snglecoil

Makes sense. I’m guessing my company opts for the consistency of older versions given the diversity of models we fly and ages.

Not sure what system was used to model the virtual FMS, but the Collins FMS used in many real world CRJs is limited to 2 FIX INFO pages and thus 2 range rings.

And similarly, Is Discord the best place to report bugs? I finally figured out one of the most head scratching bugs sequencing the FMS that I’d love to report…assuming it hasn’t been fixed in V2.

If this is true, I’m shocked! SHOCKED I tell you! Too bad there were no real world CRJ drivers around to provide feedback over the past few years. Im sure that would been really helpful. /s

Surprised, yes. Pleasantly surprised, unlikely. In the absence of any communication, expectations can grow exponentially. How could they not after more than two years of empty statements alluding to some undefined update at some undefined time? So the likelihood of any update meeting lofty expectations is extremely low. We are all familiar with the concept of “under-promise, over-deliver”. This is not it. But please, I’ll be overjoyed to be proven wrong. I just don’t think I will.

“Abandon all Hope, ye who enter here” …seriously, it’s not coming.

The thought just occurred to me. If the update doesn’t come out before the end of November, I will have have been hired, trained, accumulated 1000+ hours, and upgraded to captain in an actual CRJ since the last update was released.

Yeah, you are right. I had forgotten that there is a bug that causes the plane to immediately switch to alts cap mode when you change the altitude preselect while in a different vertical mode. That’s got to be what’s going on in your video. Sorry I tried to watch your video on my phone but I couldn’t made out the text on my small screen. Now I remember why I gave up trying to use this plane for non-precision approaches. Legend speaks of a mighty developer who brings a life saving patch for this plane. As ages pass and memories fade, some say this is pure mythology but the true believers hang onto hope.

Believe it or not, that is true to life behavior. V/S mode will not descend you below the preselected altitude if you are at or above that altitude. SOP at many operators is to level at the charted FAF altitude and then prior to starting the V/S mode descent at the FAF to the MDA, you preselect a altitude higher than your current altitude then engage V/S mode to descend … unprotected all the way to the ground if you don’t manually intervene.

I don’t have the numbers, but I’d take an educated guess that in the world of ATPs, the CL-65 is one of the most common types held by ATPs given that so many fly/flew it at regional airlines. It’s pretty easy to spot someone with “insider knowledge” … if you are on the inside as well. Otherwise, I can understand how it would be natural to be skeptical and/or write off a genuine observation of a virtual airplane as user error. My observation is that type rated pilots have submitted detailed and accurate feedback on where this plane can and should be improved. I’m disappointed that the developers have chosen not to be more transparent with their plans and progress. I’d like to think that they are working with people with significant and meaningful experience in the plane to correct inaccuracies, but alas they have chosen a different approach. Perception of “abandonware”, deserved or not, appears to be based on past behaviors. Much like financial markets, past performance is no guarantee of future returns…but if behavior is a language, what is it telling me? I’m looking forward to the update when/if it comes. And if it never comes, I’ll be disappointed, but life moves on. The naysayers will have justification for their predictions, and everyone will have an additional datapoint on which to base future purchasing decisions. Pretty simple.

The CRJ is not LPV capable. Coupled RNAV approaches are flown in NAV mode. VS mode can be selected and set to a descent rate that corresponds to a derived value appropriate for a given glidepath angle (typically 3 degrees) and ground speed to approximate a descent along the glidepath to the LNAV MDA.

The CRJ is my first and only jet type rating so far, so I don’t have anything really to compare it to. But I don’t find it particularly tricky to fly from an aerodynamic sense. It’s a fairly manual plane to fly, no auto throttle, limited vertical RNAV/GPS guidance…LNAV only RNAV approaches. The 550/700/900 at least have FADEC engines so there is a little less baby-sitting the throttle settings. The 200 is a bit more hands on with throttle settings (syncing, and no TOGA, climb, cruise detents) and having to be more hands on managing bleeds and a few other things. The FMS does have advisory VNAV tools available, but it is very much dependent on the pilot to fly the profile manually. It is a lot of fun. To me, it’s a pilot’s airplane where you fly the thing vs just manage the automation. The E175 is a great plane with a lot more modern cockpit and capability. I’m told it’s much more comfortable than the CRJ up front as well. My company flies both, and I’ve heard from multiple check airman that CRJ pilots have no problem transitioning to the ERJ. On the other hand, ERJ pilots tend to struggle quite a bit more with the CJR if they have transition over. That old CRJ will make you a better pilot

A common technique at my airline is to create a waypoint 30 miles out from a destination at which we would target be 10k feet AFE. It appears that along track offset is not implemented in the Aerosoft CRJ. It would be awesome to have that capability mirror the real airplane’s system.

FWIW, SOP at my company is gens left on auto in the 7/900. CRJ FO here as well. I’ve just recently picked up this plane in the sim and am pretty pleased with most things. One thing I found, however, is that managing descents is complicated in the sim due to a difference I’m seeing in the AFCS system. Generally once we get the flashing “ALTS CAP” on the FMA, we’ll be able to dial in the next step down/missed approach/etc altitude. In the sim if you try this before “ALTS CAP” stops flashing and “ALTS” mode captures (which takes waaaay too long by the way), dialing in a new altitude immediately engages alt hold at your current altitude (not at the preselect altitude), so you have to re-select VS mode and dial your VS rate In again, wait for the plane to actually capture the preselected altitude then dial in a new altitude preselect. This especially makes non-precision approaches difficult. I’d love to see that fixed. A small wish list item is being able to input and draw a radial to a fix on from the fix page on the FMS. I see that you can draw a distance ring around a fix which is great, just not a radial. We use them all the time for to help with complex single engine departure procedures.