Jump to content

Prpn

Members
  • Content Count

    146
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

186 Excellent

About Prpn

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Aerosoft has not exactly been quick in fixing issues in the CRJ anyway, so it's not really a con in this case 😅.
  2. Your example honestly looks more like the pilot forgot to trim the plane and is just pulling up in intervals to maintain some sort of glide... Would not blame this on the aircraft before seeing someone who knows how to trim a plane having the same issue 😛 .
  3. I would be one hundred percent on board with that and throw some money at them. The original Crimson Skies was a blast 😁. Give me that Devastator, Fury, Brigand and Bloodhawk to fly 😜.
  4. Not fully sure I understand the exact question. But, a regular RNP approach is usually down to RNP 0.3, which the CRJ can do in the final approach segment. Any stricter RNP like RNP 0.1 is usually limited to RNP AR approaches, which the CRJ can not do. Depending on the chart provider there might also be different minima listed for different RNP levels. In the real plane the FMS simply will not show RNP procedures it can not fly, such as those with RF legs. Aerosoft has stated that they are unable to filter their/the sim nav database that way.
  5. RNAV and RNP approaches are supported just fine, but no RF (radius to fix) legs. Our fleet does not have the VNAV button unfortunately, so I can not tell you the proper procedures. But according to the FMS manual you should be able to have VNAV enabled all the way down to the threshold for RNAV approaches that have published LPV or LNAV/VNAV minima. I'd imagine you have it on for descent, arm approach mode as if for an ILS and it will switch the vertical mode from VPATH to VPG (vertical path glide). Though again, I am not completely sure.
  6. Yes, many times. The PFD & MFD layout and errors they simply refused to fix. I even put their version side by side with the actual RW PFD to show the differences and how much it would improve readability and realism (many users complained about the tiny font used in some places on their version of the PFD, the real one is much better in this regard). The DIR INTC page issues and other direct to issues have been reported many times and have been "on the list" for about 4 months now. After getting some very rude responses to constructive feedback I simply gave up.
  7. Up to everyone to decide for themselves. The prices have shifted quite a bit for the market in MSFS, but even so... remember the PMDG Jetstream 41? That released at $45 and was a heck more accurate and a faithful reproduction than this CRJ. What bugs me a bit with AS is that with one hand they feed you the line that it is the most complex addon and with the other hand they slap you in the face with "it is only meant to simulate normal day to day ops" if you point out a flaw. And even normal day to day ops are not simulated properly. Besides that, they have had years and years to get this aircraft right, and years and years of sales at €50 for the CRJ X, €75 for the CRJ "Professional", and according to their own claims already tens of thousands of sales in MSFS, which makes it a million dollar plus revenue product by even a low guesstimation. But they can not even get the layout and text sizes on the displays right, fail to make a functioning direct-to function and more of those kind of simple, simple mistakes. If you do not get those basics right, is it still even a decent approximation?
  8. Spoiler alert from another RW CRJ pilot, it is not. This is not to bash them, nor to be super negative, just statement of fact. There are a couple of things you'd probably use every single RW flight that do not work properly in the addon. YMMV and it might be the best representation of a CRJ in any sim, but it does not do the real plane justice IMO.
  9. Without going in to details, it is not very accurate compared to the real thing (I fly them for a living). And support is, politely described, 'lacking' at best IMO. There is a lot of simply writing problems off as user error then locking the threads, and lack of will to change proven inaccuracies. In my opinion, money is spent better else where, but there are also plenty of people who do enjoy the plane and do not need support so YMMV.
  10. They should really get the basics right first before making any addon models that will just be using the same internals.
  11. ICAO has a document called Annex 5 which is all about units used in aviation. Essentially, the NM is classified as an 'alternative unit' and the intention is to phase out its use over time. It is kind of a leftover of early aviation developments mainly in Britain and the US. Had the metric conversion act succeeded in the US, all the things you mentioned would have been in kilometers and meters.
  12. Because most of the world uses the metric system/SI units wherever possible. So runway length and visibility will be in meters and directly relatable, for example in the case of low visibility takeoff and RVR. It is slightly sad we still deal with a mix of all kinds of units in aviation, though ICAO has been striving for metric/SI units for decades. A very, very slow moving change to SI is being made, even in the US.
  13. I saw that comparison somewhere else as well, but noticed it was 4K resolution with a render scale of 40... Wouldn't that make it essentially rendered at a sub-1080p resolution? Might not be very representative of performance boosts for people running native resolutions (render scale 100). I'm just gonna wait and see.
  14. A charge back can get you in some interesting trouble if you have received the product you paid for. In some cases companies can legally go send some debt collectors after you. I'd be a little bit wary to jump to that solution.
×
×
  • Create New...