Because we believe this topic has ... wait a minute!

[Heigo 26]

Dear Aerosoft team

 

Please do not close topics if they are not answered, since it can go deeper. I can understand that this can be annoying, and it is easy to close threads, but the product page does not indicate that pneumatic systems (as an example) are not simulated (as we are grown to expect from a 50 EUR add-on-s year 2017 + from an aircraft developer related to the original project, that even had flies simulated in the cockpit). Do not get me wrong, in general it is ok, but with every single new airplane add-on, I first take it to a spin, turn on/off all different systems (and combinations of them), and see if they really work or they are "just switches".

 

As we can understand from the previous topic (link below, was closed by "Frank Docter: This behaviour is not modeled with the CRJ. It goes a bit beyond the scope of the product actually. Although Hans could have modeled this he choose to focus on the more or less daily operation of an CRJ."), and some testing,

it seems that entire pressurization system of the Aerosoft CRJ is not simulated? The cabin pressurizes regardless of the position of bleeds and packs switches. It seems that things that are working (having some effect), are landing elevation selection, temperature selection, and if the bleeds are off, you actually cant turn on the anti-icing systems. Well that is a huge turn-down from this kind of a project since those simple things were simulated even more than 10 years ago.

 

Being involved in CRJ operations daily, the statement It goes a bit beyond the scope of the product actually can not be more wrong. Pneumatic systems (bleeds, packs, air conditioning etc.) are huge part of the checklists and SOP-s actually on all aircraft (also MEL-s (single PACK/PACKs off operations etc), but that I can agree can be out of scope). There wont be any consequences of not doing checklists/SOPs in this CRJ (basically You can takeoff with bleeds/packs off and nothing serious will happen). You will even not get any cabin altitude warning while climbing with everything off. Even a "one man show" called flysimware has pressurization working on a Learjet as an example.

 

I really hope that those things will be sorted out in the future service packs and if needed, I can provide real life input (pics from aircraft, info from pilots/cabin, procedures, documentation). Just please do not close each and every thread that is inconvenient. Accepting and learning from mistakes is what takes us all further.

 

There are different simmers worldwide, some like to press control+E and make aerobatics with aircraft, some like to have systems that work (eg turning switch OFF actually turns the system OFF). We do not expect "virtual fluids like oil flowing around", but rather simple and basic things :).

 

Regards

 

 

 

Please login to display this image.

[Tom A320 4915]

Here is a perfect response from another topic:

 

 

[Heigo 26]

12 minutes ago, Tom A320 said:

Here is a perfect response from another topic:

 

 

Thank You for a reply. One other developer had all those things and much more simulated with a cost of 75 EUR-s couple of years ago. I can agree that with the introduction of P3D (professional ...) the prices are gone up, but ... that was not actually asking for "electrons flowing through a wire" but a ON/OFF switches to work  This specific thing should be easily fixable in future service packs. And I can even get You the level-D sim rates, how the cab will depressurize, if You like.

[The Dude 6537]

Hi Heigo,

 

We all want a level D simulator in our man cave, and we are willing to pay for it within reason. You seem to know something about the CRJ. I also know something about the CRJ after flying it for 5000hr. I can tell you almost every minute thing that is not simulated or wrong with our CRJ. Not to sound arrogant but we do not need any "education" here. I understand your reasoning and some areas of the CRJ will get polished up in the future but.....

 

Like it or not this is an 50 euro product and not everything will be simulated. Even little things that mean a lot to you. If you take the Normal SOP flight from A to B literally you will end up with an level D simulator. Devs make decisions on what to model and what not. Sometimes it is just the switch that works, sometimes there is a bit more behind flipping that switch. It is a balance act. I think Hans hit the mark pretty well with the CRJ. I can fly it like I fly a real CRJ from A to B by doing what a real pilot would do SOP wise. Is it perfect? No. Does it give you that feeling of being an CRJ pilot? Yes.

 

With regard to us closing topics. For the most part we do support here. Support in the sense that we help people that are having problems with the product they bought. As you may have noticed this CRJ part of the forum is pretty big only one week after release. To keep it somewhat managable we close topics that we think got their answer. If we think more talk could bring something usefull for us and the reader we leave it open. And we always encourage people to open a new topic if they still do not have the answer they want. Like you are doing now. Closing topics has nothing to do with us not willing to "learn" or killing a difficult truth. I hope I made that I bit more clear to you now.

 

[imemyself 12]

This is why I think it would be really helpful to list out what systems are intentionally not fully simulated (I posted to that effect here:)

 

If people know what to expect, and know what isn't simulated, I think there will be less disappointment / confusion / unhappiness when someone comes across something that doesn't work quite right.  I understand that there could be downsides to listing what the product doesn't do, but I think being honest and open about that will make people happier long term.

 

I've been pretty happy flying the CRJ so far.  A little more depth in a few places might be nice (particularly along the lines of what Heigo mentioned about there being no consequences if you don't follow the checklist)....but the tradeoffs that have been made seem generally reasonable.

[The Dude 6537]

48 minutes ago, imemyself said:

This is why I think it would be really helpful to list out what systems are intentionally not fully simulated (I posted to that effect here:)

 

 

No developer or seller of products in general, being it PMDG, BMW or Apple makes list of what they do not have and we will not start with making one. We also do not delete such threads in all fairness. The product page gives you an idea what to expect. Next to that you can inform yourself perfectly on the internet today.

 

If you have a question about the depth of a simulated system you can ask it here in the AS forum and you will get an answer. 

 

[Heigo 26]

The product page lists:
 

Highlights:

• Exquisite modelling with many animations with up-to-date standards
• VAS and FPS friendly because we love complex airports as much as you do
• Extended Flight Management System delivered with August 2017 nav data (compatible with NavDataPro and Navigraph)
• Complete MCDU with full keyboard control option
• All displays available as high resolution 2D windows
• Highly accurate flight model
• Panel State saving/loading
• Standard Sound set done by Turbine Sounds Systems, additional Virtual Cockpit sounds provide by Aerosoft
• Heads-up Guidance system
• Includes Frank, our avatar to walk around the aircraft and airports (Prepar3D only)
• Fully functional (though linked to this aircraft) RAAS provided by FS2Crew
• Complete management tool to load fuel, passengers, and baggage. This tool also allows you to tweak the simulation to your hardware
• Livery manager with drag and drop functionality
• Fully prepared for AES, Chaseplane, PFPX
• Many new options to tweak the product to your likings and your hardware, for example to link a hardware control to the nose wheel steering
• Our Virtual Cockpit tool (DAVE) has checklists, fuel and passenger loading, change settings, etc.
• Five manuals, including detailed step-by-step documentation
• Fully Prepar3D V4 compatible with dynamic lights and several other adaptations to use the newest technology

There is not a single word about the systems. As it is 2017, the customers are expecting systems like fuel, hydraulics, pneumatics (pressurization usually being a part of it), electrical to be simulated. And well actually they are, with obvious limitations. Simulating those systems on FS platform does not equalize it to level-D simulation. It is actually quite common (PMDG, fslabs, flysimware, Leonardo SH, TFDi, Majestic, (maybe even Carenado?)). Saying that there are limitations by FSX/P3D engine, well yes we know. What about Aerosoft/Digital Aviation Katana? Flies flying around, vacum cleaning and entire CB block simulated. Was it a level-D? No, just a marvelous piece of software. Same roots, same publisher. I think the flies in the cockpit were not part of the SDK for FS9 :).

 

The point of the post was just to list additional "missing feature" besides the "turning bleeds/packs OFF mid flight = no cabin pressure drop" . Well actually You do not have to turn them ON on ground before the flight for the cabin pressurization to work  = issues with the pressurization in general. Expected behavior would be associated CAS messages / no cabin pressure / cabin alt warning. You know the annoying takeoff config warning on 737 if You do not turn on bleeds after cabin reaches xxxxx level?. And I consider it to be part of the "It fully focuses on the task of piloting this aircraft. We feel that things that have never happened in real life should not play a major role and that allows us to create a high-end aircraft for a modest price." It does not focus me to turn ON bleeds and packs = missing feature or bug. Now I do understand that it is not a bug, but intentional. Hopefully the devs. will take a look at it and implement in future updates. Case closed. Not so closed when it comes to the list of features on the product page (like somone asked in the linked topic).

 

Regards,

[ScottyBs 22]

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

 

 

[SecondTheory 3]

2 hours ago, Tom A320 said:

Here is a perfect response [...]

 

With respect to Frank, I'm not sure I agree. Each person might have their own idea of what a 50 Euro product is. For some, that might include failures; for others not (indeed, for me, not). For some it might include a pneumatic system which responds to being turned off; for others not.

[Heigo 26]

40 minutes ago, ScottyBs said:

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

 

It is good to hear.

 

My "guess" was based on around 15 fellow simmers who were waiting for a CRJ-s release and mentioned features. The support and hotfixes are also very good things but shouldn't those smaller "bugs" be fixed before the initial release (like rotating YAW DAMPER message, I spotted during first 5 minutes), not by 5 hotfixes in days? Not talking about huge numbers of CTDs (had around 5 by myself during 3hrs), issues with NAV tracking and FMS distance/time/fuel predictions. If we compare it to other 2 available payware CRJ-s, then mentioned simulations already have simplified systems (or non existing) for 25 EURs @ simmarket. Those can also be flown from point A to B by imagining that systems work. Therefore hopes were/are high and it seems that devs. are working around the clock to get bugs sorted out and hopefully adding new features. Really appreciate it and can also perfectly understand the complexity behind it. It already is many times over the competitors on this field. On the other hand, there is always a possibility to add features and increase the price :). Anyways, this is not the topic of this thread (in my opinion, since it was a intended as a bug report).

 

I (and other fellow simmers who have CRJs) really wait for those small touches and system simulations that can actually lead into trouble if mishandled.

 

Regards,

[Joshua Che. 1601]

I think we can debate all day about this. Let me help summarise for all.

 

1. We close topics for various reasons. However, in this case, censorship is not one of them. Frank explains it perfectly in his words :

 

"With regard to us closing topics. For the most part we do support here. Support in the sense that we help people that are having problems with the product they bought. As you may have noticed this CRJ part of the forum is pretty big only one week after release. To keep it somewhat manageable we close topics that we think got their answer. If we think more talk could bring something useful for us and the reader we leave it open. And we always encourage people to open a new topic if they still do not have the answer they want. Like you are doing now. Closing topics has nothing to do with us not willing to "learn" or killing a difficult truth. I hope I made that I bit more clear to you now."

 

2. CRJ simulates day to day operations and that means strictly following daily SOPs. Anything out of SOP may not be simulated. If this statement concerns you, you shouldn't purchase the CRJ.

 

3. CRJ will be updated and in time it may result in expansions of scope of the simulation. User suggestion will be considered.

 

4. Comparison is fine, but it will always lead to endless debate. Aerosoft has already defined CRJ product features and price and that is not up for debate. You can seek clarification for any unsure parts. Decide for yourself if the CRJ is the right product for you before you purchase.

[Karl-T.lepp 6]

7 hours ago, Frank Docter said:

 

No developer or seller of products in general, being it PMDG, BMW or Apple makes list of what they do not have and we will not start with making one.

It's funny you said that because that's exactly what, for example, FSLabs and IXEG did. Apple and BMW of course do not do that because they do not sell imitations. PMDG has a pretty comprehensive list of features on their product page.

 

 

7 hours ago, Frank Docter said:

 

 The product page gives you an idea what to expect.

 

Again, no it does not. It does not mention systems simulation at all.
 

Please login to display this image.

[The Dude 6537]

10 hours ago, Karl-T.lepp said:

It's funny you said that because that's exactly what, for example, FSLabs and IXEG did. Apple and BMW of course do not do that because they do not sell imitations. PMDG has a pretty comprehensive list of features on their product page.

 

 

Don't get me started on FSL. There is no list of things they do not have. Maybe except for stating that wind, sec flpn and the fix page will come with an SP1 that is now 4 months overdue. Try the attitude some are displaying here and you get banned in an heartbeat. Try to make a bugreport and you get told everything is fine while their ellusive MSN is like that. And as an RW Airbus pilot I could make you a very long list about what is not correct or missing with their add on. But in all fairness, this is just the way fs products are. 

 

If features is your selling point you would ofcourse have them on your product page. Like PMDG. If they are not mentioned then any sane person can deduct that it is maybe not present in the form they would like. It is quite simple in the end, if you are unsure you can ask here. If that is too much of an hassle or you do not like the answer than do not buy the CRJ. This is not a product for everyone, but it is for the silent majority. 

 

 

[Karl-T.lepp 6]

5 minutes ago, Frank Docter said:

 

If featues is your selling point you would ofcourse have them on your product page. Like PMDG. If they are not mentioned then any sane person can deduct that it is maybe not present in the form they would like.

 

 

Any sane person can also deduct that if it takes 10 years to build a CRJ it would have systems simulated. The implication was always there. But I guess I was the fool for hoping... Or should I say insane, according to you?

[The Dude 6537]

 

Yes you are. I will say it again and again. Stop riding that 7-10 year development horse. It has nothing to do with the end product. Also nobody at AS ever said the long delay is because of super duper system modelling. This is AS. Take a good long look at the tubeliners they make. PMDG and FSL standards we do not strive for. AS is mainly there to cater the masses. 

 

Hans is an one man team with a full time job. He does not work 24/7 on the CRJ. I personally would say that this is an 7 month product by one man if you condense the last 7 years into productive work. Does this make everything better? 7 months vs 7 years. No. Hans did a super job and development of the CRJ via SP's is not finished yet. Features will get added and bugs will get squashed. And we do actually hear what the customer base is saying. 

 

If you like the CRJ, stick with us. It is going to get better and better.

[Hans Hartmann [OLD] 1419]

10 hours ago, imemyself said:

This is why I think it would be really helpful to list out what systems are intentionally not fully simulated

Such a list would be interpreted as a list of features to come. So it's not going to be made.

 

2 hours ago, Karl-T.lepp said:

Any sane person can also deduct that if it takes 10 years to build a CRJ it would have systems simulated.

As you undoubtedly have full knowledge of what has been going on in my private and work life, every day, in detail over the past 10 years (since I started with a CRJ-200 project that was later dumped), you are certainly entitled to make such a deduction. (hint: sarcasm).

 

It's sickening to see those select (and fortunately) few people who think they are entitled to specific features - even if they're not listed in the product description - and criticize other people's work. I give you a hint that works pretty much everywhere not just in flightsim forums: Try being nice. Ask to include a feature in a civilized way. This increases the chances of this feature getting on the developer's to do list to close 100 percent (unless impossible to realize) - and this goes for every dev, not just me.

[Tom A320 4915]

Because we believe this topic has been answered we have closed it. If you have any more questions feel free to open a new topic.