[Aerosoft - The home of abandonware]

On 4/7/2024 at 4:43 AM, mikkel said:

 

I hope you'll get a sincere reply to this. I see the effort you've done, and hope it's appreciated.

I’m glad to hear my posts are actually appreciated by users here. But I don’t think I’ll ever get an answer from Aerosoft. 
 

My question to @Hans Hartmannor @Mathijs Kokstill stands, is my involvement in active bug reporting still even desired, or should I stop trying and contribute to another developer instead? Either tell me you want me here, or tell me you don’t.

 

On 4/6/2024 at 3:50 PM, S P said:

I am not claiming Aerosoft is perfect, but they need to focus on fixing actual bugs, not chase user errors. 

What the hell are the forums mods here hired to do? Pat themselves on the back for locking a thread every time a user answers their own question?

[Aerosoft - The home of abandonware]

Wow I really kicked the hornet’s nest with my post…

 

As @CRJaymentioned, we don’t get any acknowledgment on anything we post. At some point, Aerosoft was actively doing so, and @JRBarrettwas actively engaging and letting people know when root causes were found. This behavior disappeared for no reason and we’re back to being left in the dark.

 

May I recommend Aerosoft actively acknowledge and aid their customers (instead of doing that thing when community managers only engage in threads once the OP solves their own issue to tell them that they could have read the manual, which seems very much less like community support and more like community criticism?)

 

And do you actually want bug reports or not? Because I’ve been documenting everything meticulously, but if Aerosoft is signaling that my effort is a waste of time by simply not acknowledging anything I’m reporting, I can go back to lurking and let this forum go back to being as quiet and inactive as the Twin Otter support forum. This crap takes time and makes my simming evenings take twice as long as they normally would be, and if my effort is wasted here, I’d rather do this whole reporting and feedback with a different aircraft, and help a developer that makes me feel like my time is well-spent.

 

Ball’s in your court.

[Aerosoft - The home of abandonware]

This argument is a bit disingenuous. Simply put, the addon has deficiencies that are well documented with no corrective action planned:

Aircraft turning too soon:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aircraft unable to hold:

 

 

 

Not to mention the various issues I've also noted, which have gotten absolutely no acknowledgement from anyone at Aerosoft:

But please, feel free to tell me (the one with years of experience integrating and designing avionics suites including Collins architectures) to read the manual. And feel free to tell numerous people (all of whom are observing the same issues and have demonstrated exactly how to reproduce it) that they're incorrect because you assume they didn't read the manual.

 

(FYI, I have read the manual and found errors in it regarding the HGS operation).

[Soooo......any news?]

11 hours ago, S P said:

But why should they spend more time on an activity that adds relatively lesser value? Because it sounds like in order to maximize product's value, one needs to hype the product as much as possible, while doing the minimum amount of actual development...

 

I think it's less about "hyping a product up", and more answering to customers who paid full-price for a product that got delivered with deficiencies and are told they will get the deficiencies addressed eventually...

[Twin Otter in 2024?]

Im also hoping it gets a substantial overhaul and gets included by default in 2024, not just a straight port with the same problems.

[Exterior Lights not illuminating]

That’s a wild issue. How are your graphics settings set up in Flight Sim?

 

Also, got the latest NVidia drivers?

[CRJ500/700 clickspots not working]

That's true. The design of the pushbutton in the middle of the knobs is deficient for VR use. In VR, you kinda gotta get your head lined up right and hope for the best. Which really doesn't work 95 times in 100...

 

See these topics for more:

 

[Soooo......any news?]

15 hours ago, CRJay said:

Now still, newly created threads reporting issues are just sitting there with zero input from ANYONE on the project.

I would like to briefly interject as the primary person making these threads; I do encourage everyone else to do the same, so when the update gets released there will be more content than just Simbrief and Navigraph integration (according to Hans)

[Boris Audio Works Aerosoft CRJ Soundpack]

I had a listen. The sounds are really good, and really make it feel like you're among a bunch of discombobulated LRUs that are barely capable of talking to each other (in other words, it actually feels like the CRJ). Boris really did a great job making the CRJ sound like a real CRJ. I will also add, I love that he finally fixed the annoying triple-click you hear when you toggle a pushbutton in the cockpit.

 

I really do want to get it, but I want to hold off until the CRJ's development cycle is actually complete and the product gets an update from Aerosoft. Otherwise, I would rather not have great soundscapes with a malfunctioning product.

[HUD Placement]

To revive this topic:

The modelling of the HUD combiner in MSFS is deficient. When in flight, the HUD aircraft reference symbols are very low on the display, and even cruising at Mach 0.8 the FPS symbol is almost at the bottom of the display (picture here shown with the cockpit camera in the default position)

 

 

Note that the symbols are 60-75% from the top of the display. This is as opposed to the equivalent picture from the HGS manual, with the aircraft reference symbol approximately 40% from the top of the display:

 

This makes it difficult to conduct approaches, as high angles of attack experienced on final approach will result in the Flight Path Symbol exiting the bounds of the ADI to the bottom:

 

 

The root cause is that the modelling of the combiner itself is deficient, and really requires the following:

• Improvement of the 3D model of the combiner (needs to be taller)
• Improvement of the symbology layout in the HUD

 

I will also add that it feels like this HUD isn't conformal. The aircraft is following the ILS and well established, but the FPS is at quite a sharp angle away from the runway (enough for it to be objectionable).

[Displays - HUD Speed Error Tape Deficiencies]

Speed Error Tape (the bar that comes out of the left leg of the Flight Path Symbol) is supposed to show the difference between the current speed and the selected speed. However, it does not respond to the change in the selected speed when at high altitudes

 

See the attached video:

 

And during the descent, it can be shown that it only shows when you're too slow. However, it doesn't show when you're too fast. See this attached video:

 

 

 

 

 

[Displays - HUD Missing Roll Scale & Slip/Skid Indicators]

 

Note that the Roll attitude scale and the slip/skid indicator is missing (in all modes including PRI). Going through all the pictures of the HUD posted on Aerosoft's forums and product pages, I never see the Roll Scale

 

 

As opposed to:

[Displays - HUD Deceleration Scale Shows at Gate (Should only be shown during RTO or after Weight-on-Wheels when landing)]

With the aircraft spawning in Turnaround State by default, lowing the HUD shows it's in PRI mode. However, the deceleration scale is visible:

 

According to the HGS manual, this scale is only supposed to be shown if the aircraft is on ground and exceeds GS 50 knots AND the aircraft detects an RTO or deceleration (i.e., landing). After which the scale is posted until the aircraft reaches GS 20 knots.

 

 

[Soooo......any news?]

This conversation does hint towards the fact that an update doesn’t matter. The aircraft is flyable as is (albeit barely with so many marked deficiencies that make for a subpar experience). Aerosoft commits to not explaining the progress, which either implies that they either:

1) They don’t know that this looks negative to their A330 and future portfolios, and reduces the likelihood of take up for the A330 (I’m convinced no one is that stupid)

2) They know, and they don’t care, which implies the existence of a more primary customer than the market. This matches the theory that there’s an NDA that this CRJ is under, hence why there’s no explanation or clarification for months.

 

I said this about the Twin Otter, and I’m gonna say it for the CRJ: either this is under the MSFS2024 Developer’s NDA (in which case, the long radio silence makes sense), or the product has been fully abandoned. I can’t think of any other explanation that makes sense from a business perspective.

 

So I’ll say: from my perspective as a consumer, there are three ways this goes:

1) This CRJ doesn’t get updated at all. I’m left with a sour taste in my mouth and avoid Aerosoft products

2) The CRJ gets updated eventually, but has nothing to do with MSFS2024. If the update isn’t substantial in nature, I’m left with a sour taste in my mouth which will take a long while to digest

3) The CRJ gets updated eventually, and is revealed to have been held back to align with MSFS2024. Once again, sour taste in my mouth that I would direct at both Aerosoft and Microsoft simultaneously for writing NDAs that genuinely leave consumers in the dark.

[Soooo......any news?]

2 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Tell them they are wrong; it is being worked on at this moment. I know, I saw it.

Mathijs, you can only say that so many times before it’s no longer credible…

[Save state mid-flight possible?]

I would say no. The EFB has an Initialization State function (Cold & Dark, Ready to Taxi, etc.) that activates immediately on loading in, and takes priority over whatever simvars get handed to it by the simulator.

 

If you tried loading in, it would always spawn in the same state, unfortunately. You should recommend it as a product improvement.

[Soooo......any news?]

18 hours ago, poseign said:

It's honestly not worth asking or getting any hopes up. I come back to this thread once a month or so to see if any progress has been made and it's always the same old song and dance. They've made it pretty clear that an update "will be released when it's released" and that could mean whenever or never. The whole "radio silent until release" method is an excuse to push the progress off as long as they desire while working on other projects because as soon as they start posting pre release updates they have to stick to a schedule to avoid outcry and that apparently scares this studio. And when you look at how long it's been since an update for this jet has gone out it makes perfect sense as to why they use this strategy.

 

"We promise, an update for this jet IS coming..." except what they don't say is "..whenever the hell we feel like releasing it, probably when we aren't pushing out a new project, so not likely anytime soon, maybe next year, perhaps, because we already got our money's worth from it sooo.... Meh".

 

It's sad, really. 

I’m just determined to find as many bugs as I can, honestly, and documenting the hell out of them. I’ve seen so many bug reports I’ve made simply not acknowledged despite multiple updates being made since then.

 

And I’ll be honest, this feels almost like a daily thing that I’m coming in checking whether anything happened. And the radio silence on this forum is deafening. No activity, no engagement, no new bug reports, it’s just…kind of a dead product.

[VNAV Descent on the CRJ / DO-283 Compliance]

Vertical Navigation is deficient and doesn't seem to recalculate the descent path when changes are made to the flightplan. It's possible to end up with descent profiles that have climb commands in them, and Tops of Descent that are after the first descent restriction. Generally, the CRJ as developed by Digital Aviation does not seem to comply with the standards of DO-283 Sec. 2.2.2.2

 

• There is no indication of Descent Path Construction based on geometric path boundaries during descent; the advisory VNAV will command one of the two limits of the next VNAV constraint in the flightplan.
  • General rules for Descent Path Construction:
    • The constructed descent path shall pass through AT altitude constraints
    • The constructed descent path is not required to pass though "AT or ABOVE" or "AT or BELOW" altitude constraints at the "AT" altitude, but the path shall satisfy the restriction
    • The constructed descent path shall pass between the "AT or ABOVE" and the "AT or BELOW" portions of the "WINDOW"
    • The constructed descent path shall also stay between the space described by connecting geometrically (constant barometric gradient) the "AT or ABOVE" portions of "WINDOW" and "AT" constraints, followed by connecting geometrically the "AT or BELOW" portions of "WINDOW" and "AT" constraints
  • These rules are taken verbatim from DO-283 Sec. 2.2.2.2.6.1
• I will also note that DO-283 also does reference equipment being able to parse a flight into four phases, which the CRJ has demonstrated that it is incapable of accurately parsing what is considered a descent. A good indication of this is climb commands being given during arrival procedures:
  • Climb
  • Cruise
  • Descent
  • Final Approach Segment 

 

I believe I've isolated it to an approach that contains a Discontinuity or Vector Leg: once VNAV has to calculate a path with that in the way, it seems that VNAV permanently breaks for the rest of the flight. The aircraft tends to handle Geometric-Point-to-Point VNAV very well (e.g., flight plans with no discontinuities and very strict altitude restrictions all the way to the runway). Outside of that, the performance is deficient.

 

I suggest the following test case:

• Set aircraft on the ground at KTEX
• Set up a Simbrief-imported flightplan at FL400 with the route: ETL DVC KRINA TTRUE LUCKI1 KSAN, using the RNAV Z 27 via LYNDI
• Depart and continue on flight
• When next leg is DVC -> KRINA and still not at cruising altitude, change the arrival from LUCKI1 to TPGUN2, using the ILS Z 09 via vectors.
• The aircraft will demonstrate failure to compute an accurate descent profile, and will require manual intervention.

 

I realize that this is only advisory VNAV, considering that the system does not provide an actual computed path and vertical deviation from the path (i.e., the snowflake only tells you a target vertical speed to maintain), but at the very least there's some kind of expectation that the snowflake should be reasonably reliable enough to depend on in terminal operations.

 

Any CRJ operators that wanna chime in about their experience with the snowflake when it comes to "WINDOW" or "AT or ABOVE" or "AT or BELOW" geometric descent paths?

[Virtual Cockpit - Refueling Panel Power Switch Clips Switchguard]

The power switch flips into the up position when it's off, which causes it to clip the switchguard (see bottom left of the panel).

 

It should be the down position when the guard is in place

[Displays - HUD FPV Symbol Exiting Bounds of Display]

The FPV symbol is a critical flight path symbol, so it must be displayed at all times except when on the ground. According to the Rockwell Collins HGS-4000 manual for the CRJ-700, when the symbol is approaching the outer bounds of the display, it is shown as close as possible to the point on the display where it would be, and shown as a ghosted symbol to indicate that it isn't conformal:

 

 

[Windshield - Wipers State (Left AND Right) Is Set by Last-Commanded Wiper Switch Movement on either side]

Should be:

• Left switch shall control left wiper state
• Right switch shall control right wiper state

 

Is actually:

• Left wiper state is set according to last-modified Left or Right wiper switch state
• Right wiper state is set according to last-modified Left or Right wiper switch state

 

See video here:

 

[Displays - HUD / PFD Mismatch - Glideslope Deviation Scaling]

Scaling differences in the G/S deviation scale scaling. The HUD is half as sensitive as the PFD:

[Latest Update?]

5 hours ago, dresoccer4 said:

Happy 2024, everyone. Saw there haven't been any comments for quite a while in here so was wanting to know if there was any ongoing work on the CRJ still? I haven't flown it in a long time so decided to do some updates to get things up to latest MSFS version (I do this with all planes).

 

However when I look at the official forums at "Latest Version and Updates" the last update was from June, 2022. Am I reading that right? 

Correct, the last update was then, and there have been no updates. Supposedly, there’s an update underway, but there has been no indication of progress.

 

The saga can be followed in this thread:  

 

[Soooo......any news?]

5 hours ago, BaxterChico said:

Here is a great contribution from Hans. It's about the CRJ update.

I know about that, and I already acknowledged it a few messages back. I believe everyone here is asking for more than just a message from Hans saying “yup all good don’t worry about it”

[Soooo......any news?]

In all fairness, it took 6-9 months from when MSFS was released to when the CRJ first came out (March-ish 2021). The CRJ since then has had updates every 1-2 months.

 

It’s been 19 months now since the last CRJ update (Jun 2022). That’s a very stark difference in attention. It would be very easy to believe that there won’t ever be an update.