52 minutes ago, Twenty6 said:

Off topic but in the previous (now closed) E175 topic someone mentioned the FSS discord channel or whatever it's called. Anyone have any info or an invite?

https://discord.com/invite/KE5sHcN6eR

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

Why use FLCH on descent? It's not used in real life. In the absence of VNAV use VS, speed and mathematics to calculate TOD and descent rate? I did have these oscillations on the glide slope though.

Since when is FLCH not used anymore IRL? I learned it the other way, where VS is a big no no, but FLCH nearly on every flight.

Cheers,Pete

10 minutes ago, Peter Z KCLE_EDDN said:

Since when is FLCH not used anymore IRL? I learned it the other way, where VS is a big no no, but FLCH nearly on every flight.

Cheers,Pete

On climb. But not on descent in an Embraer from what I understand. But one things for sure. You ain't going to be using FLCH with this plane when you descend because it doesn't work.😀

Edited January 13, 20233 yr by jarmstro

I'm more than happy to have bought this at this stage.  Combination of the various aspects above:

- Specs in my signature

- VR only (Reverb Gen2)

- FPS.  Actually, not too bad.  With Live weather and FSLTL live traffic at two pretty busy UK airports (EGCC and EGBB) it's running around 32fps on the tarmac and 40-ish in the air.  For, say the A310/PMDG737, I am getting around 38 and 42 respectively.

- External views - lovely.  I particularly like switching to 3/4 external during the final approach...the wing flex and u/c detailing is great

- Cockpit views - in VR, horrible.  Significantly lower res than, say, the PMDG and Inibuilds and even in 2D it's a bit flat, grey and 'sim' generic on my system

- Flight plan capture...hmmm......I seem to lose it more often than it being just me!  It follows two of three waypoints fine, then flies straight past another one.

- Same with localiser and glideslope.  I have had one that was text-book.  But I've had more where it wouldn't capture it or hold it in spite of, I think, my attitude and speeds being within limits

- Ground handling fine, rudder authority on take-off run, even with gusty crosswinds, controllable (better than most, TBH)

- Sounds.  Maybe a bit quiet and generic...then again (and I've flown as a passenger many times) they are pretty quiet.

- Hatches/doors/etc animation - pretty good

- Hand flying.  No idea how realistic, but it feels OK to me. 

- Landing behaviour.  Pretty good.  Sounds much like I remember as a passenger and stops pretty promptly which, again, I seem to remember as a passenger

- Banking.  Not sure what actual angle, but the autobank feels to be in the 30 degree zone

- Spool up/down.  No idea

- Like someone said above, impressed with quite a bit of the documentation and it is made very clear, panel by panel what is working OK, what is working as a workaround and what isn't working yet.

 

In summary, there is an inconsistency with the AP/Flight Plan that makes it difficult to work out it it's you or the sim that is getting something wrong and that makes for a difficulty in learning how just how this aircraft and its systems should be flown.  As such, I will probably stick to basic Heading/ Speed/ Alt autopilot and just fly IFR/VFR until some of that has been developed further.  But I don't think that will be time wasted, it's actually a pretty good way of going about it - learning exactly how the Embraer flies when you have full manual control before shortcutting by flicking a switch for it to take over itself.

So will I be taking this for long cross continental flights in the near future?  No - I'll wait until the FMS, etc, is more complete.

Will I be doing some old-style local IFR/VFR while learning how it handles in different situations and conditions?  Yes, I will 

3 hours ago, AJZip said:

- Cockpit views - in VR, horrible.  Significantly lower res than, say, the PMDG and Inibuilds and even in 2D it's a bit flat, grey and 'sim' generic on my system

I was hoping MSFS's ambient occlusion, shadows and lighting would help this look better, but it looks as if the textures are really just that bland and flat, even for grey color.

Hopefully a flightsim.to modder tackles the cockpit interior ASAP.

3 hours ago, jarmstro said:

On climb. But not on descent in an Embraer from what I understand. But one things for sure. You ain't going to be using FLCH with this plane when you descend because it doesn't work.😀

You are right that on descent most pilots would use VS if they don't use VNAV and so do I. Still, it is being regularly used in certain situations. I have to use it for example when ATC left me high and I just need to dive down as fast and as easy as possible: LVL CHG, speed to 320 and down we go with idle thrust.

EDIT: Of coruse you can also use VS in those situations, but it's a higher workload having to constantly manage VS and at the same time having to keep an eye on speed. It's rather stressful in those situations that are already stressful per se, like when you are way too high.

Edited January 13, 20233 yr by Fiorentoni

4 hours ago, AJZip said:

In summary, there is an inconsistency with the AP/Flight Plan that makes it difficult to work out it it's you or the sim that is getting something wrong and that makes for a difficulty in learning how just how this aircraft and its systems should be flown.

That's the perfect way to summarize this plane in its present state. I flew the Feelthere Ejets in FSX and P3D and want to fallback on the way I did things then, but who knows if that was even right. I believe the FMS software is newer than what was in the Feelthere Ejets and I certainly see a difference.

57 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

Hopefully a flightsim.to modder tackles the cockpit interior ASAP.

Cockpit textures don't really bother me. It's the dials I'd like to see changed. Right now they're torture to adjust.

Thanks for this entertaining and impartial review, as a result I think I wait for the full release, then perhaps watch another review before purchase.

Edited January 13, 20233 yr by JustanotherPilot

Just had a couple of full flights using IFR radio navigation instead of GPS and it all worked fine, including picking up the glide slope and localiser.  It's the GPS flight plan that seems to be a little more challenging!

Flying in IFR was a decent experience, though.  I do like how responsive the auto-throttle is to adjustments in speed.  Makes getting everything right for the final approach that much easier. 

 

30 minutes ago, Twenty6 said:

Cockpit textures don't really bother me. It's the dials I'd like to see changed. Right now they're torture to adjust.

Yes, indeed.  With a VR mouse and arthritis, torture is the word  😃

I have a knobster but, at the moment, the only knob on the Embraer that it will adjust is the heading (thank heavens for small mercies, I suppose).  Setting the Course to suit is like being stuck with pins in slow motion 

9 minutes ago, AJZip said:

Just had a couple of full flights using IFR radio navigation instead of GPS and it all worked fine, including picking up the glide slope and localiser.  It's the GPS flight plan that seems to be a little more challenging!

You mean you were flying VOR-to-VOR? I thought the E-Jets couldn't track VORs.

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

You mean you were flying VOR-to-VOR? I thought the E-Jets couldn't track VORs.

Yes. EGNX to the VOR's at DTY and HON, through to Rway33 at EGBB.

As long as VOR transmitters themselves exist still (and they do at those two locations) surely it's the same equipment as for capturing the localiser?

Edited January 14, 20233 yr by AJZip

My IFR flights with the Embraer mentioned above reminded me just how satisfying the 'old-fashioned' radio navigation can be.  And the master of replicating the experience of using that technology in terms of MSFS regional jets surely has to be, presently, the Just Flight BAe146.  And, what with trying to learn the more complicated stuff with the A320/737/A310 models, it's been a while since I've flown that one.

So today, I did the same flight EGNX to EGBB using IFR systems with FSLTL live traffic and live weather with both the FSS E175 and the JF BAe146 

- Both got me to the airport and down the ILS glide path onto the runway equally successfully

- (this is a bit of a surprise) almost exactly the same FPS in VR (Reverb G2) between the two flights...around 32fps on the ground; around 41fps in the air

- The BAe 146 takes more 'real flying' effort .  It really doesn't compensate for wrong speeds, attitudes, altitudes.  And there's no autothrottle!  While GPS on the E175 is a bit of a nightmare at the moment, using radio nav is pretty straightforward and reliable.  I suspect that is fairly typical of the real aircraft.

- Modelling-wise, the JF BAe146 external VR view is splendid...but so is the FSS E175.  And that wing flex on the 175! (of course, the stubby 146 doesn't flex in real life AFAIK)

- Modelling-wise, the JF BAe146 cockpit VR view is splendid.  No leaning forward needed in spite of it being a very busy cockpit.  The E175 needs leaning forward for almost all text.  Everything is fuzzy.  If FSS want to know the standard they should be aiming for, they could do a lot worse than just buying a decent VR headset and a copy of the JF BAe146 which pretty much demos the standard and clarity needed and achievable at the same FPS (and, arguably, with the much greater complexity of the 4-engined panel of the BAe146)

- turning off the autopilot on finals, I landed the E175 - whereas the BAe146 'arrived' 🙂   The 175 has a very pleasant manner when it comes to unaided flying.  The crosswind controllability (it was a gusty day today) of the E175 was good - the wind was affecting it just as much, but somehow keeping the nose crabbed and the nearside wing down just seemed that little bit more controlled in the 175.  The BAe 146 was a bit of a bucking bronco finishing with a 'stress test' of the undercarriage!

 

This real side by side has shown me just how much is still to do on the FSS E175.  But it's promising to be a corker once it's got there...

 

Edited January 14, 20233 yr by AJZip

On 1/13/2023 at 10:51 AM, Peter Z KCLE_EDDN said:

Since when is FLCH not used anymore IRL? I learned it the other way, where VS is a big no no, but FLCH nearly on every flight.

Cheers,Pete

Depends honestly,I’ll use VS in the climb sometimes ,if I need to expedite the climb through a certain flight level or if George is being dumb like when climbing in light turbulence and he’s so set on keeping his speed he forgets to climb. You just have to watch the speed so it doesn’t bleed off to anywhere near green dot

Here's some info on the planned 0.9.1 update on January 17th.

https://www.flightsim-studio.com/news-e-jets-update-0-9-1/

I have seen many people reporting issues with the fps, in the pie-chart is only 1%, I am not sure how to read it, if it is really a general issue as reported or not.