Prpn

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?

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 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.

And you make the assumption my entire post is a reaction to yours while only the first line is.

It does not. 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. That is absolutely fine, just don't go around telling other people their issues do not exist, or that the product itself is great and without issues. Negativity is not automatically without grounds, but that seems to be the assumption of some people on here. They will happily write it off as hate against a dev instead of the product, but then also happily join in the hate whenever a topic about Captain Sim comes up, lol.

Yes Noel, we know you have no clue how the real thing is supposed to work and that you have developed your own procedures that work around all the issues so you never see them and they do not exist in your reality. I am still very happy for you that you enjoy it so much, but one needs to only look at the amount of unanswered bug report threads in their support forums to know that you are just full of it and quickly becoming one of the aforementioned 'yaysayers'.

Can only echo and confirm all the previous remarks. There are several very long-standing issues still open (some since release, so coming up on a year and a half soon). Developer communication is severely lacking. It seemed to improve a little bit recently when there was finally an update again after a loooooong time without any updates. But now it is a bit quiet again on their support forums, with bug reports going unanswered and no clue what they are working on.

Just let him live in his own little fantasy world…

You don't see this particular problem, and thus it does not exist. This is the attitude that ruins discussions. I have seen this issue in all versions of the CRJ so far, from the FSX version to the current MSFS iteration. It exists, it is not user error (I fly the real thing for a living, I'd like to think I have a vague idea of how it should or should not work). People who enjoy the addon and don't experience or simply don't notice the issues (ignorance is bliss kind of thing) are very welcome to keep on enjoying it and expressing that. On the same principle, people who do not enjoy the addon and are experiencing issues should be just as free to express that. Aside from that, no one should be as clueless as to say an issue does not exist when it has been clearly shown by users and acknowledged by the dev to exist.

Waiting to see if PMDG fulfills their early access checklist of things to do in the next few weeks/months and I'll decide on pulling the trigger after that.

So add 15% on top after multiplying by 2 😛. Or, for easier calculations and for the most common wind speeds, you could just easily add 10% and you won't be off by much more than 1-3mph up to about 60-65mph winds. Fun stuff 😁.

It is really, really subjective. I'm not sure what you are trying to do that requires the steps you describe, but the simple fact that imperial units have no easy way that relates them just makes them quite hard to use if you don't grow up with them. Individual units, sure. Like if you only ever deal with mph, or feet etc. But if you need to know one relative to the other, it is just a mess. One mile is 5280ft, which is 1760 yards, or 320 rods, where a rod is 5,5 yard? Is it harder to divide or multiply by tens or thousands (literally adding a zero or moving a decimal point) then trying to multiply 1760 by 3 in your head? Growing up with metric, I want to logically say no. But I did not grow up with imperial, where that might be ingrained into your brain and life. I can work with pretty much anything, I mean, even m/s wind is an easy conversion to kts for example, which is then mostly used in aviation. But I think objectively speaking, a system that does not use arbitrary old school references for units, but systematic and easily relatable units should have the upper hand. Which is kind of what you see in what system is used where throughout the world and in most scientific circles.

I am just curious as to how they were able to put their current LNAV system into MSFS without the debugging capabilities, but can't do that with the new version. I've got no dog in this race though, I own neither the PMDG737 or the Fenix. Waiting out the couple of months to see if PMDG makes good on their plans.

Love how this turned into a generic imperial vs. metric topic, haha. My favorite view on this comes from some book, I don't know the source, just found the image online once and kept it around. One curse word in there, so I won't post it as an image here, just a link: https://i.postimg.cc/xC0h9F27/20180713-120111255-i-OS.jpg Otherwise, it really is just what you are used to or grow up with. For that matter, I don't know anyone who goes and orders cheese or meat by decagrams... you order 300 grams, or half a kilo, or 700 grams etc 🤣. Against arguments that imperial is more 'natural', I counter this: Source: https://ukma.org.uk/why-metric/myths/imperial/ (possibly slightly biased, but the facts seem to check out).

Initially, the metric system was going to be the standard in aviation, even the US was on board. But when their metrication efforts stalled and died, it meant the move in aviation was also pretty much a no-go. https://aerosavvy.com/metric-imperial/ But yes, in Europe it should be mostly kg for weight/mass, runway lengths in meters, distances in nm, altitude in feet unless you are talking to the passengers who can better relate to height in km. @cianpars Maybe keep politics out of it. Or you might want to check on how well Brexit is working out for the pilots in your lovely part of the world. It ain't pretty.

Not sure what people get so up in arms about. It is literally just another 737, and intended to be so by Boeing. Yes, different engines, but you will operate them much the same... eg. start them, wait for indications that all is well, and go. Aerodynamical changes, but mostly by winglets that require no care of operation by the pilot. Beefed up landing gear but same ground clearance for the engine nacelles. So we are left with mostly the fancy new displays. And you will still operate the plane the same way as previous 737s pretty much. Stop claiming it is such a different beast, you will not notice most of the changes in a sim model.

Just as rushed as your jump to conclusion? @regis9 To be blunt, if you can't find the sweet spot in the CRJ, you might indeed be a bit ham fisted 😅. But yeah, any aircraft without autothrust will need small adjustments throughout the flight. In stable weather you may be able to find a sweet spot that will keep the desired speed, but that is not guaranteed. It is possible your throttle axis device is not quite sensitive enough or is hard to move precisely? You could try tapping the default reduce throttle keyboard bind to maybe finetune a bit more (F2 for example).

Where do you see me saying that everything I say is fact? I am simply of the opinion that the early adopter spin that RSR is trying to put on it is not a valid distinction from early access, and I explained why that is my opinion. My only 'hating' on PDMG is on this marketing spin. But I am sure they also never tried to 'trick' some people into buying the NGXu by offering a discount on an at that time non-existent product. People who would probably otherwise had just continued to fly their NGX instead of shelling out again for the same plane. It is all marketing and I am not a fan of theirs. Their products? Very, very nice. My personal favorite is the JS41. But I will definitely wait out those 24 weeks and see if they follow through on what they are promising here.

Mostly because the distinction is kind of non-existent. Early adopter and early access customers are essentially the same thing, and in the same post where he claims the product is feature complete, he also claims he wants to add these features, like Kickstarter 'stretch goals'. With a 'release date' of 24 weeks after initial early access release. No guarantee of them being delivered as they can not force Asobo to do something, but being dangled in front of you to get you to purchase already. And by buying the product you are inevitably funding the further development, again like early access. Call a duck by any other name, it's still going to be a duck. Not hating on PMDG, they usually make great products and I'm sure they'll get it done. But just call it what it is and stop with announcements about announcements and then an announcement about the announcement being delayed, and now an announcement about the product pretty much releasing as early access first...

"Guys, guys, this is not early access. It may look, smell, taste, feel, walk and talk like early access, but it's totally not early access. Trust me you guys!" More reason to wait for this early access period to pass and see if they actually deliver what they plan, or if those plans get changed or delayed or goal posts moved etc. For example, Aerosoft with the CRJ has been waiting for WX radar capabilities for over a year and Asobo is well aware of the need for access from WASM addons, but it does not appear to be a priority. I'd consider weather radar a fairly basic functionality, used a lot in real life, especially with summer coming in the northern hemisphere. So feature-complete is debatable.

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.

The loss of thrust and climb rate due to anti-icing is IMHO more than a bit overdone in the Aerosoft CRJ. Cowl anti ice should really not take that much, in real life it is wing anti ice that can mess your plans up a bit but not as much as the sim version might show. It is also standard procedure to have anti ice on for takeoff quite often, usually when you need cowl anti ice, the conditions generally also require the wing anti ice to be on. And on the real plane it is a bit of a non-issue. Just checked a 36.000kg takeoff with and without full anti ice on. It is a difference of one knot higher V-speeds for the anti-ice on takeoff, and maybe 60 meters more distance required, and a very slightly lower climb gradient. That is it. I have never struggled to get above FL300 in the real plane, icing or no icing. Just make sure you fly the correct speed profile. That means 250 below 10.000ft, 290 until the point where it matches anywhere between M.74-M.77 and then fly that mach number up to cruise. We usually go M.74 until FL360 and then M.77 from there. M.77 should get you up to your performance ceiling for the weight.

I am happy your experiences are positive 🙂 . As I mentioned, depending on your level of knowledge of the CRJ you may absolutely be completely happy with the add on.

It completely overshoots the FADEC takeoff thrust value, then rolls back the thrust during the takeoff roll hunting for the right value. If I hear my engines spooling down or decreasing RPM significantly in ANY plane in real life, I'd abort the takeoff because something ain't right. The audio callout MINIMUMS does not work when you have an MDA set. One of the most basic things to get right, pretty big part of day to day operations, known issue for a long long time, no fix. LNAV is a mess. Direct to commands that generate ghost waypoints after which it flies neither to the direct to point or to the ghost waypoint. Can not fly a hold to save its life. Can not fly a smooth enroute turn. Can not set an intercept course. Can not fly an offset track. Anything time or fuel related in the FMS is buggy, like ETAs or fuel remaining over a certain point or at the destination. As in, it predicts you to have more fuel at your destination than you currently have in cruise... 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. And yes, I clearly admitted I have a negative bias. I do know a fair bit about the CRJ as I fly them for a living, and as such I'd love to see a good version in the sim. I have participated in the initial FSX version beta that was released with known bugs and where feedback from real pilots was ignored, I have watched them struggle to fix anything in the subsequent P3D version and then port over that buggy version to MSFS. I think they deserve to be judged a bit harsh after having so many chance to get things right, and a lot of input from real pilots (see also their forum, one pilot has been documenting issues very professionally, including ways to reproduce them and how it should work in real life, but is for the most part just ignored by Aerosoft). They seem to have gotten their money, pointed the finger at Asobo for many issues that they could have worked around themselves, and now seem to have abandoned the product and the customers that paid for it. Could you point me to where I am claiming any such thing? I was comparing to other sim products that have released at similar prices with much higher fidelity, and also clearly stated I do not expect Aerosoft to reach that fidelity. But just for fun, remember PMDGs Jetstream 41? That was $45 and way, way more refined and higher quality than the AS CRJ 🤣.

IMHO, if you have no knowledge of the real plane you may not notice quite a few of the issues and be happy with the addon for what it is. If you have some basic knowledge of the plane and systems, or just generally from other airliners, you will be scratching your head multiple times each flight as to why some very basic stuff does not work reliably. Basic lateral navigation, takeoff thrust settings, minimum callouts, setting the weight in the EFB (be sure to press the button twice, no one will tell you that in tutorials or the manuals despite them knowing about the issue for a year). And you may also be one of the unlucky ones who will run into things like the FMS locking up when trying to clean up an arrival. And there are literal lists of other issues on their forums, most of them valid and never replied to by the developer. If you fly or flew the real plane, it is a complete s*** show if you can pardon my language. Whichever 'real life rated pilot' they had on their beta or development team that signed off on this saying "yup, that seems about right" should not pass his/her next type proficiency check 🤣. I never expect PMDG/FSLabs/Fenix etc kind of fidelity from Aerosoft. But they also fail to accomplish what they claim, simulating the day to day normal operations. On top of that there is very lackluster customer support or just an almost palpable dislike towards the customer base on their support forums. And the issue of whether or not this will ever see significant updates anymore. I will believe it only when I see it, and I would recommend people who have been on the fence for this long already to wait until that promised update drops before pulling the trigger. You've done this long without it, you can hold on for a bit longer and there should hopefully be a nice 4-holer regional jet out soon as alternative. Yes, I am pretty negative about this particular addon as they have had many chances and years upon years to get it right in three generations of sim platforms. And they are just not capable. Some bugs and inaccuracies have been ported straight over from P3D code... So feel free to take that admission of negative bias into account, I am still happy for others who are able to enjoy it and hope you will be one of them, since I just read the purchase has been made 😅.