JetNoise
-
Posts
142 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by JetNoise
-
-
Am 23.11.2023 um 12:40 schrieb Marius Ellenbürger:
Hey,
I am really sorry, I got ill.
We are still coordinating with Honeycomb and we´ll announce the status of the long-awaited Charlie Rudder Pedals at the same tame. Today, I am still not able to provide any details.
Trust me, you´ll be the first to be informed!
Gute Besserung auch von mir !!
Eure Website weiß anscheinend schon mehr, als man uns hier mitteilen kann / will .....
https://www.aerosoft.com/de/shop/flight/hardware/pedals/3717/honeycomb-charlie-rudder-pedals?c=2170 -
Anything new ...
Would be nice to get a status on our orders ..
Waiting since 19 Jul 2022 Order 1120447223
Thank you -
SU11 dropped, working pretty good.
We have got a gorgeus working A310, for free. Still excellent support and responsivness.
Still no news for any CRJs Update.Guys, we are getting our legs pulled, BIG TIME ...
-
3
-
-
vor 14 Minuten schrieb Richard Dastardly:
Yes, this seems awkward & may require a whole chunk of code rewritten just to find it, let alone fix it...
It does feel like it could be a gain issue, or possibly a clamping issue in a controller somewhere, although not sure quite how that relates to a 200nm leg causing oscillations without knowing the actual algorithms. If that's the case the mystery is why, in a system which is *supposedly* accurately timesliced, some people have it worse than others.
Yeah, OR it needs a ASOBO/MS FMC update (someday) to fix the issue. Pure guess, maybe some truth behind it.
Would explain the "helplessness" of AEROSOFT to fix it themselfs....
More than enough examples have been posted meanwhile (the last MONTHS) , me thinksOliver (me HAPPILY flying other airliners and GAs with NO issues !! )
-
1
-
-
vor 2 Stunden schrieb Dopster198:
Yeah, so nice thread highjack. If you read the original topic, this is expressly not one of *those* threads again, there’s plenty of them already.
If this is a reaction to another thread, you should’ve put it there.
Accepted, but i put it here for a (my) good reason ...
Not everbody is happy with the product, so "lucky you" (no offense !)-
1
-
1
-
-
Am 27.7.2022 um 21:56 schrieb Mathijs Kok:
Thanks! No matter what some comments on this forum suggest, this product still sell incredibly well and nothing suggest that to slacken. Commercially this was a jackpot and remains a jackpot.
The issue we are facing at this moment is that we have two very different kinds of customers.
- First of all the old P3D customers, these are demanding seriously complex aircraft. That is simply not always easy to deliver in MSFS. Even simple 'fixes' can have massive impact on other bits of code and that is before we even discuss MSFS Cloud and MSFS on Xbox. You will find their comments on this forum.
- The second (larger) group of customers is less demanding and actually finds the complexity the product offers seriously demanding. The amount of support they need to use the basic functions ("it does not work like the default 737") is extremely costly. These customers hardly ever use forums but use our ticket system. That is why forum comments are almost never give a correct idea about a product. At least 75% of their questions are answered in the manual.
Now, of course, we like to sort out the issue we have. Some are easy, we just need to find the time, some are complex and some depend on changes in the sim. The copy I have on my disk that depends on SU10 is not what you see and even when SU10 is released it will need serious time to get ready for release. This is not FSX that had one (two?) updates. This is a moving target where a complex add-on like this one always runs major risks of failing with an update. If you recall we had that three times. So we are following the sim, not leading.
The idea that we stopped supporting this product is just silly. Just look at the updates we did and compare it to other products. Compare our EFB to that in the PMDG 737.
So Mr. Mathijs Kok
i am really exited about the CRJ ? SU10 version you are looking at ...
Feel free to tell us about, what to expect from this update. PLS.Will it fix the issues with LNAV ?
Will it fix the sound issues reported ?
Will it fix the PITCH issues reported ?
Will it fix the wobbling around on the takeoff run in crosswind situations. (No, i don't fly with keyboard or XBOX controller - ;-))
Will it fix FMC issues when editing the FPL ? (SID/STAR, Direct to's, Inserts)
My only quotes for today:
"and even when SU10 is released it will need serious time to get ready for release"
and
"So we are following the sim, not leading"
What means serious time ?
One year has passed since release of this "study level" product and we are still facing issues present from day one. Reported here and probaply on the Ticket system, many times (from serious simmers and real world CRJ pilots, see Group One above (+ X-Plane guys, not to forget !)
"Following the Sim ..."
Just to name a few other studios, Leonardo, JustFlight, Flysimware, Simworks Studio, Milviz, PMDG, HyperPerformance Group, PMS, WorkingTitle, they seem to be able to do a much! better job.
Why this post ?
Well, a bit of reaction to this thread
Oliver Kohl, Customer
-
1
-
3
-
vor 11 Stunden schrieb Mathijs Kok:
That is fine, we encourage costumers to make buying decisions on how they feel about the company.
I have no hard feelings about the company, Sir. Just the quality, support and feedback (like this one) from you people ...
If you look at my records, you'll see that i have bought MANY !! items for three different sims over all these years, so ....
Oliver Kohl
Customer
-
5
-
2
-
-
Am 22.7.2022 um 03:20 schrieb jay jay:
Unfortunately, I've seen a dozen or more posts where well-meaning people have brought up legitimate flaws with the sim and they are completely ignored by those in charge.
So true, no fixes have been released for the "burning" issues for this otherwise nice aircraft. (LNAV mainly and pitch behaviour in certain situations ..)
I am afraid this will stay, since other (new) projects have priority.
Same for the Twotter, from what i am reading ...
IMO ! I see only excuses and delay tactics
Unless these things get (really) fixed I'll not buy ANY "AEROSOFT quality" aircraft , for sure !!
Sorry to say ..
Oliver
-
4
-
5
-
-
Back to the topic guys, pls. Otherwise some may find a reason to lock/close this one , too.
First two flights in the released SU-9 shows the same LNAV and general autopilot quirks as reported many times in various forum topics.
Flights were done with a clean community folder, stock nav-data.
I did hope for, but not expect a change comming with SU-9High time for an update soon ...
Oliver
-
2
-
-
vor einer Stunde schrieb SinusJayCee:
I bet they aren't even aware that this is in issue.
I also imagine that the fix is quite simple. They probably only need to add
on_ap_engage(): ap_trim = get_current_trim()
But maybe I'm too naive here
Here you go
-
vor 15 Stunden schrieb Mathijs Kok:
And back on topic. Please.
Yes Mathijs Kok ....
The topic has not been answered yet ...
-
2
-
-
vor 3 Minuten schrieb SinusJayCee:
Most of those aircraft use the default XP features as well. The difference is that the XP stock systems are more matured than the MSFS ones.
In fact, we are speaking of the AP, which is fare more complex than trim.
I see no issue in Asobo fixing their AP, at least regarding this specific issue. It apparently stores some old value trim somewhere and it needs to use the current value instead. This wouldn't change the behavior of the default planes, since the reactivity would remain the same. I.e. instead of jumping to an old value and then more or less instantly trimming to the value calculated by the AP, it would just start at the current value and then to the desired value. For CRJ with a more realistic trim speed this would solve the current issues, because the trim wouldn't jump to a wrong (old) value but remains at the value set by the pilot. After that, the AP can set the trim to whatever it thinks is right. This doesn't require any changes by Aerosoft.
I am "with you" 100%.
So what is ASOBO waiting for to fix this finally ?. It hasn't been in the latest x Sim Updates ....
Can't be that hard for the AP issue (s?) .LNAV is something different and i am still wondering why some simmers experience this and others don't ...
Oliver
-
What makes me feel sad is, that we got a beautiful looking hull with some minimal necessary interfacing to a default autopilot (ASOBO), a average sound implementation (is it 2 or 3 different switch sounds, some don't sound at all)
and payed 50 Euros.I've got far better aircraft simulations on X-Plane for the same amount of money.
We are speaking about TRIM here, not to mention LNAV and not to forget ILS issuesSorry, but i can't hold it... (1 year after)
-
3
-
-
vor 4 Stunden schrieb Joe Markowski:
I don't know if it was like this pre SU8, but I think my first few flights the localizer set the appropriate course automatically and I flew the approach using the FMS as the nav source without issue.
I've since then had a handful of flights where I had to do a missed approach because the course was so off I was badly misaligned, then go around and set the nav source to LOC and set the course myself. It's like it doesn't actually lock sometimes but I get a glide slope.
I'm pretty sure when it worked right I tried to change the course of the LOC and it wouldn't, so maybe the fact that on my failed attempts I could means something.
Hi, this is a bit of a different story. (ILS/VOR tracking).
This thread should be all about (simple) LNAV tracking behaviour.
NEVERTHELES another problem that needs to be looked at (again) !
Oliver
-
1
-
-
Am 21.2.2022 um 21:33 schrieb Mathijs Kok:
This issue is NOT forgotten and is being worked on. However, in contrast to what people here report, we find it very hard to reproduce reliable and to fix it it needs to happen when the debugger is running on the system. We have no explanation why this issue seems very common on some systems and not on our system, but that is simply the fact.
That other other products are being produced while this is still an issue might offend some people, but closing down Aerosoft until this issue is solved seems not the correct solution. We do not agree that this issue makes the whole project completely unusable however. At this very moment I see over a 100 CRJ's on the networks, so these people seem to be able to use the product.
But please accept that this issue is not ignored and when the cause is found it will be fixed.
Dear Mathijs Kok,
i don't know how testing is done from the Dev(s) , but since people seem to notice issues with North/South oriented flights, maybe that is a clue for your further testing.
Maybe construct some routes North/ South which have waypoints left/right of the direct North/South track or joining a North South bound track, with at least <140 deg direction changes for example.
Easy to construct with SkyVectors drag&drop.
Oliver
EKCH MONAK PEROM TAGOB PODUS Z130 MAG KILNU ANELA VESIX T105 MIQ EDDM
-
Am 22.2.2022 um 10:48 schrieb CRJay:
I would propose that the problem is not that you produce other products, but that you seem to rely on a single key developer for multiple products. Meaning one product like the CRJ is left in what I would describe as a fairly bug-riddled state by choice, while said single developer is off working on multiple other projects. Note that I am not saying it is unusable, but it is just not what it was claimed to be. Even 'normal ops simulation' is not quite possible and will have you encounter multiple issues. Add a lack of communication on top of that and it is just not a very good customer experience.
We are closing in on the anniversary of the CRJ for MSFS, but unfortunately also on the anniversary of some of the open issues of the CRJ for MSFS. And that is very disappointing.
I personally feel very disappointed too, by the current state of the aircraft and haven't touched her for quite a while now (the aircraft). And one more time it is for a AEROSOFT product.
So i am holding off on buying the Twotter and other products from AS since a few months now and will be closly watching for Updates and Reviews on this otherwise beautiful airraft(s)( And to be clear: I have tested the CRJ in a CLEAN MSFS install, many times. The screenshots, posted in this thread, are only a few made from my testing or normal flights. Not even covering SID and STAR issues i've noted, too
Oliver
-
3
-
-
I see this issue (traffic fallouts) IF:
there was a short disconnect/re-connectfrom the MS servers (on screen alert)
Then traffic alerts continue even when TCAS is turned off.
Oliver
-
1
-
-
Last comment from a CRJ Team member, on this subject, was on September 16th.
Oliver
-
vor 11 Stunden , DGH sagte:
A picture says more then 1000 words
Looks like you are flying the RENO airrace ....
If this isn't fixed soon, this will be my last plane i buy from AS or made by AS. 100%. Whatever it is !!
Oliver
-
and to continue ...
Arrival at LRSV via ILS 34, TOMUC Transition, the ND is showing a left turn intercept (wrong) while there should be a right turn at LIVNU.The aircraft followed the arc nicely before it started turning the wrong way inbound LIVNU. Pilots intervention , back to the ILS inbound -> safe landing.
NAVIGRAPH (CRJ and MSFS, latest revision (2)Oliver
-
Another example:
UKOO - LRSVDeparture RW 16 - SURA-1W ....
Oliver
-
vor 37 Minuten, DGH sagte:
Any news when this will be fixed ? Happening since release in March and still happening.
My guess, if ever, after SU6 .....
Oliver
-
Vor 1 Stunde, SinusJayCee sagte:
My point was that it could have been selected automatically without you actively choosing it. Or you accidentally selected it by choosing "via ROBEG", because the standard ILS 09L procedure starts at ROBEG. Otherwise I cannot explain the below 8000 constraint at ROBEG. Other cause may be that there is something wrong in the nav data and it contains a constraint at the end of GITE4R.
Well, you may be right on this, but that does not explain the FL340 at BIRKA as you can see on my screenshot of the FMC above....
We will have to wait for the next update and see if things have been fixed.
The CRJ is definitely not one of all my other aircraft you can leave alone for a p....
(732,733,Maddog, DC-6 ...)
Oliver
-
vor 3 Stunden , SinusJayCee sagte:
GITE4R has indeed no constraint at ROBEG, but the ROBE09 RNAV transition has. Did you accidentally select this transition or was it automatically selected? Iirc, the CRJ sometimes preselects transitions for approach.
The selected transition may also explain the strange distance value, because itcontains a vector segment, which may have confused the FMS. It has already been reported that there are some issues with vector segments. However, it obviously shouldn't display those large distances and this doesn't explain why it happened suddenly.
Quick: I didn't use the transition....
I am aware of vector segments and their "problems"
Oliver
Aerosoft One, Zagrep Update Error
in English
Posted
Hallo,
i am trying to install the newly released Zagreb Update via the AO Installer.
Error message: "There was an error checking if system has enough storage ..."
While at the same time i was able to install the latest update for the E-Jets today ...
905 GB of free space available on a 4TB SSD, checked ...
What would be the cause ? And how to fix ?
Oliver