snglecoil

Rest assured, no 2 flights are ever the same in the real world. While there is familiarity, at no point are we truly doing the same flight over and over. And regarding Fred Sr., that’s a statement made by an awful father who belittled his son for pursuing aviation. Not hard to see that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

IMO P-factor is barely noticeable in the default 172 (and other default single pistons) I don’t know, maybe it’s my settings? It has been 3 years since I touched a 172, but having instructed in various models, it seems that the approach profile at flaps 20 in the sim is more similar to flaps 30 in the real plane, but again it’s been a while. Close enough for government work.

V2 fixed some big issues, but it sadly still has some pretty annoying deficiencies with regards to vector to final RNAV approaches (specifically the ability to specify and intercept a course to a GPS waypoint) and auto pilot alts cap/hold logic. Despite those pretty big flaws, it is still a very fun approximation of the CRJ. Hopefully those issues will be addressed someday. I know myself and other CRJ pilots have submitted feedback on the official forums. Not holding my breath though.

I watched the video referenced in video linked here. That dude lost me asserting that he said that he really really didn’t care about visuals, he was only truly concerned with systems depth and proper procedures….then spends the rest of the video griping about visuals 🙄

I had the same issue with all planes when I started using 2024. My issue ended up being particular to the ancient CH Pro pedals I was using. I had to use the old CH configuration tool to set the toe brake axis to non-centering and making sure the correct axis was assigned in MSFS with no conflicting assignments.

I’m based at Ohare. In my humble opinion, an “up to date” ORD in the sim is too much a moving target for any developer to tackle in the foreseeable future. This past year, taxiway configurations have changed significantly to the south and west of terminals 1, 2, & 3. They are just breaking ground on the C concourse extension, and preparing for the new D concourse construction. Eventually terminal 2 will be completely torn down, getting rid of the United “Y” (E and F gates) and replaced with gates to accommodate larger aircraft. This project is already way over budget and behind schedule. But significant progress has been/is being made.

Just for clarity, the DA-62 is more of a logical successor to the Baron as it seats 6 vs 4 of the DA-42. I think the Baron and DA-62 are more comparable in initial purchase price. But yes the Diamond appears to have the edge in operating costs….but definitely loses big time in the beauty contest 😉

I did multi-engine training in a Baron which means a lot of time flying around with one engine which is not particularly fun 🤪 But I’ve had quite a bit more time in the Bonanza. It is a joy to fly. Very well balanced, it feels solid and predictable. Great plane to hand fly! My favorite GA piston by a mile. Sadly the whole GA market is probably past the point of no return. Yeah, I know Cirrus keeps selling tons of planes (on a relative scale)…but at $1M+ that’s not exactly within reach of anyone. I hate that Textron killed production, but it was inevitable when you look at the economics of it. Sad day indeed.

Interesting, I haven’t observed that behavior. In fact, I find it a little too reluctant to rotate at VR, although it is noticeably better since the last update. I do know that setting fuel and payload using the tablet/EFB is finicky so maybe that’s a possible cause?

I think this is very smart on the part of Boeing and PMDG. I have annual recurrent training coming up in the CRJ and have actually found the Aerosoft product with all of its flaws and limitations to be a really nice resource for drilling procedural flows and callouts for things that we just don’t see very often on the line. Even if the emergency or abnormal scenario isn’t simulated or the system doesn’t respond exactly like it should on my desktop sim, the switches are all there (even if they don’t work exactly right) so I can pull out the appropriate procedure and be solid on the steps before I head back in the actual sim. I can definitely see a big value in using PMDGs expertise in an official procedural training product, especially if it is available on some sort of on demand platform that doesn’t require you to schedule a dedicated sim/trainer session…again speculation as to what this is actually all about. I too have used Redbird BATDs and AATDs as a both a student and an instructor. In both cases, the training was solely focused on the procedural. Trying to “hand fly” them was counterproductive. One of my clients and Cirrus owners purchased the certified RealSimGear Cirrus ATD running XP in preparation for his instrument training. That was a very nice setup from a hardware perspective, but again we focused almost entirely on the procedural aspects of instrument flying, not the hand flying itself.

The FAA also wants us to call students “learners” but doesn’t issue “learner pilot certificates” … so there’s that 😅

I too did my initial flight training in the 90s and was told by my instructors to stay off flight sims. I didn't listen, of course, and thankfully it didn't impede my progress. Starting a family not long after getting that private pilot certificate unfortunately meant that I had to give up real world flying for nearly 17 years as there was just not enough time nor money to justify my hobby. This is where flight simming played an incredibly important role keeping me connected to aviation. When I discovered Pilot Edge very early on in that company's life, it shifted my flight simming focus from fun to real training. I learned so much about instrument flying through self study using X-Plane and P3D that when I did resume flight training in 2018, the instrument rating was relatively simple. My instrument instructor was stunned. When I went on to become a flight instructor myself, I had 2 very different experiences with students that used flight sims. One came from a flight sim background. They tried to practice maneuvers and takeoff/landings in the sim. It was terrible for their progress. I finally had to tell the student that he was not allowed to touch his flight sim until he learned to land the actual plane. It took a lot of extra hours to break his bad habits, but eventually he got there. The second student was also struggling with landings, particularly with energy management on final. One day he showed up and started nailing his approach and landings seemingly out of the blue. It turns out that he used X-Plane mobile of all things to finally grasp the concept of pitch and power to achieve a stabilized approach. So yes, home flight sims can be incredibly beneficial (or detrimental) as a supplement to real world flight training. I encouraged my students to practice VFR dead-reckoning, using old-school paper charts, VFR flight logs, on-line aviation weather briefs, manual E6Bs, and real weather in the sim. With the photo scenery in today's sims you absolutely can practice VFR cross country procedures with a very high degree of fidelity. I just encouraged students NOT to practice maneuvers or landings. I wouldn't worry a bit about certifying a home flight sim to log hours. That's not where the benefit lies. It's just not worth the cost nor effort. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There is so much valuable learning that can take place with a home sim, especially under the guidance of a savvy instructor. I can honestly say with 100% certainty that I would not be an airline captain today without my flight sims keeping the flame alive over the years.

Same issue here

It happens in the real plane depending on the distance and intercept angle to the fix. If it looks like we are going to overshoot the intercept, we generally just "double pump" the current fix (select and drop it back on itself in the CDU) to allow the FMS to recalculate a more favorable intercept. The CRJ NG/Atmosphere will auto select when you do as described. Sounds like that isn't modeled in the sim. Real world it works pretty well most of the time. Every once in a while the plane does a horrible job capturing the actual localizer. It actually happened to me last week flying into YYZ. The overshoot, and subsequent meandering attempt by the autopilot to correct was so bad that we ended up going around to try again. Not sure what was causing it to behave so poorly. ATC gave us a perfectly reasonable vector. I manually switched to the localizer the second time around and it still wanted to overshoot. I ended up disconnecting the autopilot manually flying the approach the second time around. So when people get frustrated because the sim doesn't fly the approach perfectly, you can argue that the sim is just replicating real life 😉

Bought on the marketplace so I assume it’ll be a while before I get a chance to evaluate. Looking at the change log, though, a lot of pretty significant bugs were fixed (allegedly 😁). Looking forward to trying it out!

There is real world CRJ FO who has been beta testing and streamed a few flights using v2. After seeing a little more of his stuff in YouTube, I’m cautiously optimistic.

It happens very frequently in real life as well. When ORD is in west flow, you may initially be cleared via VEECK or ESSPO coming from the southeast and almost always count on being re-cleared via the WATSN as you get closer to ORD.

It’s really sad…my beloved CRJ is a big pile of unrealized potential with 3 years of empty statements about an update for 2020 and zero word about ever being compatible with 24. How does a company with apparent marketing ties to MSFS at launch botch the biggest revitalization of the entire flight sim genre in history???

North side of the airport, Signature runs the FBO 🤮

It’s about time! In the time since this update was initially hinted, I have been hired, initially qualified, accumulated 1000+ hours, and upgraded to captain in the actual CRJ. 😂

The controllers even have trouble keeping up with it at times! ORD is a mess but I love it! Taxiing around there is great for the paycheck for sure! 😂

I’m an ORD based pilot. The airport has been under active construction for a long time and will continue to be for the next 2 decades at the rate they are going. Taxiways are constantly being changed and renamed as the airport is being reconfigured to support construction of a new terminal soon(tm). It would be a very big task to try and keep everything current for a developer.

It's going to be a while before I'm able to jump in, but I have been watching some folks stream today. I'm blown away by virtual world. Once they get the servers stable and start knocking out bugs, the astounding feeling of existing in this gorgeous, detailed virtual world is worth it every ounce of hype.

Does the interior modeling feature the most Green Bay thing ever? …The snowblower sales display in front of the escalators to baggage claim? 😂

Sorry, chalking up the navigational issues with this plane to user error is too broad a statement. Some can be attributed to user error but the plane definitely has numerous navigation bugs. I love the CRJ. I fly it for a living. Even with all of its issues in the sim it’s still a fun plane to use. Very challenging/rewarding. I’m really hoping Aerosoft eventually releases the update they have been promising for 2 years…but I’m not holding my breath