the time since rain clouds are not that high up usually, and I wouldn‘t climb through a thunderstorm anyway.

Cowl anti-ice has no discernible effect on performance in (the sim version) of the CRJ, but wing anti ice does impact engine thrust at higher altitudes. Perhaps the effect needs some adjustments, but weather in the sim does play a role.

Asobo may have improved things in recent updates, but at least prior to SU7, there was a problem when the aircraft was in actual icing conditions. Even if the icing effect was set to “visual only” in the MSFS realism settings, the aircraft weight would spontaneously increase - sometimes many hundreds of pounds - if the core sim engine determined that icing existed.

1 hour ago, sim4good said:

can't recommend the CRJ considering there are plenty of planes in this category only months away.  Aerosoft have abandoned the plane

No, the plane has not been “abandoned”. It was put on hold for a few months while the developer (Hans) concentrated on the Twin Otter, but now that the Twotter has been released, he is back to work on the CRJ. The beta team received a new test build last week that contains several bug fixes for some of issues touched upon in this very thread - primarily FMS bug fixes for modifying existing flight plans, an improvement to TOD calculations etc.

I have no idea how soon any update might be released but the project is absolutely not “abandoned”.

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

No, the plane has not been “abandoned”. It was put on hold for a few months while the developer (Hans) concentrated on the Twin Otter, but now that the Twotter has been released, he is back to work on the CRJ. The beta team received a new test build last week that contains several bug fixes for some of issues touched upon in this very thread - primarily FMS bug fixes for modifying existing flight plans, an improvement to TOD calculations etc.

I have no idea how soon any update might be released but the project is absolutely not “abandoned”.

I love it--thanks for the presenting the diametrically opposite opinion about this.  I am really digging it for the moment as it keeps me very busy paying attention for a change!

2 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

but wing anti ice does impact engine thrust at higher altitudes

Thank you for that it helped explain this sluggish climb rate.  I'm anything but knowledgeable enough to be critical but I will say in terms of depth of systems modeling it seems every bit as deep as PMDG NGXu was if not more so--not saying its modeling is accurate to the real deal--but just depth seems worth the full price if what you say is true should improve.  That does not surprise me because it doesn't appear Aerosoft is closing up shop anytime soon and to NOT go back in tune what needs to be changed doesn't make much sense business-wise especially since they put this level of detail into it w/ its integrated EFB and much more.

31 minutes ago, Noel said:

Thank you for that it helped explain this sluggish climb rate.  I'm anything but knowledgeable enough to be critical but I will say in terms of depth of systems modeling it seems every bit as deep as PMDG NGXu was if not more so--not saying its modeling is accurate to the real deal--but just depth seems worth the full price if what you say is true should improve.  That does not surprise me because it doesn't appear Aerosoft is closing up shop anytime soon and to NOT go back in tune what needs to be changed doesn't make much sense business-wise especially since they put this level of detail into it w/ its integrated EFB and much more.

I agree.  It has a lot of depth.  If they fix the bugs it'll be remarkable...an airliner that adds a whole new dimension and required skill to airliner flying.

10 minutes ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

an airliner that adds a whole new dimension and required skill to airliner flying.

Well, despite the fact I attended T&E Flight School for Ignorami, I somehow managed to have a near perfect flight and as you can see this funky messed up plane managed a 300 degree course change w/o disconnecting, which I surmise came from being very mindful of air speed as the turn approached only to lock on to the GS for a flawless ILS landing at Gdansk.  I'm so stoked I can add this to the AH2 fleet and despite a brief stall from not paying attention at one point which awarded me a flight reputation of 48% I'm pretty sure the next one might be better 😅.  I really do not have the knowledge of so many here but as this was now only my 4th flight in a totally unfamiliar plane I have to think part of the naysaying may have more to do w/ lack of patience and expectations of a less demanding environment than insurmmountable troubles w/ the plane even as it is.