Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

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.

 

There is no dive. The dive has been fixed. The issue is a slowly but steady descent below the glideslope. To the point that the deflection is at full scale before getting to the DH. Not acceptable for a premium aircraft such as this.

 

4 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

In the meantime I pretend to be a pilot and simply land the aircraft manually. That's what pilots do.  

 

Well of course you're going to land the aircraft manually. This plane doesn't have autoland. That's completely missing the point. 

 

The point is that there is a problem with how this plane flies ILSs. This is not an isolated incident that one or two people are experiencing. This thread has well over 120 posts. This is a big issue that needs to be addressed and rectified. It's simply unacceptable to say to your paying customers "Deal with it. Fly it manually. You're not a real pilot if you want to use the AP to minimums".

 

Trust me. I'm on your side here. I truly believe you guys are doing your best to fix this but that is the most condescending answer I've seen from an administrator on this site. I hope this attitude isn't shared by the rest of the team.

  • Upvote 9
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

  • Root Admin
3 minutes ago, flyingguitaristsam said:

I think a real CRJ pilot knows what pilots do, just my thoughts though.

 

Yes, they would disable the AP and fly the plane. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

KIAD (01R) was used in a videostream earlier this week and was done fully automatic without any dive

Just to clarify, I think the issue discussed here isn’t the dive from the first version. It’s that the plane just can’t hold the G/S and drops below it. 
 

I had no ILS working properly since the update as well. It really surprises me that you don’t have this issue at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chaxterium said:

That's completely missing the point. 

 

The point is that there is a problem with how this plane flies ILSs. This is not an isolated incident that one or two people are experiencing. This thread has well over 120 posts. This is a big issue that needs to be addressed and rectified. It's simply unacceptable to say to your paying customers "Deal with it. Fly it manually. You're not a real pilot if you want to use the AP to minimums".

 

Trust me. I'm on your side here. I truly believe you guys are doing your best to fix this but that is the most condescending answer I've seen from an administrator on this site. I hope this attitude isn't shared by the rest of the team.

 

My thoughts as well, thank you. 

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

The point is that there is a problem with how this plane flies ILSs. This is not an isolated incident that one or two people are experiencing. This thread has well over 120 posts. This is a big issue that needs to be addressed and rectified. It's simply unacceptable to say to your paying customers "Deal with it. Fly it manually. You're not a real pilot if you want to use the AP to minimums".

 

And Hans explained that.  Again, nobody is saying there is not issue. 

 

As you put words in my mouth I did not write "You're not a real pilot if you want to use the AP to minimums" I will remove myself from this discussion. I believe you very well understood what I wrote. You tried to make look foolish to make your own point. That is not the style of discussion I enjoy and does not help this issue in any way.

 

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Abriael said:

 

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. 

 

Valid point. But speed control is not the issue.

 

1 minute ago, Abriael said:

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. 

 

Yep. Partially correct. On a Constant Stabilized Descent Angle approach it's definitely ideal to be fully configured before starting your final descent. On a traditional step-down method though there's nothing against configuring a bit later. Besides, when VS mode is active, changing the configuration should have little effect on the descent rate. That's the whole point of using VS mode. Its job is to maintain that descent rate. There will be a momentary fluctuation sure, but then it should immediately go back to the selected VS. It's very easy to manage. As you slow down during the approach you reduce your VS. 

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

Valid point. But speed control is not the issue.

 

 

Yep. Partially correct. On a Constant Stabilized Descent Angle approach it's definitely ideal to be fully configured before starting your final descent. On a traditional step-down method though there's nothing against configuring a bit later. Besides, when VS mode is active, changing the configuration should have little effect on the descent rate. That's the whole point of using VS mode. Its job is to maintain that descent rate. There will be a momentary fluctuation sure, but then it should immediately go back to the selected VS. It's very easy to manage. As you slow down during the approach you reduce your VS. 

 

Yes, in a step-down approach you can configure a bit later, but you should do any configuration change during the level flight parts of it. Autopilot will try to correct, but it isn't designed to perform miracles. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Yes, they would disable the AP and fly the plane. 

Not with every flight - they would turn it over to maintenance to find out what the problem is. I've grounded it till there is a fix as it is just very aggravating to end a flight with problems.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

And Hans explained that.  Again, nobody is saying there is not issue. 

 

As you put words in my mouth I did not write "You're not a real pilot if you want to use the AP to minimums" I will remove myself from this discussion. I believe you very well understood what I wrote. You tried to make look foolish to make your own point. That is not the style of discussion I enjoy and does not help this issue in any way.

 

 

No. I did not put words into your mouth. I took your words and brought them to their logical conclusion. I took those words to very clearly mean that we need to fly the plane manually or we're not real pilots. 

 

If that was not your intention and I misunderstood you then I do sincerely apologize. As I've said many times here, I know you guys are working hard on this issue and I don't think it's being swept under the rug.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, flyingguitaristsam said:

Tracking a glideslope while adding flaps isn't a miracle though

 

In an A320 maybe not, in an aircraft less stable like the CRJ (or any similarly configured aircraft like the CJ4 for instance) it is. The last two stages of flaps increase your lift considerably, and the vertical navigation suite of the autopilot isn't advanced enough to cope. But hey, I have provided you with a solution, or at least a very viable workaround until more changes are done (if warranted). Feel free to ignore it and keep complaining. I'm sure it'll make you land better. 😂

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Root Admin
7 minutes ago, Chaxterium said:

No. I did not put words into your mouth.

 

You even put it between quotes.  That is what people do if they literally quote somebody. 

 

The problem with this discussion is that most of the people do not seem to read what is written and do simply downvote what I write and upvote what you write. Actually reading arguments seems to be a lost art.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 3 Minuten, Segwin sagte:

Not with every flight - they would turn it over to maintenance to find out what the problem is. I've grounded it till there is a fix as it is just very aggravating to end a flight with problems.

 

 

Exactly - I grounded it as well until this is fixed.

 

I enjoy flying the free Working Title CJ4 which is all in all very similar (no autothrust, similar cockpit, etc.) and does not have any of the issues described here. ILS approaches work very well and reliable which is what I want when flying on VATSIM. 

 

PS: I also agree that the tone give by Aerosoft here is really disappointing. I had several other support requests with other projects in the last couple of days and nowhere has the tone been this customer unfriendly.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, flyingguitaristsam said:

I'm not ignoring it, but you cant claim that the CRJ's flaps are the reason an autopilot can't track a glideslope. It's a sim issue, not the design of the airplane

 

I'm quite curious to hear from what level of expertise you are claiming that, considering that most CRJs have nearly no vertical navigation capabilities for a reason. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Abriael said:

 

In an A320 maybe not, in an aircraft less stable like the CRJ (or any similarly configured aircraft like the CJ4 for instance) it is. The last two stage of flaps increase your lift considerably, and the vertical navigation suite of the autopilot isn't advanced enough to cope. But hey, I have provided you with a solution, or at least a very viable workaround until more changes are done (if warranted). Feel free to ignore it and keep complaining. I'm sure it'll make you land better. 😂

No one's ignoring you. I'm certainly not. But I can tell you first hand that the CRJ is more than capable of maintaining the ILS glideslope while configuring the aircraft. 

 

As an example, I used to be based in CYYZ. Canada's busiest airport. Due to traffic congestion we were always asked to maintain 170 knots to the FAF. This meant that typically we were configured with gear down, and flaps at 20. After the FAF we would slow down to our VREF and finish configuring. The plane handles it beautifully. So while your points have some validity, they don't really account for the issues here I'm afraid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cdr Maverick said:

PS: I also agree that the tone give by Aerosoft here is really disappointing.

 

You normally receive what you give. 

 

2 minutes ago, flyingguitaristsam said:

The CRJ can do cat 2 approaches.... the autopilot has to be able to fly with flap changes on an ILS

 

ILS approach category is not an indication of what configuration changes you can make on final approach. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Actually reading arguments seems to be a lost art.  

 

Perhaps. But again, I do apologize for misunderstanding you. It seemed very clear to me what your intent was but I've been wrong before. 

 

You help a lot of people here (myself included) so I appreciate that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 1 minute, Abriael sagte:

 

You normally receive what you give. 

 

You mean all the free projects which cost nothing give better and friendlier support than the team from the 50€ paid software support? 

Not really understanding your view here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, flyingguitaristsam said:

The CRJ can do cat 2 approaches.... the autopilot has to be able to fly with flap changes on an ILS

 

Exactly.

 

Some operators (Jazz being one of them) are approved for CAT III approaches with a DH of 50. I'm sure you know this but incase other don't, in those cases the AP is required to be engaged until visual contact with the runway is made.

 

Bottom line is that the plane is designed to fly an ILS while undergoing configuration changes. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cdr Maverick said:

 

You mean all the free projects which cost nothing give better and friendlier support than the team from the 50€ paid software support? 

Not really understanding your view here?

 

I mean that the tone of some of the posts here are not exactly nice and friendly (or respectful), and they're receiving a similar response. 

 

I can't certainly blame Mathijs for being extremely fed up.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...