Jump to content

Thx1137

Members
  • Posts

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Thx1137

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Thx1137's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

64

Reputation

  1. I can't see the instruments well in that video. But I can't see you making any throttle changes nor was VS mode engaged at all so it seems reasonable that it didn't descend. You do know this aircraft doesn't have auto-throttle, right? So you know you actually have to fly the descent yourself?
  2. It is pretty easy to understand actually. The aircraft works fine unless the someone (IE: you) had a control conflict. Is that Aerosofts faults and could they be expected to know when so many of us don't seem to have an issue? It is obvious that if it works for them and it works for must of us then it is an issue with *your system*. Are they responsible for that? Are Asobo? Are you? In my opinion all three are responsible though to what extent is arguable. Given the above your disrespect for them is completely unfounded. How much did you try to actually *prove* you "did everything" as some often say. If it was working for others then clearly "not everything was done". So many people complain and assume that if there is something wrong for them then it is someone else fault, even if so many others have no issue. I don't get that. Why not try to investigate why your experience is different and try to help instead of expecting the devs to magically understand why you have an issue and so many others don't?
  3. Thank you and no sweat. 🙂 There is nothing wrong with wanting to enjoy a sim "your" way and even better if you are trying to work out what "your way" is! Non-pilots can't be expected to know what is realistic in any sense of the word. All they can do is guess and use that nasty "assume" word 🙂. The main time I really have an issue is when someone tells a plot they are wrong based on their simming experience. I find that bizarre and it isn't rare! A lot of it comes down to how and what you fly. For example. If fly VFR GA flying using paper maps and MSFS is super realistic used that way in my opinion. It just mind blowing that I can navigate all over Australia using nothing but paper maps and a my manual slide rule to make my flight plans. I do plans manually only sometimes though to keep in practice. I'll often use Little NavMap or if in Oz, AvPlan. But if you want to fly airliners then the experience is completely different. Partially because the aircraft is flown very differently (if you simulate real flying) but also because the pilots job is handled very differently (it seems to me). They are two ends of the spectrum and I think a lot of people miss out by thinking airliners are some kind of end-game. That faster, higher and more buttons is better. It is fun, I like it too, but I think the real fun and sense of achievement is the VFR GA I mentioned. Try it for two hours at 3,500 to 4,500 feet with no autopilot while maintaining navigation and altitude precision with paper maps! That is the kind of flying I always did. After a lunch somewhere I'd then fly back! Then compare that with FL270+ with it on AP 90% of the time! I like aircraft like the CRJ because it gives variety. And the CRJ in particular because it still *requires* a lot of manual skills to fly well. But my favorite at the moment is still the M20R. I'm looking forward to what the Twin Otter will bring. Especially if it has floats. More variety! 🙂
  4. Define "realistic". Do you wan a realistic plane? What does that mean? If the sim CRJ can fly like the real CRJ when inverted does that mean it isn't realistic? If you want an experience similar to the real thing then the levels of flight model accuracy and many other aspects that most simmers demand are actually irrelevant. It is why many training simulators look so basic compared to what we have. Example: I can do a nav as I'd do in real life in a C182 in the sim just fine even tough I've only flown LSA aircraft. My experience is realistic because I do the things I'd do in a real nav and treat the aircraft as I would a real aircraft in all respects. The only thing that is lacking is some of the decisions we have to make depending on weather like "I can see fog over there but it is currently seems clear at my airfield, will it fog at my field in the time it takes to get there with last light approaching? Then having to decide on a plan *before I need it* as I continue inbound". Does the 182 fly anything like the J160 or SportStar? Heck no. And it matters not one tiny little bit. The *experience* is very realistic. I expect most of us have pretty different definitions of "realistic" so that by itself really means nothing. What is it, exactly, that you want to experience realistically? For us sim CRJ drivers it is probably as simple as flying a realistic flight profile or pushing similar buttons (a tiny part of a real pilots knowledge). Are these aircraft good for that? I think most are. For the CRJ, I think the snowflake doesn't work quite right and there are other MSFS issues that prevent reliable "realistic" flying some times but those are just bugs.
  5. Nice! It isn't obvious what issues bindings can cause from my experience so it is easy to miss. Especially when the state in the cockpit looks normal. IE: The internal state doesn't match the UI.
  6. I use the Bravo without any issues so I'll just throw a few ideas out there... * Is trim assigned to an axis? Maybe that cause AP pitch issues. * Do you press the TOGA button when lined up on the runway? When I've forgotten, doing it in the air has worked OK. * Don't simply believe the lights in the MCP. An always-on switch in any of your device configs can cause the AP to not be in the correct state even if the lights look OK. I delete all settings I'm not actually using. Even a GA aircraft setting.
  7. There isn't much detail but I don't see anything wrong with that. When you engage SPD mode you are telling it to climb by modifying its pitch to maintain the speed at whatever throttle setting you have. The whole purpose of using SPD is to climb at a specific speed so it seems kind of normal for it to pitch up. After all, it is all about climbing and you can't climb without pitching up. I have no issues changing the speed for the SPD mode and have it vary its pitch to then meet that new speed target. So if you do, I think some actual way to reproduce it would be useful.
  8. "as it should"? And how should it do it? Are you flying it the way you *think* it should be flown or how it is actually designed to be flown? How can we tell if you don't actually say anything useful? So none of the tips in those few messages with the same "issue" helped? Did you even look at them?
  9. My personal opinion: PMDG - System simulation that lets you do anything anyway you want. Even if it would never ever be used in real life. Aerosoft - System simulation that lets you fly like a real pilot. They do not spend effort and money (notice the Aerosoft/PMDG price difference?) simulating aspects that are not realistic from a real-world pilots procedures perspective. Going by a manual I have it should probably hold the pitch. But seeing most airline CRJ SOPs don't even allows VS to be used on climb (going by some CRJ drivers) then I'd doubt pitch hold would be allowed either. But maybe one will chime in if I've made a mistake.
  10. Wait, there are "too many reports" so it must be an Aerosoft bug and not an Asobo bug? I'd love to know how the number of reports determines that, it just sounds weird. It seems you think Aerosoft is lying about it for some reason. I'd love to know the payoff for them to do so. Maybe, even though Aerosoft and Asobo have a partnership for this aircraft you have info from Asobo saying "no, our AP API works perfectly, its Aerosoft's fault". No? Weird, especially when Asobo talk about fixing their AP issues over the long term.
  11. Yes, a known issue that is well documented. There is a workaround so AP works again. Personally, I can only trigger a stall by climbing higher than the current weight based on CG, and conditions allows. The highest I can get with any safety at max-weight in the 700 is FL370. With some care I can get to FL390. After that it gets easy to stall and certainly is not safe. Have a look starting from:
  12. In Australia I've read that Airservices Australia wanted to decommission all but 165 navaids Australia wide that are to be a backup network in case of GNSS failure. So, not a lot and it is only for approaches. Decommissioning started for us in 2016. It was to finish in 2024 but I've heard that has changed but not sure how. Many may not realize that Australia is comparable to the size of the USA in land area, though we have less than 10 percent of the population.
  13. Yeah, like Aerosoft says though. A known issue with improvements coming someday, I think, from Asobo. As said abouve, just tell ATC that you're unable to get to the assigned altitude. Preferably *before* the aircraft struggles! At least I have the workaround for it now. Push the yoke forward until the trim gets to a more reasonable position and the AP disconnects. All good after that. I only had the issue when pushing the aircraft too far so it isn't one I normally have a problem with because I don't normally fly at altitudes it is too heavy for. It is my job as pilot to know and respect its limitations! I wonder how you can have the issue at FL260 though. I maxed all weights and could get to FL390. It started getting hard to climb at FL370 (climbing at 0 in SPD mode) so I got an extra 2,000 feet out of it. Going for FL400 was what pushed it over the edge. I'd not do this normally but I was testing, I doubt it is something a real pilot would try to do! What was your SPD mode speed set to after 10,000 feet?
  14. Sweet, I might recommend that it would be good to add a summary of the info in this post to the FAQ. I don't think it was there already. Sorry if I missed it! I suspect quite a few people have the issue but don't describe it in the same terms so it would be good if members can says "Have a read here...", to get a more concise summary of the above info.
  15. Thanks for the post. Yeah, I did it three times in a row. I have video of some of it. That is why I did a hands off test with no AP. So I could be absolutely certain the trim was OK. But as soon as AP was enabled, you can see it climb up until it hits the stops again. As soon as it hits the stops, it starts coming down but not quick enough to avoid another stall. Not unless you force the nose down. The sudden "give" was an interesting part. It is how I expect the yoke disconnect to work, apply pressure then all of a sudden the AP disconnect and the aircraft establishes itself based on yoke position. The issue is that I had the yoke almost full forward while the trim increased to 15 then came back down, maybe 30 seconds? Then the disconnect happened once the trim was near where it should have been. It flew fine again after that. In a nutshell. 1. On a stall the AP SPD mode does not function properly at all no matter the AP buttons I toggle on/off. IE I tried to re-setup all the AP panel to see if a light was on but not actually engaged or something. 2. Enabling AP, even with the aircraft stable, caused the trim to climb to 15 until another stall occurred. 3. Full yoke (Honeycomb Alpha) forward on #2 did not disconnect the AP. 4. On re-enabling the AP in SPD mode, the stab trim insisted on going to 15 before coming down again. No matter the current trim setting (flying level with hands off). For SPD (at minimum) to work again, full stick forward was required until the AP itself moved the trim to the appropriate position. Once there it would disconnect the AP. The AP would then function normally on re-enabling. I think I caused the initial stall while trying to get another 1000 feet, possibly using VS when the aircraft really was already at its ceiling. This is the bit I'm not 100% sure about.
×
×
  • Create New...