Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am typed in the CRJ and I've flown it for years. I can fly an ILS in this plane with my eyes closed (though I don't recommend doing that!) I teach it in the sim as well. There is definitely something very wrong with how this plane flies an ILS.

 

9 hours ago, Bill Kunzler said:

I have the same issue. ILS is a lottery. It may or it may not work. 

 

Unfortunately it's not a lottery for me. It never works. Since the last update I haven't been able to get the plane to correctly fly the ILS once. I even tried something similar to what @panda180 did. I used NAV mode instead of APPR in order to only track the localizer and then I used VS mode to maintain the GS. Based on my ground speed I needed roughly -800fpm to maintain the slope. It worked flawlessly until I selected flaps 45. Once I selected flaps 45 the plane tried to level off and maintained a constant vertical speed of -200fpm and I couldn't change it. Cycling the VS mode switch did nothing. Changing the VS value did nothing. My only option was to disengage the autopilot and fly the remainder of the approach manually. This has happened multiple times even on other types of approaches; not just ILSs. Once I select the flaps to 45 the plane tries to level off. It's not a momentary thing either. It maintains -200fpm until I disconnect the AP.

 

I've found that if I delay selecting flaps 45 and maintain around 160knots then the plane flies the ILS better but it still doesn't track it perfectly. It flies a slightly steeper angle such that the plane keeps getting farther and farther below the slope. If I don't disengage the AP the plane will fly itself into the ground well short of the runway.

 

As I mentioned, there is something very wrong with this plane when it comes to the ILS. With that said though, I'm confident that Aerosoft is working on this and will get it figured out. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My friends (and I mean that).... I am closing this topic because it is counterproductive and toxic. Most people just seem to add without reading. Even more just start to click up and down votes withou

Aerosoft advertises "first complex third-party airliner" and it cannot even take a normal ILS approach. I don't know why something like that is sold if it can't even handle the most basic of things. S

This issue is not something that we are going to ignore and we do hear your feedback. With the update we tried different approach to implement the ILS in order to prevent the notorious death dive. But

Posted Images

I have the same problem. The plane does not follow the GS, but goes below, so it‘s either disconnect AP or crash short of the threshold.

 

I believe Aerosoft is by now very much aware that something is not ok with approaches. So let‘s hope for a fix in the next days or weeks. 

 

For now, Iets follow the recommendation one of the developers made somewhere in this thread:  accept this shortcoming in an otherwise awesome plane and hand-fly approaches, until the fix becomes available. Real pilots have that ability, so why not us as well?

 

Happy Landings! 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 30 Minuten, StanTGM sagte:

I have the same problem. The plane does not follow the GS, but goes below, so it‘s either disconnect AP or crash short of the threshold.

 

I believe Aerosoft is by now very much aware that something is not ok with approaches. So let‘s hope for a fix in the next days or weeks. 

 

For now, Iets follow the recommendation one of the developers made somewhere in this thread:  accept this shortcoming in an otherwise awesome plane and hand-fly approaches, until the fix becomes available. Real pilots have that ability, so why not us as well?

 

Happy Landings! 

I agree 100% Turn off the AP at 1500FT follow the PAPIS and fly manually. Trim with 700FPM and here we go. 

The Plane flies like a Cessna manually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chaxterium said:

I am typed in the CRJ and I've flown it for years. I can fly an ILS in this plane with my eyes closed (though I don't recommend doing that!) I teach it in the sim as well. There is definitely something very wrong with how this plane flies an ILS.

 

 

Unfortunately it's not a lottery for me. It never works. Since the last update I haven't been able to get the plane to correctly fly the ILS once. I even tried something similar to what @panda180 did. I used NAV mode instead of APPR in order to only track the localizer and then I used VS mode to maintain the GS. Based on my ground speed I needed roughly -800fpm to maintain the slope. It worked flawlessly until I selected flaps 45. Once I selected flaps 45 the plane tried to level off and maintained a constant vertical speed of -200fpm and I couldn't change it. Cycling the VS mode switch did nothing. Changing the VS value did nothing. My only option was to disengage the autopilot and fly the remainder of the approach manually. This has happened multiple times even on other types of approaches; not just ILSs. Once I select the flaps to 45 the plane tries to level off. It's not a momentary thing either. It maintains -200fpm until I disconnect the AP.

 

I've found that if I delay selecting flaps 45 and maintain around 160knots then the plane flies the ILS better but it still doesn't track it perfectly. It flies a slightly steeper angle such that the plane keeps getting farther and farther below the slope. If I don't disengage the AP the plane will fly itself into the ground well short of the runway.

 

As I mentioned, there is something very wrong with this plane when it comes to the ILS. With that said though, I'm confident that Aerosoft is working on this and will get it figured out. 

 

Thanks for chiming in and confirming the issue. 

 

I completely understand set backs and bugs. So long as they're actively working on it, I'm sure it will be squared away soon enough. 

 

As others have commented, maybe it is a good opportunity for us to practice hand flying approaches. 😊 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, panda180 said:

As others have commented, maybe it is a good opportunity for us to practice hand flying approaches. 😊 

 

Aww man. I thought those days were behind me! I guess I'm getting too soft. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be nice to get some feedback from Aerosoft on this. The last post on this issue by anyone seemingly related to the development is roughly a week ago. And it read as only a half hearted acknowledgement of the problem. But the FAQ section still blames the simulator despite the custom glideslope code/logic.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CRJ Forum Moderator

Dear @CRJay (and others),

 

we have dozens of replies covering the ILS/ GS issue in multiple threads.

We have that FAQ entry since day 1 exposing and commenting about the ILS / GS problem.

We are well aware of this issue and still try to find a good way of getting around it.

We have stated many times that the DEV team is working with ASOBO to find a solution for it.

 

What should we do more?

 

This issue has many names like: Death Dive or Nose Dive or even Dolphin Dive. Just do a search about it with your favorite search engine and you will get many hits.

 

I'm sure that if the DEVs will find a good solution for this issue it, it will make it's way in a update shortly after.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GEK_the_Reaper said:

What should we do more?

 

Trying to explain what the difficulties are to find a solution? Giving some progress update?

 

Most of the people have not an issue with the mere fact that this bug is present, but by the lack of communication and such, especially because there ARE planes in the sim (default and addon planes) that obviously have no issues at all following the glideslope.

 

Means: for us simmers without deep technical IT background, it is simply non-understandable that this bug exists and that it is obviously such a struggle to get around it. Communication would help to alleviate this question marks at least for us simmers.

 

But of course, that is just one way to look at. Personally I am totally ok to do as suggested and fly those approaches manually for now until you got your things sorted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Querer said:

 

Trying to explain what the difficulties are to find a solution? Giving some progress update? Stuff like good devs normally do?

 

Most of the people have not an issue with the mere fact that this bug is present, but by the lack of communication and such, especially because there ARE planes in the sim (default and addon planes) that obviously have no issues at all following the glideslope.

 

Means: for us simmers without deep technical IT background, it is simply non-understandable that this bug exists and that it is obviously such a struggle to get around it. Communication would help to alleviate this question marks at least for us simmers.

 

But of course, that is just one way to look at. Personally I am totally ok to do as suggested and fly those approaches manually for now until you got your things sorted.

 

As the lead developer for a large UK retailer, We would never give progress information about finding a bug and how we fix it, we would put out a fix when it has been tested and its ready with comments "BUG XYZ Should no longer happen" or something along those lines, they only people who would see any progress etc on JIRA would be the other devs involved and the project leads, the end users (some 12000 staff in our case) would not be informed as to the progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CRJ Forum Moderator
13 minutes ago, Querer said:

 

Trying to explain what the difficulties are to find a solution? Giving some progress update?

 

Most of the people have not an issue with the mere fact that this bug is present, but by the lack of communication and such, especially because there ARE planes in the sim (default and addon planes) that obviously have no issues at all following the glideslope.

 

Means: for us simmers without deep technical IT background, it is simply non-understandable that this bug exists and that it is obviously such a struggle to get around it. Communication would help to alleviate this question marks at least for us simmers.

 

But of course, that is just one way to look at. Personally I am totally ok to do as suggested and fly those approaches manually for now until you got your things sorted.

It is true that most of the default airplanes fly the G/S well, but those are all designed using JavaScript/html gauges and instruments, while the CRJ is the first complex add-on for MSFS written entirely in WASM. This is a learning experience for both Aerosoft and Asobo, and both companies are working together to find a resolution for this problem, but there is as yet no definite solution. The issue is most certainly not being ignored, but it is a complex problem.

 

Even though the default airplanes generally do fly glideslopes well, I have occasionally seen the default TBM gradually drop below the glideslope as an approach progresses, but not to the extent that it happens on the CRJ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CRJ Forum Moderator
vor 23 Minuten, Querer sagte:

 

Trying to explain what the difficulties are to find a solution? Giving some progress update?

 

Most of the people have not an issue with the mere fact that this bug is present, but by the lack of communication and such, especially because there ARE planes in the sim (default and addon planes) that obviously have no issues at all following the glideslope.

 

Means: for us simmers without deep technical IT background, it is simply non-understandable that this bug exists and that it is obviously such a struggle to get around it. Communication would help to alleviate this question marks at least for us simmers.

 

But of course, that is just one way to look at. Personally I am totally ok to do as suggested and fly those approaches manually for now until you got your things sorted.

 

Look at this more widely:

We have users that never had the issue --> does not happen all the time --> not easy to reproduce

We have users randomly having this issue  --> does not happen all the time --> not easy to reproduce

We have users experiencing the issue on certain approaches --> does not happen all the time --> not easy to reproduce

We have users always experiencing the issue on the same approach which we try out ourselfes and some land some dive --> does not happen all the time --> not easy to reproduce

etc...

 

So there are a plethora of possibilities and configurations that lead to that wrong GS bahaviour and each itteration needs time to be tested. Some of us report YEAH it works shortly followed by NAH...I killed everyone and we are back on square 1.

 

It's a complex issue and we can't discuss every single finding or thought of what is going on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GEK_the_Reaper said:

Dear @CRJay (and others),

 

we have dozens of replies covering the ILS/ GS issue in multiple threads.

We have that FAQ entry since day 1 exposing and commenting about the ILS / GS problem.

We are well aware of this issue and still try to find a good way of getting around it.

We have stated many times that the DEV team is working with ASOBO to find a solution for it.

 

What should we do more?

 

This issue has many names like: Death Dive or Nose Dive or even Dolphin Dive. Just do a search about it with your favorite search engine and you will get many hits.

 

I'm sure that if the DEVs will find a good solution for this issue it, it will make it's way in a update shortly after.

 

I was under the impression that since the update, there is a custom glideslope logic and code in use. It does not nose dive anymore, instead it goes for a more 'gentle' crash before the runway. Since it is now custom logic in use, it seems relevant that you guys acknowledge the NEW issue and keep customers up to date on what the intention is to fix it.

 

Unless you are stating here that it is still the same issue and nothing custom or new has been implemented, so it is all still Asobo's fault, while other dev teams manage to make their planes fly ILS approaches flawless and without this issue?

 

The passive view on this issue is a very bad look for Aerosoft in my opinion. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer
30 minutes ago, CRJay said:

I was under the impression that since the update, there is a custom glideslope logic and code in use.

You are partially right about that. There is a custom logic in place until 1500 feet above the ground. After this, the simulator's GS Hold is used. The reason for this is pretty simple: The custom logic uses VS Hold but this can only be set in steps of 100 feet per minute which is way too rough for the final part of the approach.

 

We brought the issue up in a call last Friday and stressed the importance that it gets fixed in general (not just for the CRJ). So, Asobo will look into it and find a fix, however we don't know anything about a time frame for it. Now you know as much as I do. I'm deeply sorry that I can't give you any better news.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, GEK_the_Reaper said:

 

Look at this more widely:

We have users that never had the issue --> does not happen all the time --> not easy to reproduce

We have users randomly having this issue  --> does not happen all the time --> not easy to reproduce

We have users experiencing the issue on certain approaches --> does not happen all the time --> not easy to reproduce

We have users always experiencing the issue on the same approach which we try out ourselfes and some land some dive --> does not happen all the time --> not easy to reproduce

etc...

 

As someone who programs as a hobby I completely understand that trying to find and fix a bug is not always easy but it happens to me on every single approach at every single airport on every single leg. It is completely reproducible. As it stands, this plane is currently incapable of flying an ILS. I'm about 0/35 since the last update. 

 

I have absolutely no doubts at all that Aerosoft will fix this as soon as they can. I'm sure you guys have a large number of pilots/testers helping but If there is anything I can do to help with troubleshooting it would be my pleasure. I'm a former RW CRJ pilot with tons of experience on the plane and as I mentioned there is no randomness to my ILS issue. It happens every single time.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CRJay said:

 

I was under the impression that since the update, there is a custom glideslope logic and code in use. It does not nose dive anymore, instead it goes for a more 'gentle' crash before the runway. Since it is now custom logic in use, it seems relevant that you guys acknowledge the NEW issue and keep customers up to date on what the intention is to fix it.

 

Unless you are stating here that it is still the same issue and nothing custom or new has been implemented, so it is all still Asobo's fault, while other dev teams manage to make their planes fly ILS approaches flawless and without this issue?

 

The passive view on this issue is a very bad look for Aerosoft in my opinion. 

 

You nailed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hans Hartmann said:

You are partially right about that. There is a custom logic in place until 1500 feet above the ground. After this, the simulator's GS Hold is used. The reason for this is pretty simple: The custom logic uses VS Hold but this can only be set in steps of 100 feet per minute which is way too rough for the final part of the approach.

 

We brought the issue up in a call last Friday and stressed the importance that it gets fixed in general (not just for the CRJ). So, Asobo will look into it and find a fix, however we don't know anything about a time frame for it. Now you know as much as I do. I'm deeply sorry that I can't give you any better news.

 

Now we're getting somewhere. This is encouraging. Thanks for the update. 

 

I think part of the problem from our perspective is that it's hard to imagine that there's currently no way that Aerosoft can make the plane fly an ILS without needing Asobo's help. Flying an ILS is such a basic necessity for an airplane that it seems really odd that it's this difficult to make the plane fly an ILS. 

 

Again, allow me to reiterate that I'm more than confident that you guys are being honest and doing everything you can. Aside from the ILS issue this plane is lightyears ahead of any other plane in MSFS right now and as someone who's flown this plane in real life I'm blown away by the attention to detail and work that has gone into this plane. In fact the quality of this plane is probably a double-edge sword in this case which makes the ILS issue harder to understand as a user. If it was just a poor free-ware version of the RJ I'd say "well you get what you pay for" but this plane is amazing. 

 

Regardless, I appreciate the update.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CRJ Forum Moderator
vor 35 Minuten, Chaxterium sagte:

As it stands, this plane is currently incapable of flying an ILS. I'm about 0/35 since the last update.

 

That is unfortunate for sure.

Can you give me some RWY of airports you have tested? Please provide me only default airports since some of the 3rd party airports can have issues aswell.

I will try to fly some circuits on those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Hans Hartmann said:

You are partially right about that. There is a custom logic in place until 1500 feet above the ground. After this, the simulator's GS Hold is used. The reason for this is pretty simple: The custom logic uses VS Hold but this can only be set in steps of 100 feet per minute which is way too rough for the final part of the approach.

 

We brought the issue up in a call last Friday and stressed the importance that it gets fixed in general (not just for the CRJ). So, Asobo will look into it and find a fix, however we don't know anything about a time frame for it. Now you know as much as I do. I'm deeply sorry that I can't give you any better news.

 

Great, this is the kind of update that should be given here to your paying customers. I fully understand not being able to share a lot of the things that are going on, but this was an issue where the impression was created that the glideslope logic was now custom since the update to solve the issue, yet fingers were still being pointed at Asobo. Now we can at least understand why.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hans Hartmann said:

You are partially right about that. There is a custom logic in place until 1500 feet above the ground. After this, the simulator's GS Hold is used. The reason for this is pretty simple: The custom logic uses VS Hold but this can only be set in steps of 100 feet per minute which is way too rough for the final part of the approach.

 

We brought the issue up in a call last Friday and stressed the importance that it gets fixed in general (not just for the CRJ). So, Asobo will look into it and find a fix, however we don't know anything about a time frame for it. Now you know as much as I do. I'm deeply sorry that I can't give you any better news.

 

Appreciate the update. Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GEK_the_Reaper said:

 

That is unfortunate for sure.

Can you give me some RWY of airports you have tested? Please provide me only default airports since some of the 3rd party airports can have issues aswell.

I will try to fly some circuits on those.

 

Sure thing. This is just off the top of my head:

 

CYQT (07)

CYSB (22)

CYYZ (05, 06L, 15L, 23, 24R, 33L, 33R)

KCMH (10L)

KCVG (18L, 27, 36R)

KIAD (01R)

KIND (05R)

KMEM (18C)

KRDU (23R)

KSTL (12R)

 

I have no 3rd party add-ons installed at any of these airports. And again, it happens on every single ILS at every single airport. 

 

And allow me to add to this that since I can't get this plane to properly fly an ILS I have begun using non-precision approaches and there is still an issue with those as well that I feel may be linked. Since obviously the non-precision approaches don't give vertical guidance I use VS mode to maintain the proper descent path to the runway. Usually I need around 700-800fpm down in order to maintain the path. VS mode works great until I select the flaps to 45. Once I select flaps 45 the descent slows to -200fpm and I can't change it no matter what I do with the FCP. My only option at that point is to disengage the autopilot and fly manually. Not the end of the world but perhaps it's linked to the GS issue especially considering the new information from @Hans Hartmann that mentions that the CRJ uses the VS hold function for part of the approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Root Admin
16 minutes ago, Chaxterium said:

 

Sure thing. This is just off the top of my head:

 

CYQT (07)

CYSB (22)

 

I just flown these two and while I believe I needed a bit more speed then might be needed I simply did not have problems.  KIAD (01R) was used in a videostream earlier this week and was done fully automatic without any dive. Will try to find that video.

 

Look, as Hans said we do not deny there are issues with this, but even though a lot of time was spend on them it seems we run into limitations that are harder for WASM add-ons compared to XML/Java add-ons. Not the only point this happens because we also can't get charts etc in the WASM sandbox. 

 

Personally I am not too bothered about this issue because I know Hans and Alexander will do all they can to alleviate it as much as possible. In the meantime I pretend to be a pilot and simply land the aircraft manually. That's what pilots do.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Chaxterium said:

 

Sure thing. This is just off the top of my head:

 

CYQT (07)

CYSB (22)

CYYZ (05, 06L, 15L, 23, 24R, 33L, 33R)

KCMH (10L)

KCVG (18L, 27, 36R)

KIAD (01R)

KIND (05R)

KMEM (18C)

KRDU (23R)

KSTL (12R)

 

I have no 3rd party add-ons installed at any of these airports. And again, it happens on every single ILS at every single airport. 

 

And allow me to add to this that since I can't get this plane to properly fly an ILS I have begun using non-precision approaches and there is still an issue with those as well that I feel may be linked. Since obviously the non-precision approaches don't give vertical guidance I use VS mode to maintain the proper descent path to the runway. Usually I need around 700-800fpm down in order to maintain the path. VS mode works great until I select the flaps to 45. Once I select flaps 45 the descent slows to -200fpm and I can't change it no matter what I do with the FCP. My only option at that point is to disengage the autopilot and fly manually. Not the end of the world but perhaps it's linked to the GS issue especially considering the new information from @Hans Hartmann that mentions that the CRJ uses the VS hold function for part of the approach.

 

I normally manage to follow the glideslope rather well. When the aircraft dips too much is because I allow it to loose too much speed, which is very, very easy to do. It'll decelerate very quickly in the flare, so you shouldn't drop under your landing speed +10-15 until you flare. If you shed too much speed too early, I'm fairly sure even the real aircraft won't follow the glideslope, because doing so would lead to a stall. 

 

Also, as far as I know, you should be fully configured (IE: full flaps and gear down) before you start your final descent on non-precision approach. the last two stages of flaps will severely influence your descent angle and speed in pretty much any aircraft, so dropping them when you have already begun your VS descent will lead to overshooting, and it's likely too late to correct. Even if you managed to correct, it will lead to a destabilized descent which is not ideal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...