Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/22/17 in all areas

  1. 79 points
    Ahhh descent planning. This could be a 50 page thread by itself, lol. For now I'll just hit on what you asked. Our typical decent profile is .77 to 320kts, then 250kts below 10,000. As you can imagine, going into the major airports, we rarely are able to stick with that profile because of altitude/speed restraints on the arrival, or ATC assigned altitudes and speeds. An idle descent where you don't add power until final approach would be the most efficient in any jet, however, this pretty much never happens, once again, because of the restrictions of the arrival or ATC. So the thrust settings are just whatever you need to comply with that you've been assigned. The vast majority of people descend in V/S mode, and just adjust it to maintain the speed that you want to hold. Going into places like Chicago, they typically assign you speeds to hold all the way down to the final appraoch fix (Maintain 300kts....maintain 250kts....maintain 210kts....maintain 180 kts....maintain 170kts until *Insert final approach fix here*). There are times where I don't feel like riding the V/S knob the whole way down the descent so instead I'll just slow to the assigned speed and use SPEED mode to come down. There are no specific thrust settings I use when I do this. If I want a shallow descent, I pull them back a little. The more steep of a descent I want, the more I pull the thrust levers back. As with any descent in the CRJ, make sure you get that power back in once you level off!) A little trick you can do for those times where ATC leaves you way high and dry and you need to get down quickly. 320-330kts (250kts below 10), SPEED mode, thrust idle, speedbrakes full out, then hold on tight (lol). (Again...make sure you stow the speedbrakes and get the power back in on the level off! Otherwise you will experience CRJ fun times!) I'm sure we'll get more questions about descent planning as this goes on and we'll cover more of this, but hopefully this gives you a good start.
  2. 63 points
    I sent the final files to AS today. We're going to test the final installer tomorrow. Release will be tomorrow late afternoon (EU TZ) earliest but more likely Wednesday morning. The CRJ doesn't come with free replacement F5 keys btw.
  3. 47 points
    Time for a small friday update: A warning up in front: The cockpit is currently a somewhat "messy" construction site. There are still a lot of old components which are exchanged piece by piece with new ones. Work concentrates on the functional stuff like important panels currently. The overhead has been replaced now and is back in action. The images show the complete list of the button lights now; all there are existing. Mainpanel has been refreshed and modeling is already completed on the new pedestal stuff which starts texturing next week. Also the displays are old ones from the last version as i not immediately take the new BETA stuff onto my machine. Higher resolution is planned also there... The older textures for FSX also needed to be much brighter in the more remote spots. Prepar3D V4 with HDR features that much better, with simulating the eye opening / exposure time dynamicly.
  4. 44 points
    Btw, we have now entered out Airbus projects into our administrative systems, here is the info. Aerosoft A320/A321, Edition 2018 Aerosoft A318/A319, Edition 2018 Aerosoft A318/A319 & A320/A321, Edition 2018 (bundle) Aerosoft A330, Edition 2018 These products will sell for 40 euro (plus EU VAT when applicable). Price for the bundle still need to be set. These products will install in FSX:SP2, FSX;STEAM, P3D V3 and P3D V4. No online activation, as many installs as you want in what ever sim you want. Updates from the current Airbusses will be 16 Euro (plus EU VAT when applicable). A note on that, as you know we never charge customers for files they already paid for, so if an update contains 50% new files, you only pay for those new files and get a 50% discount. In the case of the A320 series the new product actually contains more than 60% new files, yet we decided to charge much less. This is done because we value the customers who have been using these products for such a long time. Still need to figure out the update price for the bundle but expect it to be in line with the others. All these products will release this year, (CRJ first) where the A330 follows on the A320 series. we expect these all to be released shortly after each other. Please keep in mind that these are NOT new installers to install the old product in the new sims to make them 'compatible'. They are all very much updated to the latest ideas and technologies.
  5. 42 points
  6. 41 points
    TIme for the friday update: How you can imagine the CRJ took also a part of my attention during this week. Nevertheless advance was good: The overhead details are now also fully intergrated and the status labels for all panels have been redone in higher resolution. As the A318-A321 project is now more modular and features may still be added in future, the indicator light labels are now completely existing. So any single one which was maybe missing in the old version is now included. On the small overhead fusepanel there is a large button collection in the upper right corner. I had no actual footage with knob status lights on there. If one of the "ON"s has a wrong color (they are sometimes white or blue), please report, i will change that then immediately!
  7. 33 points
    As promised I report on the weekly progress meeting of the team (most are now back from vacation). The updating of the A320 VC modeling is progressing very nicely. Stefan is shaving of a lot of polygons and using the latest insights in optimization so the resulting model is really more efficient (meaning faster) and smaller (better for the 32 bit sims) while looking better. It's amazing what progress we all made in three years. The systems are all inserted now and will go into the first test cycle this week. As explained almost all code has been replaced by better versions that more deeply simulates the systems and how they react to each other and the environment. We still do bother a lot with events that have either never happened or are only proven to happen ones in 20 million flight hours (like a dual engine failure) but the better system and interaction does allow you to experiment with the systems more than before. The MCDU has a few issues left but is getting there. It's the heart of the aircraft and a massive investment in time and effort has been done in that. It simulates a modern version with all the features pilots of the more affluent airlines expect. It's unrivalled in its completeness and depth. So all in all I'm pretty happy, it's still painful not to have the A320 out in 64 bits at this moment but as explained, it simply was a better decision. Of course all this work is actually relevant for the A330, we are now actually working with a single code base for all busses and it is only configuration files that determine for what aircraft it is (exactly as Airbus Industries does things).
  8. 32 points
    Welcome to the annoying world of CRJ, haha. If it makes you feel any better, there is RARELY a flight where we can just set the power in cruise and it stays locked on the speed we want. In reality, we do have to make small inputs and corrections over the duration of the flight to maintain a certain speed. Once you get up there, though, the power changes needed shouldn't be drastic, just minor corrections. We do not do RNP approaches at my airline but for RNAV you nailed it. We track the course in NAV and use V/S for the descent. In the real plane (not sure if it's modeled in the aerosoft or not), if the RNAV approach is loaded in the FMS, you will get a white "snowflake" on the right of your attitude indicator. This is essentially your "rnav glideslode", and you treat the exact same as you would an ILS glideslope. Also, we have the vertical guidance on the top right of our MFD that tells us the exact FPM to descend to stay on the calculated glideslope. So if the Vertical guidance says 800fpm, we dial in an 800fpm descent with the V/S knob. If it then switches to 900fpm, we dial in the V/S knob to 900fpm. This typically isn't a set it an forget it type thing. It's constantly changing about +-100 FPM to hold the glidepath. Also, if you don't want to use all the fancy stuff, you can go old school and use the Groundspeed/Descent rate chart on the approach plate. BONUS: There are many times where we will use the NAV and V/S method for an ILS as well (as opposed to just using APPR mode). Going into major airports like Chicago, ATC likes to keep the spacing as tight as possible to get as many planes in and out as they can. There have been many times where we've encountered the wake turbulence of a bigger jet in front of us. If we know they are putting us behind one of these planes on the approach, we'll typically want to stay one dot high on the glideslope so we avoid the wake. Since APPR mode can only track the glideslope dead on, we will use V/S mode and keep adjusting it to keep ourselves one dot above the glidepath. No clue. It's silly to me too, lol.
  9. 31 points
    Like a famous screenshot artist in another company forum tends to say; "My final shots"
  10. 28 points
    TIme for a little update: Had some sidejobs to do over the week which took the focus for 2 days away, but the shading of the overhead stuff continues. Currently only the panels bases and the white knobs are shaded. All other stuff not; so not wonder why that looks so dark. Follows then monday... Screens are out of the 3d software, but with the "final" textures which will be used also inside the sim...
  11. 27 points
    General disclaimer, I am going to be talking about how we do a "descend via" arrival in the United States. This is an arrival with a sequence of waypoints often with airspeed and altitude restrictions. The complicated part of this is that they are not all just "Cross FIX at ALT", rather they are "Cross FIX between ALT1 and ALT2, at 290kts". So how do we do that in the CRJ? Well, it is a bit more complicated than a Boeing or Airbus product. The CRJ series technically doesn't have VNAV (I am lying, but I will qualify that in a second though). We have advisory VNAV which is a very basic descent profile that the FMS generates based on entered crossing restrictions. I want to explain a bit of how it does this. To illustrate, lets go look at an arrival. This is the VANZE1 RNAV arrival into Memphis, TN. Imagine you are the FMS. You have a desired descent angle which is 3.0 degrees. This is of course editable in the VNAV page 3/3 of the FMS. 3.0 works fairly well though and unless there is a massive tailwind will allow you to descend at near idle thrust maintaining profiled speeds. The way that the FMS builds the descent path goes as follows. Start at the end of the arrival with the first hard altitude (which is to say a restriction that isn't "at or above/below/between). On the VANZE arrival, that is HEXIN. Now, the FMS will draw backwards up the arrival a path of 3.0 degrees. At each waypoint it logic checks to see if you meet whatever restriction is entered in the LEGS page (it is important to note, before you fly any arrival like this you must manually verify each altitude at each fix is correct by cross referencing the chart). Now, if it fails this logic check and the 3.0 degree angle doesn't meet the proceeding restriction, then it will adjust the angle such that it does. So the result is you may see any angle of 2.8 or 3.2 on the LEGS page between waypoints to signify you will need an adjusted descent rate for that section of the arrival. The physical manifestation of all this is the white snowflake which appears on the PFD where the glideslope appears for the ILS. Following the snowflake will keep you within all restrictions of the arrival. If you are still with me, good job. That isn't the hardest part though. We need to now mention a few things about our friend, the snowflake. 1. It doesn't build deceleration stages like the 737 or A320. All it is concerned about it altitudes. So if the arrival requires you to decelerate to, say, 210KTS, then you must plan that into your descent on your own. 2. It doesn't account for your TAS changing as you descend. Hence, while one VS may have been working at a higher altitude, you will need a lower one as the descent progresses. Remember, we are attaching a VS to an angle. We are still doing a 3.0 degree descent, but much like the VS of a CRJ on a 3.0 ILS will be greater than that of a C172 doing the same approach because of the speed difference, the higher true airspeed for a given indicated airspeed at altitude will require a greater VS. *aerodynamics side note (skip if you want): a swept wing high altitude jet like the CRJ makes a lot of drag at higher altitudes going fast (drag = speed^2), so the higher vertical speed required for a 3.0 degree descent out of FL340 actually compliments this aerodynamic principal quite well. In my experience, the CRJ can easily do 3000FPM out of the high flight levels without accelerating, but below 20,000 often times it is hard to descend at more than 2,000FPM. 3. You cannot couple the autopilot to our friend the snowflake. The snowflake is a function of an angle. No where can we select a 3.0 flight path angle on FCP. 10/10 engineering. Even worse, the CRJ doesn't share with you what VS its currently using to compute the snowflakes rate of descent. I have to imagine this number totally exists somewhere within the Rockwell Collins avionics, but they decided to not tell us. So this can lead to you just chasing it with the VS wheel in hopes you are ballparking it correctly. There is however, a better way. *side note number 2: there are a few CRJs flying that actually have a VNAV button on the FCP. Guess what it does. It couples the snowflake to the autopilot. They're lucky. None of my companies airplanes have this button though, and I don't think that the AS CRJ7/9 has it either. So as near as I can tell, it doesn't exist. If you've been reading this up till now, I need to issue an apology. Everything we just talked about it kind of irrelevant because we don't actually use the snowflake in day to day operations. At least, most of us don't. I would consider it secondary descent profile information. Enough theory then, how do we actually do this? Good old airmenship and the DIR INTC page. The DIR INTC page is extremely useful for a singular reason. It will tell you the VS required to cross FIX at ALT, based on what you put on the LEGS page. A simple example to start, shall we. Let's say ATC instructs us to cross SHONN at 11,000ft. We will enter that restriction into the LEGS page (because this is an EXPECT altitude, it will not have loaded when we load the arrival). Now, execute the change and switch over to the DIR INTC page. You will see the SHONN, an arrow pointing down, and a vertical speed. 11,000 should be in small font right above the VS. That is the VS required to cross SHONN at 11,000 based on your current altitude. There will also be your current angle from present position directly to SHONN. To cross SHONN at 11,000, dial in 11,000 into the FCP, wait for the angle to read 3.0 (or less, I like to descend a 2.5 sometimes just to make the ride a bit smoother and give me more options with a bit of power in on the descent), and start descending at the VS shown on the SHONN line of the DIR INTC page. I should note, if you do what I do and start down at an angle <3.0, you will never see the snowflake because you have never intercepted the 3.0 degree path created by the FMS which the snowflake obviously represents. Same situation, same arrival, same crossing restriction at SHONN, but now ATC asks you to cross SHONN at 250kts. Now you must slow down and go down. This is not one of the strong suits of the CRJ. In level flight, the thing will decelerate quite rapidly. It won't while descending though and in all honesty, the flight spoilers aren't too stellar slowing the bird down. Remember how I said that the snowflake doesn't build in deceleration legs, thats on you, the pilot! The only difference in our descent planning we will need to make is that we are going to need a level segment in order to decelerate. As we approach a 3.0 degree descent towards SHONN using the DIR INTC page, start down a bit early. Maybe at 2.8, however, add approximately 100 or 200FPM to the required rate of descent. This will ensure that we get to 11,000 a bit before SHONN and have enough time to decelerate to 250kts. The reason I wanted us to go through that example is so that we can now go to a more complicated one. Lets go back to the VANZE arrival into MEM that I linked to earlier, back at the top of this increasingly long essay. Pretend we are cleared for this arrival and we are starting it at the TALLO transition, landing South (18L/C/R). The restrictions are all in the LEGS page and ATC clears us to descend via the arrival. Great. The first crossing restriction is FASON at or above FL240. That is pretty easy. The next one is CRAMM at or below FL230, and VANZE has the same restriction. So what should we do? The honest answer is make it up as you go. You need a mental picture of what the entire arrival looks like in terms of vertical profile, but in reality you can't keep track of every set of restrictions in your head. There are way too many! So just worry about the next four, or so. FASON FL240A dist 37 CRAMM FL230B dist 10 VANZE FL230B dist 9 MASHH 16000/14000 Hypothetically, we cross both CRAMM and VANZE at FL230, are we going to be able to go from VANZE to MASHH and descend to 16,000ft to make the top of the gate? Probably not. Here it what I would do. Go look at your DIR INTC page. Look at the VS required for each waypoint. I am not sure exactly which altitude it will show for MASHH on the DIR INTC page, but it'll either be 16 or 14,000. It will sometimes change based on the arrival and profile and that is wayyy beyond what we are talking about here today. We have done enough pseudo coding of the airplane's avionics today. We need to now pick a vertical speed that will hit all the restrictions. Ideally you want something less than the VS to cross FASON, and greater than the VS to cross CRAMM. This will ensure you can cross FASON above 240, and CRAMM below 230. More than likely, that VS required to cross MASHH at 16,000. So that is probably the one you want to use. Wait until you are 3.0 degrees from MASHH and start down at that VS, assuming that VS is less than the VS for FASON and greater than that for CRAMM. If it doesn't meet those requirements, then you'll need to adjust it until it does. Lets say we cross FASON above 240 successfully. We can now start thinking about the waypoint after MASHH. CRAMM FL230B dist 10 VANZE FL230B dist 9 MASHH 16000/14000 dist 22 (skip w/ turn at HLI, no crossing restriction there) LARUE 12000/10000 Run the same algorithm in your head. You need to select a VS that will comply with all of the above. Rinse, repeat, until you hit the bottom of the arrival. And make sure you are complying with speed restrictions too. If that example was a little hard to follow I understand. The summary to all this: if you are flying an arrival with multiple crossing restrictions to hit, use the DIR INTC and your brain to select a descent rate that will comply with as much restrictions as you can. Look forward and ensure to not box yourself in a corner where you have to do an impossible rate of descent to make a restriction. Constantly be monitoring and adjusting. The snowflake is a good piece of supplementary information and if you're doing the above procedure correctly, you'll end up following it all the way down usually. It is important to understand the limitation of the system, such as no accounting for speed restrictions. For this, there is no substitute for human interaction and mental processing during these procedures. There is no simple way either, rather just practicing and engaging your brain. This is a huge pain. The CRJ avionics suite was built in the early 90s, well before any of these complicated RNAV procedures. We are using 25 year old tools to solve a modern day problem. This is genuinely the hardest thing to do in the CRJ and will make you feel like you've done some mental gymnastics. And once you get good at it, its very satisfying. Jumping back into the NGX or Airbus after this will make life seem pathetically easy. If any of that needs clarification, I will be happy to help.
  12. 27 points
    And it's official, release between 07:00 and 08:00 GMT tomorrow. This evening we'll do some last runs but the last installer seemed to work fine. I'll upload part of the manuals tp the CRJ section of the forum (http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/forum/747-crj-700900/)
  13. 26 points
    Hey, everyone, I promise I was going to create a video taking a look at the CRJ and comparing it to the real deal. Once again admin please delete if this is not appropriate for this forum.
  14. 23 points
    Let me write some word on the pending release. Nobody on our side would call this project 'finished' at this moment. But it is 'good enough for release' in our eyes and we feel that the progress towards the 'final' version (if there is ever such a thing) will be faster and more customer orientated with the code on the customer's machines. This is not the same as releasing and using the customers as testers, we very well know what area still need work, but in discussion with the customers it will become more clear what the priorities should be. Now that sounds a bit 'fuzzy', I agree. What it boils down to is simple however, if you buy now you will get a steady stream of tweaks, fixes and new features over the cause of several weeks. Some people like that a lot, as they see their input being used, others find it highly annoying. The latter group we simply advise to wait a bit and buy the CRJ in two weeks. As always we'll be open and honest in discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of this release. As you know it was most certainly not one of our more simple developments and we seriously underestimated the complexity. As time progressed we had to keep up with the steady increase of complexity of add-ons and we were not aiming for a steady target but one that was moving forward all the time. It's like flying a complex aircraft, if you get 'behind the aircraft' it is damned hard to catch up.
  15. 23 points
    I'd like to add a couple of things adressed at those who think that the CRJ is going to be like the PMDG or MJC. The amount of time that went into this project doesn't mean it has all the features that those two have. I did all the programming on my own, including the XML code for clickspots and animations. And I did it in my spare time, on top of a full time job. PMDG has a team of programmers and Oleksiy works alone as far as I know, but he has been working on the code base for the Q-series for ten years or even more. It might sound old-fashioned to some here, but I'm no fan of simulating abnormal and emergency procedures in this class of product. It's meant to simulate the normal day to day flight and that's it. After all, I think the CRJ has turned out to be a nicely detailed product which will be fun to use - once you got the hang of the CRJ specials (for example having to switch the nav source from FMS to VOR/LOC before hitting that APPR button). You can also trust Jim Barrett's evaluation of the product here. He was one of the beta testers and also works on CRJs in real life. The Donald (the fake one, the true Donald was always, is still and will ever be Donald Duck!) says it's cancelled, so it must be true
  16. 22 points
    Hey guys. I am a real world CRJ driver for a US Airline. I've been an avid flight simmer since I was young, and though I don't really fire up the sim anymore, it has helped me tremendously in my flight training and throughout my flying career. The biggest thing I remember is flying the study level sims, and wondering if this is how they do it in the real airplane. It was difficult to find real world tips and techniques on how to fly the planes. So I'm taking the opportunity to give back a little to a community that has helped me out a ton. So with that said... If you guys have any questions about CRJ techniques (Do they do it like this in the real world? Best way to ______, etc), ask them here and I will get back here periodically to answer as many of them as best I can. DISCLAIMER...I do not own this product so I obviously can't offer support for the product and I have no idea what all is and isn't modeled in the sim. I will just do my best to explain how the real plane does it and my personal tips and tricks that I've picked up. And if there are other real world CRJ pilots on here, please chime in and offer your tips and tricks as well! Looking forward to your questions!
  17. 22 points
    I honestly believe any complex aircraft that is released should be regarded with care. There will always be bug, there will always even be serious bugs. No matter what you do in testing these things will happen, no beta test can fly every approach that's out there and we simply know that any can cause problems unless we have flown it. There are also issues that we consider minor but customers find important, or the other way around. What matters most, in my opinion at least, is how the company and developers deal with it. Don't keep any fix you got on your own server, share it with customers, don;t only solve issue but also add the things people are missing etc. The first 8 weeks after a complex release are needed to fine tune the product. That's done with the customers, no other way around it. It doesn't matter how many focus groups you have or how many videotaped test sessions you do. Customers will always come up with ideas you have not thought of. Personally, because I don't have a lot of time for simming as a hobby, I don't partake in that for other companies and always wait a few weeks. You get a more mature product with less annoyances. What matters is not so much what is released but how things look after 4 weeks. And that depends on the people behind the product.
  18. 21 points
    To the lights: We are already in connection with LM on a future implementation of dimmable lighting of all sorts. But it is important that the graphics engine ITSELF provides such a feature. All current solution use "hacks" which you pay with performance decreases. Imagine it as the panel itself and an extra layer with the panel backlighting on a semitransparent foil ontop. Literally this is the same technology used for the PFDs and NDs on the instrument panels, with only seeing the text information and on a bitmap base. Instead of rendering only the single panel surface, you have to render both layers (really two surfaces) and an expensive transparency pass. A modern game engine features that within one material and without that transparency pass. Also this calculation process must be repeated for any large panel section (only 1024x1024 pixels per texture sheet allowed here) and that possibly with at least 30 repetitions per second. So once the modern solution is introduced by the engine manufacturer, the old variant needs strongly overwork, the additional layer removed and the panel retextured etc...But as it is only a question of time the new solutíon is introduced and it is also clever to invest into future and not stay in past, we currently still stick to non dimmable lighting, while you can trigger already dynamic light but at ON/OFF state. But still this way is more future ready and hopefully we can soon witness the full bandwith of dimmable lighting also within the Prepar3D V4 platform. It is a time full of changes currently, but i am convinced it will pay out. LM took quite more time with the 4.1 update than i guessed myself, so i think they are currently doing a lot of refinements and additions to their beautiful product which will experience are steady development. And that already made my mind shining brighter. FSX became quite frustrating for devs in the last years, which are also eager to extend possibilities to enhance the flight simulation experience continually...
  19. 20 points
    Okay, August is simply not possible and I am not willing to give any further date. There are a lot of variables, some technical, some commercial and some because other projects (professional) always have to take priority. Progress is great though, better than expected, both in speed as in quality (we love the fact it runs a lot faster and uses less memory even though it absolutely looks better). That said, I am, logging off till Tuesday for some very needed R&R and to handle a massive party (note to self: never organise a party for 100 people again). Please do not break the forum while I am gone.
  20. 17 points
    I fear you'll have to wait and see. But I can tell you that, while I love to troll moderators, beta testers and especially Mathijs, I don't do that to customers
  21. 15 points
    Thanks. These kinds of comments really mean alot to all of us. I honestly believe that (potential) customers are very willing to accept anything as long as it is explained open and honest, even if it means showing your own weaknesses and faults. I simply do not get the companies who clam up, I find that a bit insulting.
  22. 15 points
    Keep in mind that the real CRJ is considerably less complex than a 737/747/777 - especially its FMS and autopilot. There are no autothrottles - climbs are performed in IAS mode with FADEC limiting thrust and speed controlled by pitch. On a warm day, with a heavy load, the aircraft is not not a "high performance sports car" by any means - though definitely a better performer than the CRJ-200 Cruise and descent require the pilot to manage thrust manually, and monitor it continuously. Don't expect to be able to leave the flight deck while in cruise for a protracted break as you could with more advanced types with autothrottles and full VNAV. The FMS is rather basic in its modes (in the real aircraft). VNAV is "advisory" only, and is really only used during descent. You can see if you are above or below your desired descent profile, but managing that profile is up to the pilot, using thrust and V/S intervention if need be. In other words, the pilot has to think ahead of the aircraft much more than in more advanced types. Complex STAR arrivals with multiple speed and altitude constraints require constant pilot attention - especially when winds aloft are part of the equation - you can't just dial down the altitude upon reaching TOD and relax while the autopilot does everything. There are no auto brakes, and thrust reversers have to be manually armed before landing or they will not deploy when called for. Yaw dampers and mach trim have to be manually selected "on" before takeoff or the autopilot won't engage, or won't function correctly. I think that all onboard systems are accurately modeled. You probably won't find extensive failure modeling as you would with a typical PMDG product, but if you were to use a real CRJ POH to perform all the various system tests that would be required on the first flight of the day, you would probably find that said systems respond exactly as they would in the real aircraft. (Or so I'm told [emoji12]) The real CRJ has some system peculiarities that might be mis-identified as "bugs" by those new to the aircraft. Turning on either electric fuel boost pump also automatically turns on the opposite side boost pump - but you need to insure that both switches are depressed before engine start or you will see CAS error messages. There are no fewer than 4 auxiliary electric hydraulic pumps - 3 of which have both a manual and automatic mode of operation. These have to be set properly before takeoff. The APU master switch only lights up if there is a fault. After pressing it, you have to monitor the system synoptic display to see if the APU is ready to start. One system in the real CRJ 700/900 is actually MORE advanced than (say) the 737, and that is bleed air management. Packs will automatically go offline during an engine start, and come back on after the start is complete. APU and engine bleed air valves automatically sequence open and closed at the proper time without pilot intervention. In that regard, the CRJ is more like a 777.
  23. 15 points
    Good enough for me. Off to vacation! See you guys next year
  24. 15 points
    I have never understood the term Study Level Aircraft. It actually assumes a very very deep level of simulation where things get incredibly complex very fast. So complex that you need a lot of hours in a accurate up to date sim to test all effects. Mix two problems and you need thousands of hours in a real sim to test if your simulations are correct. Do not expect pilots to assist because they simply would not know. Do not expect engineers to know because mixing two failures is so complex they do not know, they can only build the simulators as accurate as possible and look at real life data and see if it matches. Often it does not. The only aircraft I would consider coming close to being able to title is the PMDG 777. The 'deep' level of simulation there is bloody amazing and verified by many pilots. These days the developing of our simulated systems mimics the development of big sims a lot. We have to work with results to get to the same results while 'they' have the real code. But what a very serious developer of Boeing told me last year very much seems to be true for what we do. "If you invest $300.000 in getting the normal stuff done correct, you triple that to simulate a single source failure (we are up to close to a million now). After that you double it for any additional failure." He gave me one fine example. Most big sims simulate a bird being ingested by an engine. The sims simulate that speed of the turbine blades matters so they calculate for that. One pilot asked how much it would matter if that bird would fly into the engine in Hong Kong during a heavy downpour. Of is it would affect things if the outside temperature was -25 (again the right C kind) in Alaska, I believe the limit for most engines. Nobody knew, nobody would even dare to take a guess. Big companies do not call their sims 100% accurate. For good reasons. To think a $100 FSX add-on is a serious tool for high end training is simplifying things to such a degree it is unfair towards the pilots who train for years and years to be allowed to fly an airliner. Our Airbusses are used in schools a lot. In the US, China, France and other countries. They serve there fine, the schools and students seem to love them. The fact we have Connected Flight Deck is a seriously big deal for that. Training for a major failure series with a single person is just plain silly, that why there are two people on the flightdeck. one flies the aircraft while the other tries to solve the issue, doing both at the same time is as unrealistic as asking your dog to do it. A Study Level Aircraft that can only be used by one person works fine on the ground. The same product in the air with one engine out and all busses down might work as Study tool when you slow things down to 1/2 normal speed. Do not let marketing terms fool you. And if you really want to be stressed realistically, fly the PMDG 777 and trigger two unrelated failures. Then you know what a crew has to deal with. As you are not a highly trained crew, on top of their performance and without a beer in front of them, prepare to loose your aircraft. In a presentation for vatsim I shown it like this: And basically that is very true. We have come a long way in our hobby and the level of realism we have reached is staggering. But until you have paid for 1500 hours of very very serious (and very very expensive) education you are just as I am. A hobbyist who likes aircraft. To pretend otherwise is insulting to the people who actually fly these multimillion dollar machines with 150 passengers. And that concludes my Friday evening rant. Please note that I will not be around next week a lot, taking my yearly one week vacation. According to my wife that means I do not work after 15:00. She's probably right, she normally is.
  25. 14 points
    Many of our Mega Airport sceneries were due for an update and with Prepar3D v4 released there was even more need to deliver new versions. So, let me explain what is the plan. The new versions will most certainly not be only new installers to make them install in P3d v4, they will feature updated files to include the changes that are always going on at major airports. So where needed new structures, new AFCADs etc. next to the new installers. And, of course, free updates for the life of P3d V4 to accommodate any change Lockheed decides to make (keep in mind V4 is a very new simulator it is still very much in flux.) The FSX:SP2, FSX:STEAM and P3d Prepar3D v3 will be updated as we always did. The Prepar3D v4 versions will be rebranded as Mega ‘AirportName’ Professional to indicate they are designed for the same professional market as Lockheed aims its simulator at. There will be standard licenses for our existing customers and there will, as there are now, license for commercial or professional use. This Professional range will come with the full range of P3D v4 features such as dynamic lights. Please note that this might now happen for all Mega Airports and it could be used for non-Mega airports as well. Heathrow is a bit special as we’ll only will release a {free] update to make it run in P3d V4 while we wait for a massive update to be completed, hopefully before the end of the year. We expect Frankfurt to be the first to be released. The prices for the standard Mega Airport Products will remain roughly as they are now, Prices for non professional use of the Professional products will be around 6 euro's higher. Prices for licenses to use the products commercially or in licensed simulators remain as they are. Current customer can update the Professional version for a small fee. As always we only charge for the part of the product that is new, you never pay again for files already on your system.
  26. 14 points
    Actually you have been offensive, to all beta testers. You have no insight at all into development and testing at Aerosoft, on the current defect lists, their priorities and so on. Nevertheless you identified the beta testers as the reason why there are bug reports in a version 1.0. This is offensive, and there is no talking around it. And this post closes this unfortunate hicc-up in this otherwise open and friendly topic.
  27. 13 points
    First you are downvoting me and now you say I am a bad tester. Not bad. Ever thought of the idea that I am not the only one testing and that almost all 'mistakes' were known to the team?
  28. 13 points
    I must be the only person who likes on and off lights. On aircraft that have adjustable brightness and switches for each of the 100 panels (I wont list them, you know which ones im talking about) it drives me utterly mad having to hoover around the cockpit messing with all the knobs. God forbid I need to do that on landing.... no thanks. give me a cheap hack job of 1 button lights it up. at least until a better method is implemented in the sim that doesn't require texture layers
  29. 13 points
    More times than not the aircraft is powered up, whether it's via external power or the APU. However there are many times where you do have to power it up from cold and dark, like the first flight of the day, or if the last crew was already gone by the time you got there.
  30. 13 points
    Uhh - yearh... a placeholder for the box-version
  31. 13 points
    A good sign. 4x P3Dv4, 1x FSX, 1x FSX-SE, 1x P3Dv3. Just two minor issues left (and not even related to the CRJ itself).
  32. 13 points
    Ladies & gentlemen after 7 years Delta flight 69 is ready for boarding, as you walk into our newly cleaned plane you will note a arousing smell of the new leather seats brought to you by Mathjis, along with the new crystal clear HOLOgram windows brought to you by Tom. Today's movies we will be showing the 347 thread of Aerosoft & the history of trolling by the mods & devs, a very interesting documentary for you to watch as you cruise in our dry cleaned jet! Don't worry you will be safe with the highly-advanced autopilot developed by Hans. And guess who your new pilot will be? that's right Frank Docter Thank you for flying Delta........ Keep Breaking!
  33. 13 points
    I'm getting the strange feeling that the lifespan of thread will reach its end quite soon.
  34. 13 points
    I do understand that some people disagree and feel we should just have compiled the whole thing with a 64 bit compiler and ship it out. Unfortunately that was technically very complex (keep in mind some of the code is pretty old) and commercially a bad decision (for example problematic for the tens of thousands of boxed customers). That made updating the whole code and the whole project the only viable, yet slightly painful, option. It pains me to see that people simply do not read what is written and shout when they see an update price. We honestly feel it is a cracking good offer for customers, and that compared to other developer/publishers we do not see V4 as a means to make money with things that people already paid for. I do understand that many companies simply need the income as development gets more expensive every year (tremendously so), but still.... It is very much planned from the get go. It is deeply in development and being offered to other companies as well.
  35. 12 points
    Mega Airport Frankfurt V2 Professional has just been released. This specific P3d V4 release shows this massive airport to its smallest details. For owners of the existing Mega Airport Frankfurt an update option is available! http://www.aerosoft.com/en/fsxp3d/prepar3d/sceneries/2152/mega-airport-frankfurt-v2.0-professional New in version P3D V4: All code (BLGs) compiled with P3D V4 SDK, using new material options and being performance optimised to the new engine All objects optimised for new shadow technology Ground layout including detailed aerial image following P3DV4 SDK Automatic seasonal changes of relevant 3D objects based on V4 scripting variables, also for snowfall outside winter season New, individual ground adaptations to prevent steps at airport borders when using different meshes (e.g. default/FTX Global) New, optimised 3D runway lighting with activation/deactivation based on time of day and weather conditions Apron lamps with new effects and dynamic light Changed AFCAD approaches at Airac 1708
  36. 12 points
    Those small stuff above the pictures called "text content" is also an important part of the forum. It had told you even about a "warning" that still a lot of old parts are present in the pictures which are still to be exchanged. The former HD Set for the Airbus series concentrated mostly on the type art, as exchanging the shaded material attributes is not possible that way. But the changes go much deeper: ALL geometry is also overworked and optimized, material layout is freshly done and the shading is done with the most modern technology saving a lot of geometry with the same visual result keeping a lot of geometry related tasks away from the CPU. As we have a lot of work done in parallel, i can only forward completely working cockpits to my programming buddies and testers. Elsewise they would become stuck in their adventures. So of course parts which have not been changed yet, stay visually the same til the next working step. Thats why you maybe mistakenly seen OLD parts as NEW parts. Again: I try to rule out such misinterpretations by typing extra words about it. By the way: The post told about the next part I am working on is the pedestal section -> logical conclusion -> currently seen is the old pedestal version... (window stuff is also old)
  37. 12 points
    Super comments here. I'll contact the most helpful posters here and offer them some freebies. But as reader you can also do something. Click those up arrows to show your appreciation.
  38. 12 points
  39. 12 points
    In a $100 projects I would insist on a completely rewritten ground behavior. In this project that is not included because it is in a different price class. That will not change and I believe that that should conclude this line of discussion. When the sim offers us better options we'll for sure use them.
  40. 12 points
    Yes, he is. We cancelled the project
  41. 12 points
    Following on from my earlier posts #7845 and #7855 and #7997, I want to share a photo of my just completed hardware FCP + EFIS Display Control (x2) + Air Data Ref Panel (x 2) + Yaw Damper panel for the Aerosoft CRJ 700: Note the extra (VNAV) switch under the VS switch, as suggested by Hans. And here is a look at the innards, for those who are interested: Thanks, Chakko Kovoor.
  42. 12 points
    Right now most of the staff is on vacation, when they are all back second half of August we will set an internal date.
  43. 11 points
    ERM: Shell 'V' Power Diesel BP 'Ultimate' Diesel
  44. 11 points
    Sorry Heigo, Please don't 'guess' what you think I, as a customer is expecting. I got exactly what I was expecting with my purchase. In fact I got more - ongoing support - a constant rollout of hotfixes and patches - the devs taking time to answer questions on the forums..... Thanks to everyone involved for the aircraft and ongoing support. I set my expectation levels to - realistic - not entitled. Scott
  45. 11 points
    I remember telling people that the CRJ will be released on the same day when BER airport opens... so, the CRJ not delayed. Unless BER opens in the next couple of hours, it's effectively released ahead of schedule!
  46. 11 points
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/29194188@N03/sets/72157684315433844/with/35461133954/ Nice pictures
  47. 11 points
    I already installed it seven times today
  48. 11 points
    I always thought his name was Otto....
  49. 11 points
    This is a false expectation, the sole and simple reason for the beta taking so long is because there is just one developer working on it. Other teams mostly have 3 or 4 developers working in parallel which simply leads to a quicker release. But this is not the case here since only Hans is left of Digital Aviation. I expect the CRJ not to be different from other products on release, surely it will have bugs, every software has them. The trick is to make sure the bugs that remain in the product during release are no show stoppers. That's what beta testing is all about. You will simply never be able to find and fix ALL bugs. In fact there is simply no software in the world without bugs.
  50. 11 points
    And it is thousands of time more likely that a flight is aborted due to 'smells' . An amazing number of flights are cut short because the crew smells something, a toilet is blocked and the smell is horrible etc. I would not consider Lufthansa a 'smelly' airline but this is another slide from my presentation (I really should fine the time to share it fully) that shown aborted Lufthansa flights in one single year because or smells. So it is one of the most common reasons to abort a flight. And no add-on simulates that. Another is of course medical issues, people get sick and need medical help urgently. The A330 will simulate that btw! You can get a call from the cabin that you need to find an airport stat because a passenger had a heart attack.