Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/14/21 in all areas

  1. The developers are definitely aware of this problem, and a new system for intercepting the outbound leg when the course changes at a waypoint is being implemented, based on how the real CRJ autopilot operates. The initial part of a course change generally works exactly as it would in the real CRJ. The problem (at present) is with the last part of the course change. The actual autopilot is limited to two fixed bank angles when turning under autopilot control - either 25 or 12.5 degrees. (The sim uses 30 and 15 degrees). Above 31,600 feet, the only available bank angle is 12.5 degrees. For this reason, the real CRJ will use a longer DTA (turn anticipation distance) than other types of airliners with a more sophisticated autopilot that can dynamically vary the bank angle in a turn. When the autopilot is in half bank mode, the real CRJ will use a DTA of up to 11 miles prior to the waypoint if the course change is significant. The calculation of turn anticipation is based on the airspeed, the available bank angle, and the amount of heading change required. With a bank angle of 12.5 degrees at high altitude, even a DTA of 11 miles may not be enough with a significant tailwind, and the real aircraft can overshoot the new course line in this scenario. The main issue with the sim version at present is not overshoot but undershoot - i.e. the aircraft completes the turn before arriving at the new course, and then makes a series of “cut and try” banks to work its way onto the new course. The actual autopilot switches from constant bank mode to FMS CDI tracking during the final part of an LNAV turn. If the aircraft has not yet arrived at the new course, the aircraft will roll level, and monitor the FMS CDI deflection and centering rate to control the point where it will make the final bank to roll out on course. This is similar to how the autopilot intercepts a localizer. This change being incorporated into the sim CRJ, should result in a significant improvement in intercepting a new course in LNAV mode, without the constant banking seen now. Even the real CRJ may have to make one or two corrective banks once established on a new course to acquire the correct wind correction angle, but that is different than the long series of turns that currently can happen.
    2 points
  2. I don’t know if anyone else is experiencing this, but at the initial release of the CRJ I was enthusiastic about reporting bugs and issues, and as time went on I felt some kind of reporting “fatigue”. To describe it adequately: - I’m not sure if my reports are contributing to any effort - I’m not sure if a bug I experience has already been mentioned - I’m not sure if devs are aware of the bugs and issues I’m observing (at least I’d hope I’m not the only one seeing them). - I’m not even sure if the bugs I’m reporting are going on a back burner or if they’re scheduled to be addressed after another bug, or if they’re to be addressed in a coming update, or what - I’m not even sure that the devs who see my bug reports are acknowledging them as items to be addressed or if they’re being accepted as “it is what it is”. I realize the devs have a lot on their mind, and are dealing with an ever-changing SDK, so I can’t blame them for not communicating every individual detail. However, I feel like I lost some enthusiasm in bug reporting; it’s exhausting and feels like my bug reports are going into a black hole. And I’m honestly burnt out. Does anyone else feel this in any way, either with the CRJ or with MSFS in general? Aerosoft, do you guys still want us bug reporting at this point for persistent bugs, or is everything already “known” by now? I love to help but at some point it feels like I’m being a nuisance…
    2 points
  3. Das Problem tritt primär auf, wenn Produkte über den Marketplace gekauft wurden. Warum? Das kann eigentlich nur MS/Asobo beantworten, aber da wird nichts kommen. Irgendwann wird es in einem Update gelöst sein. Aerosoft z.B. schickt an MS exakt die gleichen Dateien wie sie im eigenen Installer verwendet werden. MS macht damit irgendwas (mindestens eine Verschlüsselung) und hinterlegt einen eigenen Installationsprozess. Deswegen landen diese Add-ons nicht im Community folder sondern im "Official" folder. Auf diesen ganzen Prozess hat aber niemand außer MS/Asobo Einfluss. Und deswegen ist wie in deinem Fall Aerosoft ziemlich machtlos. Andere Fehler einer Szenerie wie z.B. falsche/fehlende Objekte, geändertes rwy/taxi Layout etc. können natürlich vom Entwickler behoben werden. Ergänzend kommt nicht hinzu, dass die diversen Service-Updates des MSFS immer wieder neue Probleme generieren. Manche können von den Add-on Entwicklern behoben werden, für andere braucht es ein neues SU.
    2 points
  4. Version 1.0.1

    307 downloads

    If in P3D v5.2 HF1 "Enhanced Atmospherics" (EA) is enabled, the liveries of all A318, A319, A320 and A321 models as well as the cockpits in all models (incl. A330) are displayed too dark and it seems that this version/ feature puts a brown haze over all the liveries and cockpits. Installing this update solves that problem and the original colors are displayed again. Users not using EA should not install this update because then their liveries and cockpits would appear too bright. For more information on this update please read the attached file. Liesmich.pdf Readme.pdf
    1 point
  5. I conducted a forum search on these bugs and only found mention of the Delete CLR Button next to Speed break. I'd like to bring to your attention a few others which give me hell lol. - The Heading bug sync button will not display the hand or what ever it is to center the hdg bug. So I'm left with turning the knob. - same thing applies for the Altimeter knob, where pressing the knob for STD climbing through transition altitude doesn't display the ability to press it, only twist to change. So the above still usable, but a hindrance. The next one is more of a wishlist. I like to see better Lit up taxi and runway lights at night. The taxiway / runways are completely datk with the exception of the turn off lights on my left and right wings. But anything out front at night is driven by green and blue taxi Lights as i can not see anything else. Thanks for Your time on this and hopefully at some point these Un
    1 point
  6. It should calculate a path to get you to 1500ft AGL at 10nm from the destination airport. Same when you have no altitude restrictions at all along your path. It will generate an advisory DES point.
    1 point
  7. Well I have lists of favorite music and Hall and Oates are not on it, lol. We have just one system that contains all our known issues and requests. So it is a long list. But it is being chewed at.
    1 point
  8. Makes sense. I have the flightplan programmed in the FMS, that is, departure and arrival runway, SID, STAR, airways and waypoints, cruising and transition altitudes are all set and there‘s no discontinuities. I usually fly with Nav and Speed mode. The TOD is shown on the map display. Before reaching the TOD, I set the new altitude and activate vertical speed mode without changing it. When I reach the TOD I change the vspeed according to what the Dir/Int page suggests. Everything seems to work except I don‘t have a snowflake. The nav display looks like in Dresoccer4‘s screenshot. Is there anything I have forgotten? I can‘t remember having done anything differently before the last update.
    1 point
  9. Yes Mathijs, but WHAT list? How many lists do you and AS have? Are there any lists of the lists? Are you lists alphabetized or date ordered. If alphabetized, by which letter first or last? Are any of your lists provided to any government agency? Do you have a list app or a list of apps? When you said "The issue is on our list" does that mean that only that issue is on the list or the issue was added to one or more lists. Does any of this have anything to do with the Hall and Oates hit from the 80s Your Kiss is On My List? Is a bucket list an actual list of different types of buckets? If you create a journal of boats leaning to one side or another would that be a list of lists?
    1 point
  10. How would the FMC be able to calculate TOD without a selected arrival runway? If you are landing on a south runway and flying north to get there, your TOD will be closer to the airport than if you were on the same flight path and landing north. This is because you have to fly a greater distance to hit a way point that is north of the airport. Also, if you are flying the CRJ with the realistic ADVISORY vnav enabled, then any TOD is just a suggestion. It is up to you to calculate and fly the descent to get where you are going at the altitude you want/need to be at. I use the fix function on the FMC to set 3 range rings around my arrival airport. The first is set at a distance equal to 3x my cruise altitude. The second is set to 30 miles and the last is set to 5 miles. Unless instructed otherwise by ATC or limited by charts, I begin a descent to 10000 at the first ring. Normally this will be a +/-1800 fpm descent to hit the 30nm ring at 10,000 feet. The 5 mile ring is where I want to be in final approach configuration. Think of it this way. If I live in Texas and you live in Nebraska and I want you to come visit but I don't tell you what city I live in. You want to know how long the trip will be. It may only be 4-5 hours to the border of Texas but if I live in Brownsville that is at least another 8 hours. So you leave Nebraska without knowing how long the trip is because you don't know your actual final destination. So when programming the FMC you should ALWAYS put in an arrival runway and procedure while at the DEPARTURE gate. This is the way it is done in real life. Yes, weather/wind can change during a flight and therefore arrival runways and even STARS can be altered. That is why you can change them in the FMC. If the computer knows what the expected entire route is, it can compute the things you want as a pilot.
    1 point
  11. You're right, I had the same issue and the aircraft started to accelerate at about 10200 MSL, even with my ACC ALT set at 11000MSL
    1 point
  12. Also ich hatte ja das Problem mit EDDM auch aus dem MS internen Store. MS legt die 3rd. Party Add Ons die über dem Marketplace geauft werden NICHT im Community Folder ab sondern verwendet einen anderen Installationspfad zu Official. GGF ist das das Problem. Wenn es nicht geht fordere Rückerstattung an. Ich habe das bei EDDM gemacht ( gleiches Problem wie bei Dir ) und hatte mein Geld innerhalb weniger Minuten zurück. Somit alles fein. P.S. Natürlich kaufe ich jetzt erst mal gar kein Add On mehr für den MSFS aus dem internen Store weil ich keine Lust habe dieses Problem ständig zu haben. Gruß Lars
    1 point
  13. Works perfectly in VR! Thank you so much for this fix. No we can fly the CRJ in VR again :-).
    1 point
  14. Don't know why you got downvoted, but that's an excellent observation. There are indeed lots of bug reports and issue reports for the CRJ. Some are wildly outdated, some are recent developments, all are in the forums. So when I encounter a new bug, I ask myself the following questions: What exactly is this bug I'm experiencing? Is it truly a bug or a system failure, or am I using the product in a unintentional manner? What exactly is causing this bug? Bug reports are great, but if there's no reproducability, it's useless to the developer. What are some key words that could be used to search for this bug in the forums? The last one is particularly important. Some obvious keywords can be "TCAS" which every simmer knows, or "Seatbelt Sign". Those are easy enough to look up and see if you can find a relevant forum topic title. However, some aren't so clear: The Audio Control Panel (Left seat, Right seat, and Observer) initializes with all the knobs in the on position except the Com1 knob, which is selected by the mic knob. Naturally, this screams to me that the boolean for the volume knobs in the ACP is reversed in the aircraft initialization. So now the question: What do I SEARCH for? Do I believe simmers will know the correct term for this panel? ACP? (too short to search) Audio Control Panel? Volume Knobs? Com2? Radio? (This one pulls up too many results) Once I ascertain that no one has already posted that topic, I then go through the effort of documenting the conditions that causes it: have I tried recycling the default state? Have I tried different default states? Have I tried quickloading states? Have I tried loading on a runway? In the air? At the gate? Then of course there's the issue of tangentially related posts: maybe they're related enough that the developer notices the issue, but maybe they haven't noticed: I found that if I move my joystick fully forward, all the screens in the CRJ hang entirely. I found a forum post which was about screen freezes, but the joystick wasn't mentioned. Should I post in that topic or make a new one? And then after all that, I have to document all my observations: what the issue is, what's supposed to happen, what happens instead, what's causing it, what I recommend as a potential fix (if possible), all with pictures. This is time consuming, and it can be disheartening to hear silence afterwards and see it not go anywhere. Eventually, it has gotten to the point where I see a bug nowadays and go "eh....screw it I'm just gonna fly, they probably know about it". So hopefully Mathijs' proposed solution this week can help resolve that and bring the enthusiasm back!
    1 point
  15. A few caveats. 1. Please SEARCH about the "bug" that is about to be reported to make sure it is (a) really a bug and not something that is being done wrong (this happens FAR too often) (b) see if the bug has been reported and if there is a solution already in place. 2. Even if you are not the only ONE you may be the only FEW and that might mean that there is a common system/user issue and not a bug. 3. Anyone's bug can be put on the "back burner" for any number of reasons such as there are more important bugs to fix. One good example would be "BUG REPORT-when I open the door half way instead of all the way and it is 23 minutes before sunrise or 17 minutes after sunset, there are two pixel artifacts that should have been caught by the developers. FIX THIS NOW". This is probably an at best "back burner" issue. 4. Remember, the folks at AS and the developers get and like everyone deserve time off. Don't expect or worse demand attention on Sunday. Watch football or go outside and play and wait for Monday. I have flown in excess of 150 hours in this version of the CRJ. I have had ZERO issues that I have not been able to fix myself (except for the ASOBO induced update crap). Not that I don't have issues, I just care less about them than I do flying and having fun. Also, if something is posted that is deserving of a facetious or sarcastic comment, don't be surprised when you get one.
    1 point
  16. I have the same problem. The snowflake just won’t appear.
    1 point
  17. Looking forward to it! Anything helps that makes me remember I’m not just screaming into a void!
    1 point
  18. Theres videos on youtube from LesOReilly He's THE Spad.Next expert around here Oliver
    1 point
  19. Hi @WinterHuntsman, I do not have the CRJ, but I flew the Twin Otter very extensively (it was even my first Payware Aircraft) in FSX. Although I did not touch FSX for a few years, I remember it to be very easy to startup and operate. It flies beautifully and very forgiving. Then it gets as difficult as you want. It had a GPS if you wanted, so it was very easy to navigate. But you could also navigate just based on NDBs, VORs and DMEs (one of the built in Bendix King Units had a DME IIRC). Flying? Very easy and very forgiving. I think people also call it a STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) plane. You can do some crazy short take offs and approaches with this thing and since it is a Turbo Prop with "reversers", you can do some insane steep approaches and super short landings with it in terrain you would only touch with a Cub otherwise (found a nice example here at around 12:08 Of all the planes I flew in my MSFS days, the Twin Otter for me was by far my favourite. It is slow, yes. But if you are into Bush flying and shorter, scenic trips, this thing is fantastic. If I interpreted this thread correctly, like in the FSX Version, we will get all kind of variations (Floats, Wheels, Tundra Wheels, Skis, Passenger, Cargo, Skydiver...) of the plane, so it should be a fantastic and very versatile package. This is all from my experience of the FSX Version, I did NOT fly the MSFS version, so look out for reviews when it is out. But I expect that they nailed it again and this hopefully will become my favourite MSFS plane 🙂
    1 point
  20. Jub, sorry hab ich direkt vergessen mit zu erwähnen um welchen Airport es geht. Ich finde es eine Frechheit ein Produkt zu verkaufen was ein Haufen Geld gekostet hat um dann zu behaupten dass ein Update nicht lohnen würde, da P3D tot sei, und die Prio auf dem MSFS liegt. Ganz ehrlich? Was soll das? Wir haben alle dieses Produkt bezahlt also denke ich, dass man auch erwarten kann, dass weiter Updates und Verbesserungen AUCH für P3D5 erscheinen! Danke trotzdem für den Hinweis!
    1 point
  21. One more modeler has been moved from the Twin Otter project to the A330 one. So soon we should have some images to show.
    1 point
  22. @Dirk1981 check out this thread - I haven't been able to validate it in VR myself as I don't own the hardware but worth a try!
    1 point
  23. Hello, I search an Epic E1000 g1000 by aerobask profile for PFPX. Thanks in advance.
    1 point
  24. its looking like it's probably going to be mid september, mathjis said himself that they only had to finish the skydiver variant, he said that about a week. I'd probably expect somewhere like sep 10th or 15th but that's just speculation
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...