ap1190

Aerosoft (DA) CRJ Preview (Released)

Recommended Posts

On ‎22‎.‎03‎.‎2017 at 11:52 AM, Hans Hartmann said:

Another example: if you're on an FMS flight want to intercept an ILS, you have to change the NAV source from FMS to VOR/LOC or the autopilot's APP mode will not capture anything.

 

So yes, I fully except tons of questions and alleged bugs pretty much immediately after release. But then, that's what we have The Dude for :D

 

No NAV-to-NAV transfer simulated on the -900? :P I only have to worry about such pedestrian things on our older -700s. But yeah, then it's HDG mode, green needle, APP mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2017 at 4:13 AM, Legacy650 said:

ALT SEL is one of the worst ideas of all time. No idea what would cause someone to think it was a good idea. They harped and harped on that dumb button when I was at Horizon flying the Q400. Thank goodness that plane is only a memory now and I don't have to worry about it on the 757/767.

 

It's natural selection for pilots. Only the diligent ones make it out of the Q400 alive :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, amahran said:

 

It's natural selection for pilots. Only the diligent ones make it out of the Q400 alive :rolleyes:

 

Ha yeah I made it out by the skin of my teeth. Though we did a lot of fun flying at Horizon so it wasn't too bad....when the airplane wasn't broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24.3.2017 at 5:59 AM, Legacy650 said:

 

May risk of yet again derailing this thread....

 

When I first started my career in 2011 I wanted to jumpseat on a Delta DC-9 before they left the fleet. I was lucky enough to get that opportunity in 2013 right before they were all gone. As you probably know they didn't have an ability to capture altitude with the autopilot. I found it really interesting that the captain, a check airman, said that the DC-9 fleet at Delta had the lowest number of altitude deviations across all aircraft types because of how vigilant the crews always had to be about watching the autopilot. Just goes to show that sometimes simpler is better. At least they probably weren't constantly saying, "What the hell is it doing now?!"

 

Key keyword here are automation complacency and situational awareness. If a pilot has the altitude capture system he is likely to become confident to believe the system will always do what it has done the first 100 times he observed it.
In airplanes without such automation the pilot is likely to have a greater situational awareness since he can only rely on himself.

 

The same goes with tailstrikes for example. A study of a major A320 Family operator has shown that more tailstrikes occured with their A319 than with their A321.
The reason is the same as above: In the A321 the pilot is aware of the long fuselage and rotates carefully. In the A319 he is likely to overrotate and tailstrike as he knows the tailstrikemargin is a lot bigger than on the A321, thus the risk of a tailstrike is seemingly smaller.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 2 Stunden , Emanuel Hagen sagte:

 

Key keyword here are automation complacency and situational awareness. If a pilot has the altitude capture system he is likely to become confident to believe the system will always do what it has done the first 100 times he observed it.
In airplanes without such automation the pilot is likely to have a greater situational awareness since he can only rely on himself.

 

The same goes with tailstrikes for example. A study of a major A320 Family operator has shown that more tailstrikes occured with their A319 than with their A321.
The reason is the same as above: In the A321 the pilot is aware of the long fuselage and rotates carefully. In the A319 he is likely to overrotate and tailstrike as he knows the tailstrikemargin is a lot bigger than on the A321, thus the risk of a tailstrike is seemingly smaller.

 

I am sure there are many more factors that affect SA. In genaral automation and new avionics have increased SA. You should never "rely" on George's abilities completely and always monitor the FMA and flight parameters. You also can't compare older AFCS systems from MD-80's older 737's etc. with newer, state of the art ones. 

I still remember one time when I was watching planes take of from Frankfurt's runway 18, an A319 pilot seemed to have pulled the sidestick full back as fast as he could when reaching Vr. The rotation rate was insane! Something like 8° per second maybe. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎/‎03‎/‎22 at 11:30 AM, Hans Hartmann said:

I won't buy it either! :rolleyes:

 

From one FS dev to another this has to be the most epic response to a date complainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im confused about this project. At over 7 years now, assuming its still actually being worked on, it raises a question. How much of it has to be redone from scratch to bring it up to 2017 standards? Its almost like the devs are just going back on their own work doing it over multiple times the longer this is delayed... Food for thought.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, johnadmans said:

Im confused about this project. At over 7 years now, assuming its still actually being worked on

Don't be, there's 297 pages to feed the thought and take away any confusion you might have assuming you didn't do that already

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just joking before but now actually wondering... Is nav-to-nav transfer modeled on the -900s or are both variants modeled after planes that have the older FMS software and no capability to automatically switch over the NAV source for an ILS that is programmed in the FMS?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Propane said:

Just joking before but now actually wondering... Is nav-to-nav transfer modeled on the -900s or are both variants modeled after planes that have the older FMS software and no capability to automatically switch over the NAV source for an ILS that is programmed in the FMS?

 

The 700 and 900 versions I flew IRL both had that function and the simulated ones will also have it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, miquelvp said:

Hello everybody
Sorry if the question is repeated...
CRJ will have camera views over the wings?

 

Thanks so much.

By no means do I know for sure, but I would assume so. If it matters that much though why wouldn't you buy a camera add on like ChasePlane or EzDok where you can do it very easily yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, iccowan said:

By no means do I know for sure, but I would assume so. If it matters that much though why wouldn't you buy a camera add on like ChasePlane or EzDok where you can do it very easily yourself?

You don't need a camera add-on for that. It's actually not that complicated to add new cameras to the aircraft.cfg files. The only drawback is that they might get overwritten by updates.

 

19 hours ago, miquelvp said:

Hello everybody
Sorry if the question is repeated...
CRJ will have camera views over the wings?

 

Thanks so much.

No, it doesn't have those. The cabin isn't modelled (don't blame me!), so we don't have views from the inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎28‎.‎03‎.‎2017 at 10:44 AM, The Dude said:

 

The 700 and 900 versions I flew IRL both had that function and the simulated ones will also have it.

 

Good, so that's one thing less to confuse newcomers to the CRJ systems :P . As long as the FMS is set up correctly just activate APP mode and you don't have to mess with the needles. I fly a mixed bag of 700/900 of different vintages. Some with the older FMS software that does not allow for nav to nav (not sure if it is only limited by FMS software or also other hardware, never went that deep into it). And it can be a bit of a mess if you fly 5 days on a 'modern' one and then switch to an old one for the last two legs or something.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 59 Minuten, Propane sagte:

 

Good, so that's one thing less to confuse newcomers to the CRJ systems :P . As long as the FMS is set up correctly just activate APP mode and you don't have to mess with the needles. I fly a mixed bag of 700/900 of different vintages. Some with the older FMS software that does not allow for nav to nav (not sure if it is only limited by FMS software or also other hardware, never went that deep into it). And it can be a bit of a mess if you fly 5 days on a 'modern' one and then switch to an old one for the last two legs or something.

 

Do you have headaches sometimes? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not due to nav-to-nav. The only headaches so far have been caused by being used to IRS equipped models and then taking on some older 900s with AHRS. Flux valves are not exactly of this day and age anymore.

For the rest, flying mixed equipment even though minor differences, it is prudent to simply adopt the "HDG, green needle, APP" philosophy as standard and consider nav-to-nav as non-standard :) . Anyway, did not mean to get the topic off track, just fun stuff about the CRJs I've noticed since I started flying them.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, data63 said:

it's more interesting to learn from you guys what's in a CRJ in real live

 

I suspect that many people will have a fairly significant learning curve with the CRJ, especially if their experience with airliners has been limited to the Airbus or Boeing.  In fact, I'd say that it will be a bit more than someone going from Boeing to Airbus or the other way around.  It's just different.  I'm very experienced in the complete PMDG line, Airbus, Dash 8 and many other airliners, and systems level of detail that Hans has put into the aircraft matches the best of the aircraft models mentioned.  With that in mind, this is an aircraft where one will benefit greatly by running through the documentation - which thankfully is fully searchable!

 

I usually select the aircraft I'm going to fly based on what type of day I've had and what type of flight I'm looking for. If it's been an average type of day and I'm looking forward to a busy flight (really interacting with the aircraft systems) then I'll fly the Leonardo Maddog MD-80 or the Dash 8 Q400 Pro.  If I'm looking for a relaxing flight then it's the PMDG NGX/777 or Aerosoft Airbus.  I'd place the CRJ-700/900 firmly in the "busy flight" category both because of how the CRJ systems are operated and the systems level of detail.  This I believe is GREAT NEWS, especially for those who really enjoy a hands on experience that so many of us clammer for!

 

There are three product releases that I'm TRULY EXCITED ABOUT in the flight simulation community.  The Aerosoft CRJ, the Aerosoft A330, and REX Weather/Environment Force.  That Aerosoft is producing two of these products is AMAZING and testament to both Aerosoft's commitment to our community and their overall footprint (how important the company is to us) the company has in our community!

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hans Hartmann said:

I wish you wouldn't say stuff like this. It will only result in questions like "why doesn't the CRJ have x or y?" questions. Personally, I don't care what those other products can do. I just make the CRJ as close to the real thing as the available information allows.

 

I guess that's another way of saying "Thanks for the compliment!" :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.