1294 replies to this topic

[maddz 737]

Its like hanging a carrot infront a donkey.We are the donkey, DA is the carrot dangler

The donkey moves in the direction of the carrot, but he never gets it...

We, ( the donkey) need to turn our noses at the carrot, and stop moving forward.What happens then, is the carrot dangler changes to a nice juicey apple, and the donkey starts to walk again.

Well, now the apple is starting to rot, the donkey know's it too, so he aint moving anymore either.

And a rotting old brown bannana skin ( textual, no pictures, no step forward updates(?)) makes the donkey walk the other way...''other'' ''danglers'' have lovely bright yellow bannana's.- ripe to pick.

[Martin Martinov]

You know of course that the minute the twin engined baby Boeing NGX shows up, DA will have all the time in the world to finish the CRJ without any further disturbance...

[jordancollins]

Martin Martinov, on 21 May 2011 - 05:33 AM, said:

You know of course that the minute the twin engined baby Boeing NGX shows up, DA will have all the time in the world to finish the CRJ without any further disturbance...

ahaha yes that's exactly what I was thinking. I was going to buy the CRJ but if the NGX get's released first FORGET IT!

[member111333]

A few days ago I saw preview pictures of the CRJ night cockpit and I have to admit that they looked nice. But on the other hand I got the feeling that could be another aerosoft plane that may com up with nicely looking but actually  custrated cockpit lighting. I also have the Airbus X and the only option you have is cockpit lights on or off, just like in the default airbus. Considering the money we invest in our hobby I tink that is not enough. Of course it would be nice too have a fully functional cockpit lighting like in the pmdg md11, but I understand that such a level of detail is not feasible on every addon. But please include at least a separated instrument back lighting that also works in dusk and dawn and a extra panel  lighting option. Thanks

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

member111333, on 23 May 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

A few days ago I saw preview pictures of the CRJ night cockpit and I have to admit that they looked nice. But on the other hand I got the feeling that could be another aerosoft plane that may com up with nicely looking but actually  custrated cockpit lighting. I also have the Airbus X and the only option you have is cockpit lights on or off, just like in the default airbus. Considering the money we invest in our hobby I tink that is not enough. Of course it would be nice too have a fully functional cockpit lighting like in the pmdg md11, but I understand that such a level of detail is not feasible on every addon. But please include at least a separated instrument back lighting that also works in dusk and dawn and a extra panel  lighting option. Thanks

Well, the MD-11 is 60 Euro's and the Airbus is 40 Euro's. It does not seem fair to compare products that are not in the same price range. Not even counting the fact they are not aimed at the same kind of customer. Besides, all these things take up FPS and one of the basic ideas of the Airbus was the ease on FPS. I get 50% better fps in the Airbus X compared to the MD-11. We had in fact a more advanced lighting system but the test group of users used it one time and never used it again so we removed it in favor of the far better landing lights. Ours light up objects while the MD-11 landing lights are standard FSX lights. We felt that was a worthwhile innovation. Now I would not call the PMDG landing lights castrated!

So you see, for every product you make choices. Some you get right, others you do not get right. Some work for some customers some work for other customers. Some people here want an B737, some an CRJ.  I do not expect fully scalable lighting in the CRJ.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

jordancollins, on 21 May 2011 - 06:43 PM, said:

ahaha yes that's exactly what I was thinking. I was going to buy the CRJ but if the NGX get's released first FORGET IT!

That's fine jordancollins. Customers decide what they buy and that's a good thing. As there is a good chance we will sell both, either purchase is fine for us. I do not fully understand the logic behind the message (they are pretty different aircraft after all) but it's your prerogative of course!

[member111333]

Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft), on 23 May 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:

Well, the MD-11 is 60 Euro's and the Airbus is 40 Euro's. It does not seem fair to compare products that are not in the same price range. Not even counting the fact they are not aimed at the same kind of customer. Besides, all these things take up FPS and one of the basic ideas of the Airbus was the ease on FPS. I get 50% better fps in the Airbus X compared to the MD-11. We had in fact a more advanced lighting system but the test group of users used it one time and never used it again so we removed it in favor of the far better landing lights. Ours light up objects while the MD-11 landing lights are standard FSX lights. We felt that was a worthwhile innovation. Now I would not call the PMDG landing lights castrated!

So you see, for every product you make choices. Some you get right, others you do not get right. Some work for some customers some work for other customers. Some people here want an B737, some an CRJ.  I do not expect fully scalable lighting in the CRJ.

Thanks for open remark. Certainly I do understand that there is a diversity in the costumer base and that you try to satisfy all different groups. But please let me say that the fantastic A300 B4 from simcheck had at the beginning also only one cockpit lighting option, later there was a service pack that offered an additional instrument back lighting and in my opinion that made the difference(feels now like a fully fitted product on the level of pmdg, level d). I have to agree that it is not necessary and maybe financially too risky to offer something that brings a  cockpit lighting like in the pmdg md11 or the level d, but Digital Aviation in my opinion always tried to come up with a simulation, just look at the Piper Cheyenne or the Do 27, a product that was unmatched for years when it comes to system depths. And as DAviation products were allways more on the simulaton side please think about if it would be possible to get a separated instrument back lighting and panel lighting, maybe in a later service pack.
Finally I have to apologize for using the word "castrated". That was inappropriate. Would have been better to call it default or maybe basic.

[Andreas_W]

Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft), on 23 May 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

That's fine jordancollins. Customers decide what they buy and that's a good thing. As there is a good chance we will sell both, either purchase is fine for us. I do not fully understand the logic behind the message (they are pretty different aircraft after all) but it's your prerogative of course!

I agree with Jordan Collins. There is also a question of the budget which you have available. Especially since both aircraft are complex enough that to exploit to its full potential must also invest some time. Otherwise it is a waste of money
Just my 2 cents

[Airbusfan EDDM]

Ich kaufe seit FS98!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ich hoffe:  Dieses Flugzeug kommt. Der Airbus X ist eines Tages ganz beendedt und ein Highlight. Aerosoft arbeit ja schon daran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thema Beleuchtung: Es gibt ja noch andere Produkte: Aber die verkauft leider Aerosoft nicht: Darum auch den Produktnamen nicht nenne.

[Alexander Barger]

Ich glaube deine ! Taste ist kaputt.

I will buy both, because they are different Aircraft and fly different routes. And sicne they unlikley come out at the same time, it is plenty of time left for learning and enjoying the aircraft which will come out first  

[Tomaz]

Well, Level-D 767 is exactly 40€ and I get similar FPS in 767 and AirbusX. 767 also has complex VC lightning.
Airbus looks better in screenshots though.

[vikkiwoi]

Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft), on 23 May 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:

So you see, for every product you make choices. Some you get right, others you do not get right. Some work for some customers some work for other customers. Some people here want an B737, some an CRJ.

I want both of them! And the Bae 146!

[bionicCrab]

It's ironic how the same people can ask for ultra complex software then complain it's taking to long to develop and that it's schedule is unpredicatable.  Be careful what you wish for sometimes.  If I were able to cast a spell and make you a programmer overnight, I guarentee most of you wouldn't last a day on the job, you just plain give up too easily the first sign of trouble.

[member111333]

bionicCrab, on 28 May 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

It's ironic how the same people can ask for ultra complex software then complain it's taking to long to develop and that it's schedule is unpredicatable.  Be careful what you wish for sometimes.  If I were able to cast a spell and make you a programmer overnight, I guarentee most of you wouldn't last a day on the job, you just plain give up too easily the first sign of trouble.

I don't think that asking for two shades of lighting (instrument back lighting and panel lighting separated) in a VC has anything to do with the ask for "ultra complex software". Coding for VNAV or ground effect may be complex but lighting. Aren't this just a few additinal textures tied to a knob? This is almost a standard feature in above average ( not high end) payware aircraft.

[bionicCrab]

Really and which aircraft has a dimmer switch on both the panel and backlighting....  let me guess  The CRJ200 byJRollon.... every other attempt including the current PMDG 737 is a joke in comparison, so your problem is with the sim not the developer.

[member111333]

bionicCrab, on 28 May 2011 - 08:44 PM, said:

Really and which aircraft has a dimmer switch on both the panel and backlighting....  let me guess  The CRJ200 byJRollon.... every other attempt including the current PMDG 737 is a joke in comparison, so your problem is with the sim not the developer.

Sorry to have to say this. New interior lighting demo video of the 737 NGX on youtube. Definitely not a joke compared to the CRJ 200. Looks pretty good for a 5 year old simulator.

[Emmanuel Kurz]

member111333, on 29 May 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

Sorry to have to say this. New interior lighting demo video of the 737 NGX on youtube. Definitely not a joke compared to the CRJ 200. Looks pretty good for a 5 year old simulator.

The 737 NGX lighting is very well done but the BIG difference between the JRollon and PMDG product is, that the CRJ has lighting which is not based on textures, instead its a real illumination (rendered) and X-Plane feature. PMDG are using (most likely) textures which always look the same.

best regards
Emmanuel

[member111333]

Emmanuel Kurz, on 29 May 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

The 737 NGX lighting is very well done but the BIG difference between the JRollon and PMDG product is, that the CRJ has lighting which is not based on textures, instead its a real illumination (rendered) and X-Plane feature. PMDG are using (most likely) textures which always look the same.

best regards
Emmanuel

Yeah, have to admit the JRollon and Xplane play there in a league of their own.

[Sayuuk]

Alexander Barger, on 24 May 2011 - 07:11 AM, said:

Ich glaube deine ! Taste ist kaputt.

I will buy both, because they are different Aircraft and fly different routes. And sicne they unlikley come out at the same time, it is plenty of time left for learning and enjoying the aircraft which will come out first  

+1

As much as I know that I'll buy the NGX (because it is a must-buy =P ) I also know that I'll purchase the CRJ (if everything turns out as as complex as planned)
Completely different aircraft, systems and destinations (+ I just love tail-mounted engines)!


As for the lighting: 2-3 fixed but different options are completely fine with me. I want one version for the "dark times" where pretty much only the instruments and buttons are illuminated (not at full brightness), one version with a little flood light & full lighting, and at last one "Storm" version with everything turned up to the maximum.

I agree that simply on/off is not my cup of tea, although the Airbus X is the wrong example here, it looks awesome at night ;-)


Cheers

[David Vega]

Is there any visible or non-visible progress to report?  This project was originally announced circa May 2004.  It was exciting to hear that Aerosoft was going to distribute it and seeing the exterior and VC photos.  But it seems the project is going on hiatus again.  Either the designers are not fully committed or they have reached an insurmountable stumbling block.  I understand the statement that progress is being made, but based on track record so far, is there any way to describe this progress?  Don't have to show photos, but could you just describe "how" progress is being made.  

A statement of no progress is also OK.  

Regards,

David Vega

[Tomaz]

It's a shame so many projects get delayed these days.

[mason-dom]

  Well the question is "WHY so much projects are delayed" !

Dom Mason

[vali]

I think it is all about priorities (or at least the main reason)...but maybe I am wrong.

[David Vega]

There are many reasons why projects are delayed.

In this case, I'm interested in a progress report on this specific project, the DA/Aerosoft CRJ.  

Regards,

David Vega

[curt1]

I posted months ago that I questioned if DA still had the passion to do this project, as on their own website they state development is not fun for them anymore.  Well, I got blasted on this forum for saying such a thing, but I believe I was correct.  For what it's worth, Aerosoft is the one who should be worried.  They've invested a lot of hours in model development, but it's money down the drain if DA doesn't pull through.  Having said that, I think Mathijs will keep enough pressure on them so it is completed eventually.

[alehead]

Do not forget that the World will not end if the DA CRJ never gets finished.

As much as I look forward to seeing this get out, I am not going to lose any sleep over it if it takes an age longer or never sees the light of day (which I strongly doubt, however...)

More often than not, all good things come to he/she who waits.



Andrew

[Matt_Smith]

alehead, on 06 June 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

Do not forget that the World will not end if the DA CRJ never gets finished.

As much as I look forward to seeing this get out, I am not going to lose any sleep over it if it takes an age longer or never sees the light of day (which I strongly doubt, however...)

More often than not, all good things come to he/she who waits.



Andrew

Patience is a virtue often missing in flight simmers

[cbbone]

I'd would not be suprised if this aircraft does not release this year, the lack of pictures and updates is a dead giveaway that somethings not right. Im not upset but a little honesety that progess has come to a hault would be nice

[simon747]

Yes I was following as well after the initial hype over a year ago, Aerosoft seems to have been clear on status, but unfortuneatly the systems are being worked on by the orgig devlp  and it seems like that developer likes to work in stealth mode, which is ok, everybody works in their own way.  I am confident it will be appear at some point otherwise it would have been a big waste of time on everyone's part including the principal developer.  Sometimes developers do this as part time work, so I have learned that you just have to be patient as things pop up in peoples lives.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

bionicCrab, on 28 May 2011 - 08:44 PM, said:

Really and which aircraft has a dimmer switch on both the panel and backlighting....  let me guess  The CRJ200 byJRollon.... every other attempt including the current PMDG 737 is a joke in comparison, so your problem is with the sim not the developer.

Oh that's beyond doubt. Lighting in FSX is at best 2002 technology. You are often forced to make bitmaps for each light setting and even then you end up with a flat, uniform light map. That's one of the main reasons much developers don;t really care a lot. Besides, It's not a VOR radio receiver you set the whole time. On most aircraft I have seen the switch is set and forgotten until another pilot wants to take a nap.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

bionicCrab, on 28 May 2011 - 08:44 PM, said:

Really and which aircraft has a dimmer switch on both the panel and backlighting....  let me guess  The CRJ200 byJRollon.... every other attempt including the current PMDG 737 is a joke in comparison, so your problem is with the sim not the developer.

Oh that's beyond doubt. Lighting in FSX is at best 2002 technology. You are often forced to make bitmaps for each light setting and even then you end up with a flat, uniform light map. That's one of the main reasons much developers don;t really care a lot. Besides, It's not a VOR radio receiver you set the whole time. On most aircraft I have seen the switch is set and forgotten until another pilot wants to take a nap.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

cbbone, on 07 June 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

I'd would not be suprised if this aircraft does not release this year, the lack of pictures and updates is a dead giveaway that somethings not right. Im not upset but a little honesety that progess has come to a hault would be nice

Nonsense and I really dislike these kinds of rumors being started. Progress is not halted, the project is being worked on daily. Now other projects somethings also need attention (keep in mind that none of the developers of DA are full time working on FS add-ons) so timing for there part is not as fixed as it can be for us. We delivered thegraphics with only a few days delay. As others said, a little patience goes a long way. The moment I get new images or more data I will share that immediately. If you dislike reading I got no news just don't follow this forum, the aircraft will arrive the same time, no matter if you read this or not.

I will now temporary close this topic as I feel everything said is either ignored or misread. The fact that there are no hints (asking us for a little honesty) we are not telling the truth is not okay in my book.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

Reopening this topic.

To make sure everybody knows this project is not closed I will attach a few images of the build from yesterday. Progress is very good at this moment as other projects are completed. Some more images in a few days.I can tell you that it is all very high end.

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[hals1010]

It's aliiiiiive! (Sorry, couldn't resist).

Thanks for the update, Mathijs.

[mopperle]

Looks really impressive!

Mathijs, may be its a good idea to give us some information about what degree of system depth we can expect, what will be modelled or definitely not modelled. I'm sure many people will start asking something like "will it be as good as PMDG", "will it be Airbus like".....

[flusi4ever]

the cockpit looks really nice, but a bit too sterile for my taste

[mas618]

Excellent update - thx,
A few questions, if you're able to answer them at this stage:
1. Will HGS be simulated?
2. Will the FMS have all functions?
3. Will there be a load manager of some sort?
4. How will the cockpit VC lights be modelled?

Regards

Mas

[Aerosvit737NG]

now THAT looks good !!
can't waint for it

[Hans Hartmann]

mas618, on 09 August 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

Excellent update - thx,
A few questions, if you're able to answer them at this stage:
1. Will HGS be simulated?
2. Will the FMS have all functions?
3. Will there be a load manager of some sort?
4. How will the cockpit VC lights be modelled?

I can answer this.
1. Yes. HGS will be simulated
2. Yes, except for may be some very exotic functions (which would have to be faked anyway)
3. Yes
4. I can't answer that yet. I need to talk to the modeller first.

[kaspis29]

So Yay or Nay flying in VATSIM?   I got it, don't worry, Love the progress so far