RJ_FO

the flight model unfortunately needs improvement, turbulence handling is way off and behaves like a small GA aircraft. Also having difficulties with complex SIDs at time. My "issue" with FSS is really that it's been taking way too long to fix basic stuff like these. The flightdeck representation is gorgeous, and the EFB has quite a few improvements so it's not all negative, but for now, it's back in the hangar until it flies like a regional jet, not a 152 :)

this looks good, but from what I can see on the video, there is no dialogs between the flightdeck and ground crew. Everything is automatically called is that right? I wish we could talk to the crew (cockpit to ground, we are ready for pushback, tail south, etc.) SI has a good GSX integrations, but they pass all the audio from GSX and some of the GSX dialog is unrealistic (for example, catering calling cockpit to open doors, they do that by themselves).. I'll probably get it just to try as it's reasonably priced.

It gets even worse, I go on certain devs discord and gives them feedback from a real airline pilot perspective, and I sometimes am being made fun of for making real world suggestions. Yet, they listen to these "famous" simmers than have never seen a flightdeck. I keep to myself now. It's really who you know and not what you know these days....

IIRC, it's the same on the Challenger 350 (it's been a while since I have flown one, so I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall that we always started Right Engine first)

I agree, the 220 has far greater range than the E-Jet. I tried the latest version, and it has a long way to go. The AP causes uncommanded banks left to right during turbulences. I've jumpseated this plane more than I can remember and although the quality of textures and cockpit model are great, the plane just doesnt fly like the real thing. It's frustrating to see the team taking forever to get it right.

that is a shame and a no buy for me, I understand that it is not a priority to everyone, but to me it is an important feature that I use when simming (and yes I know the radar on fs24 is less than accurate, but better than nothing). As I said earlier, IRL you cannot dispatch an airplane without a functioning radar (when weather is forecasted) . The team seems to go into great efforts simulating these systems in depth and I wish they had made the decision to use the default map and include a radar.. no criticism, just my opinion. I wish them all the best when the plane is released.

Indeed! On the Jepp charts it's right under the missed approach instructions, with all other notes applicable (Radar required, etc.).

also no weather radar (which is interesting because WT is going to have one one on their upcoming Preator :(

or ATIS :) we got stuck once because the ATIS was inop and the tower was closed. We waited to the guys to show up a bit before 6 a.m to give us weather info so we could depart. By then we had dipped into our fuel min t.o #, and had to get refueled lol

I used to be based in ATL, and I still remember the first time I noticed clouds outclimbing us in the mid FL200 during these hot summer days in the ATL area, quite a view :)

Hey Ryan! Yes, as others mentioned, SI is definitely improving. For me, the biggest issues right now are: Vectoring off SIDs: Radar vectors aren’t always great, and sometimes they forget about you entirely. I know they’re working hard on this, but it still breaks immersion. Vectoring from STAR to ILS: The intercept vectors are way off — they’ll send you on a heading that’s nowhere near a reasonable intercept angle or distance. Terminology: They still struggle with callsigns. For example, SkyWest 2703 becomes “SkyWest 2-7-0-7” instead of “Twenty-Seven Oh Three.” And some of the live traffic phraseology is just… not used in the U.S. (“DAL 123, boarding complete — ready for pushback.” I should try that next time I’m in JFK.) A few other terms aren’t really aligned with how airliners are handled. Runway changes: If you request a different runway, the next controller often tries to revert you back to whatever’s in the SimBrief OFP. It’s like the OFP becomes the law of the land. None of these are showstoppers — more like minor annoyances. I genuinely feel the SI team listens to customers and is actively fixing bugs and improving the product. And to be fair, they have a ton of features that are really well done (Skypocket, etc.). For me, the biggest win is the virtual FO. It genuinely feels like being at work, like complaining about crew scheduling for example lol. The AI does a surprisingly good job chatting back. You can even interact with the virtual FA, who might call you with a medical emergency, and so on. There’s a lot of depth there. Overall, I definitely recommend SI — though I mainly use it to simulate airline ops, not VFR or GA. But from what I hear, it handles those pretty well too.

I actually do, Ryan. I ask SI for deviations since SI can’t see the weather either, but honestly it kills the realism for me. A perfect example is the Hot Start CL650. I absolutely love that airplane (I used to fly it IRL), but the missing weather radar — even though I hear it’s coming — was a big letdown. In my opinion, they should have designed the map projection from the start with the ability to overlay weather. It’s a shame, because the addon looks fantastic and they clearly put a lot of work into systems fidelity. But weather radar is an important tool when weather is present. I’ve flown aircraft with an MEL’d radar, but only when there was no weather in the area. Under no circumstances will an airliner be dispatched without a functioning radar when thunderstorms or other adverse weather are around. Hopefully they’ll look into this in the future, and I genuinely wish them a successful release.

too bad about the weather radar, I mean we know the current limitation of the sim but it's better than nothing. It's a shame they are making this airplane with complex systems but no weather radar is a no purchase for me. Every developers now include the default radar nowadays..

I see things differently, but we can agree to disagree. From my perspective, this is something pilots are trained on from the very first steps of becoming aviators, and it’s our responsibility to maintain that knowledge. Perhaps some ATPs don’t keep up with it (though I doubt many fall into that category), but to this day I always scan for the “what if” scenario. I am far from taking credits away from Sully, but many other aviatiors would have followed the same steps. There has been other events similar to Sully (Air Ural A321 a few years ago, also a 737 that had to dish into a river in Indonesia iirc). I’d be curious how you would feel if someone came here and spoke about your profession in the same way? I was far from scolding him, trust me.

So I guess you think an airline pilot is only good at playing with a MCDU or FMS uh? You have no idea how many of us started our careers. Many airline pilots come from being CFIs, flying corporate, serving in the military, or other ways. How do you think we build the minimum required hours to make it to a flight deck? You dont start a career flying an airliner, you start flying a Cessna/Piper, etc. and make your way up. How dare you refer to us as “more than a bus driver.” Next time you board an airliner, feel free to speak to the flight crew that way and see how they react. I find your impression of airline pilots insulting. Regarding the Hudson river incident, any well trained pilot would have reacted the same (this is basic private pilot skills here, simulate engine failure and find a spot to land). It doesnt matter if you fly a Cessna or an Airbus, find the best glide speed, pick up a spot and land the plane. If you believe that being a desktop simmer gives you more knowledge than a professional pilot — and it doesn’t even have to be an airline pilot btw — then good for you. I guess you think you know more than an ATP who studied for years and spent 1,500 hours (1200 restricted ATP) flying before even starting a career. Tell that to anyone that had to grind getting to the airlines, corporate, etc., with all the personal sacrifices that comes with this job (as many other jobs). We train on Level D simulators where we practice multiple failure scenarios, so yes — I know how to recognize a defective flight model or systems, and level D also have bugs, which we can recognize. From what I see with certain products, even though they had airline pilots on their team, the product came out with bugs (and I am sure these bugs were identified, the developers chose to ignore due to deadlines or other reasons). I am not against open betas, but also realize that this needs to be managed, and most of devs here are small teams and managing a large beta takes resources away from other tasks.