29 minutes ago, Noel said:

This being said the plane absolutely fits in the envelope of what a decent, reasonably complex MSFS plane will conform to

This is my criteria for buying an aircraft. I want to operate the systems as in the real aircraft, but small omissions or slight differences are not a concern.  

I initially held off buying the Just Flight BAe 146 because it has a stock FMS and this felt too much of a compromise. However, Just Flight said a custom FMS will be a future upgrade so I purchased it - by far my favourite aircraft in MSFS.

It is a concern when a real world pilot says the CRJ doesn't operate like the real one, but his expectation of what a decent, reasonably complex simulated aircraft is may be very different to mine.

I will only buy the CRJ with FS2Crew so quite expensive. I'll see how this thread develops.

 

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I consider myself a serious simmer, but I don't need an MSFS aircraft to be exactly like the real thing - I am not interested dealing with complex failures for example. I want to operate and fly the plane close to how the real aircraft behaves. If it is a little off in performance for example, it wouldn't be a show stopper for me. 

What in the Aerosoft CRJ causes you to say they can't get the plane right?

 

I don't want to rehash things I have posted in the past in CRJ topics. Basically, if you follow normal procedures, you technically wouldn't even get past the engine start because it does not behave as it should. I am also not someone who needs all failures modeled, but the CRJ is meant to simulate day to day normal ops and it fails at that if you use day to day normal procedures.

I lost my patience with AS quite some time ago, but there are more than a few RW CRJ pilots who have given their input, which would make the plane a lot better, but have been completely ignored. But that gets dangerously close to AS 'bashing', so I'll leave it at that.

I think we are running in circles here. Let's put it that way: Anyone who wants a decent current regional jet (for non-current: BAE 146) and has not much knowledge and/or doesn't care much about how real airliner procedures are supposed to work and/or how the real CRJ is supposed to work, go ahead and buy the CRJ, you will definitely have fun with it. (Just don't fly on Vatsim, unless you want to get yelled at or start sweating when being given a new approach.)
For anyone else: Just go and fly the Fenix or the PMDG, there's more than enough 1-hour-routes in the real world for both of them, so you can mimick regional jet flying.

8 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

unless you want to get yelled at or start sweating when being given a new approach.)

Not true--you just have to learn how to make changes I do it regularly.  Actually, MSFS ATC often waits til the last minute to direct you to a runway and approach so you need to be able to input that very quickly and clean it up then proceed as required.  It's part of the challenge of short notice ATC commands.

 

Edited July 24, 20223 yr by Noel

2 hours ago, Prpn said:

I have a few thousand hours on the real plane(s), and I do not hate Aerosoft either. But they just can not seem to get this plane right in all the different versions of it they have gone through now. And this will be blunt and rude, but most people/simmers that do not see any issues generally do not know enough about how it is supposed to function. Or they have adapted some custom procedure to work around certain issues.

You say you do not “hate Aerosoft” yet you never hesitate to disparage the company or the product whenever the opportunity presents itself. 

I have been holding my tongue for months, but I really need to make something clear for others who read these threads. 

You yourself were once an official member of the beta test team for the CRJ back in the P3D days (before MSFS), going (at the time) under the user name “Propane”. There came a time while you still a trusted member of the beta team that you began to make snarky criticisms of the aircraft, Hans Hartman and Mathijs Kok here on Avsim.

Understandably, when they got wind of that, your further participation in the beta program was terminated. You might even have been booted entirely from the Aerosoft forum - I do not know for sure. 

Criticism is fine - but to have done so while still maintaining a position as a trusted insider is (in my book) dishonorable. You should have first resigned from the test team if you wanted to critique the product or those who make it. It makes me question now how “impartial” your current viewpoint is.

There are two current r/w CRJ pilots on the test team. One from Air Canada, and one from Endeavor. The latter has recently been promoted to the Delta mainline on the A320, but he still offers help and advice. Neither pilot shares your viewpoint that the sim CRJ is so far removed from the real aircraft that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the real thing. 

The CRJ is not intended to be a 100 percent accurate “study level” implementation of the real aircraft. Some systems are not fully emulated, and some are simplified due to sim limitations. No real CRJ pilot would (or should) ever use it to prepare for a type rating.

I have to wonder if you have even used any recent version of the aircraft. You have said that it is no different/no better than the old P3D version. That is not correct. For instance, the fuel check valve test is fully and correctly implemented, there has been a major improvement to the DIR INTC function in recent revisions, as well as ongoing improvements to the FMS flight plan and procedural handling.

Unlike PMDG, who have a direct line to Boeing engineers, Aerosoft has no such relationship with Bombardier/Mitsubishi or Rockwell Collins. Determining exactly how the FMS or autopilot handles various types of procedures or modifications to existing flight plans can only be determined by gleaning information from the POH for the FMS, or by getting access to an actual aircraft and trying various FP/SID/STAR combinations. I have personally been involved in that sort of testing in recent weeks, all with the goal of making the systems as accurate as possible, but there is still work to be done.

 

 

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

You say you do not “hate Aerosoft” yet you never hesitate to disparage the company or the product whenever the opportunity presents itself. 

I have been holding my tongue for months, but I really need to make something clear for others who read these threads. 

You yourself were once an official member of the beta test team for the CRJ back in the P3D days (before MSFS), going (at the time) under the user name “Propane”. There came a time while you still a trusted member of the beta team that you began to make snarky criticisms of the aircraft, Hans Hartman and Mathijs Kok here on Avsim.

Understandably, when they got wind of that, your further participation in the beta program was terminated. You might even have been booted entirely from the Aerosoft forum - I do not know for sure. 

Criticism is fine - but to have done so while still maintaining a position as a trusted insider is (in my book) dishonorable. You should have first resigned from the test team if you wanted to critique the product or those who make it. It makes me question now how “impartial” your current viewpoint is.

There are two current r/w CRJ pilots on the test team. One from Air Canada, and one from Endeavor. The latter has recently been promoted to the Delta mainline on the A320, but he still offers help and advice. Neither pilot shares your viewpoint that the sim CRJ is so far removed from the real aircraft that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the real thing. 

The CRJ is not intended to be a 100 percent accurate “study level” implementation of the real aircraft. Some systems are not fully emulated, and some are simplified due to sim limitations. No real CRJ pilot would (or should) ever use it to prepare for a type rating.

I have to wonder if you have even used any recent version of the aircraft. You have said that it is no different/no better than the old P3D version. That is not correct. For instance, the fuel check valve test is fully and correctly implemented, there has been a major improvement to the DIR INTC function in recent revisions, as well as ongoing improvements to the FMS flight plan and procedural handling.

Unlike PMDG, who have a direct line to Boeing engineers, Aerosoft has no such relationship with Bombardier/Mitsubishi or Rockwell Collins. Determining exactly how the FMS or autopilot handles various types of procedures or modifications to existing flight plans can only be determined by gleaning information from the POH for the FMS, or by getting access to an actual aircraft and trying various FP/SID/STAR combinations. I have personally been involved in that sort of testing in recent weeks, all with the goal of making the systems as accurate as possible, but there is still work to be done.

 

 

I'm sure you don't need a "relationship" with Bombardier to code a FMS that does not duplicate your approach when changing the star or approach. Also changing STARs and approaches is not exclusive to study level, I think. If you read the comments here you will notice that no one is complaining about the lack of deep systems simulation or failures, which are usually part of "study level" aircraft, but about basic day-by-day stuff that does not work well. After one and half years, go figure.
This is just lazy coding, and by "lazy" I absolutely do not mean the very talented Hans, but I mean the ones that probably cut Hans' hours on that project to keep the cost down as much as possible. The CRJ is an airliner from a discount store with a premium shop's pricing.

Edited July 24, 20223 yr by Fiorentoni
added a missing "not"

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

You yourself were once an official member of the beta test team for the CRJ back in the P3D days (before MSFS), going (at the time) under the user name “Propane”. There came a time while you still a trusted member of the beta team that you began to make snarky criticisms of the aircraft, Hans Hartman and Mathijs Kok here on Avsim.

Understandably, when they got wind of that, your further participation in the beta program was terminated. You might even have been booted entirely from the Aerosoft forum - I do not know for sure. 

I have always respected your posts and input, but if you want to get personal, you might want to get the story right. I was on the CRJ X beta team for FSX even. Bug reports and simple to implement feedback to improve the product were ignored. Fair enough, then why continue providing it. Once the product was publicly released, with bugs still present that were reported weeks if not months before, I posted my honest opinion on here. Some person related to AS took that as an affront and set out to get me banned claiming I breached some non-existent NDA. Not much more to it, nothing untoward was said back then about any of the persons you mention, only about the add-on. 

Later on mr. Hartmann took a thread full of constructive though somewhat harsh criticism as a personal attack. Nothing new there, as someone in this thread noted earlier, devs should not do customer support.

I still hold no grudge, and have provided feedback and useful data to implement even. The same poor attitude was still present however, so I fairly quickly gave up expecting anything. The CRJ is an airplane close to my heart however, so I would like to see it done justice. Which is why I mainly chime in on threads about it. I think my criticism is relatively easily validated by going through some of the support forum, or by the many posts of others not quite enjoying the customer support experience. Not claiming innocence or playing victim, but again, get the story right.

Edited July 24, 20223 yr by Prpn
Typo

27 minutes ago, Prpn said:

I have always respected your posts and input, but if you want to get personal, you might want to get the story right. I was on the CRJ X beta team for FSX even. Bug reports and simple to implement feedback to improve the product were ignored. Fair enough, then why continue providing it. Once the product was publicly released, with bugs still present that were reported weeks if not months before, I posted my honest opinion on here. Some person related to AS took that as an affront and set out to get me banned claiming I breached some non-existent NDA. Not much more to it, nothing untoward was said back then about any of the persons you mention, only about the add-on. 

Later on mr. Hartmann took a thread full of constructive though somewhat harsh criticism as a personal attack. Nothing new there, as someone in this thread noted earlier, devs should not do customer support.

I still hold no grudge, and have provided feedback and useful data to implement even. The same poor attitude was still present however, so I fairly quickly gave up expecting anything. The CRJ is an airplane close to my heart however, so I would like to see it done justice. Which is why I mainly chime in on threads about it. I think my criticism is relatively easily validated by going through some of the support forum, or by the many posts of others not quite enjoying the customer support experience. Not claiming innocence or playing victim, but again, get the story right.

I definitely had nothing to do with any attempt to ban you - I was (and still am) just a volunteer tester as you were.

There was no NDA then. (There is now.) The gist of their objection was that you were critical of the aircraft (fair or not) on other forums while still on the test team. I can understand your passion to make the aircraft as accurate as possible, but apparently the nature and venue of the critiques did not sit well. You may not have intended your criticism as a personal attack on the developers, but right or wrong, it was taken that way. It’s water under the bridge now. 

 

Edited July 24, 20223 yr by JRBarrett

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

The gist of their objection was that you were critical of the aircraft (fair or not) on other forums while still on the test team.

For the record, again not the full story. One particular ehm... Dude... proclaimed I was lying about having beta tested the aircraft, and he successfully lobbied an admin here to get me banned. When I approached that Dude via PM and explained the situation, he admitted fault but refused to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions and approach the admin again to lift that ban. You might want to let that sink in. 

I'm not sure what use further discussion of this murky water under the bridge is. Let's stick to discussion of the addon from here on?

38 minutes ago, Prpn said:

For the record, again not the full story. One particular ehm... Dude... proclaimed I was lying about having beta tested the aircraft, and he successfully lobbied an admin here to get me banned. When I approached that Dude via PM and explained the situation, he admitted fault but refused to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions and approach the admin again to lift that ban. You might want to let that sink in. 

I'm not sure what use further discussion of this murky water under the bridge is. Let's stick to discussion of the addon from here on?

Agreed