Jump to content

What is going on with the CRJ update?


Recommended Posts

Thank you, @Secondator -- I greatly appreciate finally receiving some real communication from Aerosoft. I'll wait for the full release notes to cross-reference with my long list of issues, but I do have questions relating to two of the items you specifically mentioned:

  1. MFD DATA fuel predictions being completely off

    Will this also resolve the issue with the TOD time estimate on the MFD getting stuck? This value currently displays correctly on the PROG screen of the FMC, but usually stops on the VNAV section of the MFD after reaching the final fix prior to the TOD.
     
  2. DIR TO functions (including DIR INTC

    Hallelujah -- this is one of the issues that irritates me the most. I'll be happy if going direct eliminates the phantom waypoints, but I'm curious to know if you've also improved the advisory VNAV so that it correctly shows the altitude restrictions on the arrival rather than the calculated descent path. I'm struggling to find the video, but this is something that a real-world CRJ pilot called out on his largely positive review that Aerosoft posted not long after release.

Also, I'm not super optimistic about this request, but is there any hope of increasing the simulation depth a little bit? I don't particularly care about failures and am fine with Aerosoft's stated objective of accurately simulating normal operations, but I think there's room for improvement while abiding to that principle; I feel that you should have to do things correctly to get the aircraft to behave correctly. For example, the nosewheel steering and hydraulics switches are currently just for show and it's possible to taxi and fly the aircraft perfectly fine without turning them on. I think wiring these types of functions up, even in a relatively simple way, would significantly enhance the experience.

 

Overall though, I'm pleased to finally get a meaningful update. I've often said that I think the CRJ is about 85% there towards being a great plane, but that the bugs and omissions can be extremely off-putting -- hopefully the upcoming and future releases make a noticeable difference. I'm glad to hear that this aircraft has been a financial success for you and hope that it makes you eager to invest further into it and maybe go a bit further than you've been able to go in the past while serving a much smaller market.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Secondator said:

This picture includes two of them if you can spot them. But the main thing is that MFD fuel predictions are more sensible now

 

I'd love to agree, and I hope the update turns out great, but 160nm to go on a predicted 120kg of fuel does not exactly seem sensible to me yet.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering if this update gets even further delayed, would you consider releasing the components that are functional and stable (ie - the weather radar)?   Also, any chance you will resolve the issue with being unable to select any of the ILS landing HGS modes (or explain to me what I am doing wrong because I'm unable to get any of them to work)?

 

Thanks for the latest info on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
vor 19 Minuten schrieb jay jay:

Just wondering if this update gets even further delayed, would you consider releasing the components that are functional and stable (ie - the weather radar)?   Also, any chance you will resolve the issue with being unable to select any of the ILS landing HGS modes (or explain to me what I am doing wrong because I'm unable to get any of them to work)?

 

Thanks for the latest info on this. 

Hi,

 

the update is NOT about a weather radar as this is not yet available in the wasm environment. Joukas first screenshot shows the newly implemented working terrain radar.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BenBaron said:

Hi,

 

the update is NOT about a weather radar as this is not yet available in the wasm environment. Joukas first screenshot shows the newly implemented working terrain radar.

Great, so would you consider releasing the working terrain radar (and anything else that has been verified as good to release) as a stand-alone update if the complete update drags on even further?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Markowski said:

Thanks guys for the very in depth write up on what's happening behind the scenes.

Seconded. Refreshing to get this type of look. To be honest, as a first time AS customer I haven't been impressed with the level of attention given to this module, but if you or your colleagues were put in positions to give more regular update posts like this, I would be a lot more likely to change my tune and buy Aerosoft products in the future.


@Secondator can you speak to the plan for the CRJ in terms of iterating on this update? Last update cycle (which was also the first update cycle), certain fixes were made to the CRJ, but other things were left broken or unimplemented. Fairly immediate feedback came into this forum, but as you know, here we are in June of 2022 and only now are these things being acknowledged and addressed. It took a long time, as you said. Is there a plan to "reassess" after this patch release, including dedicating resources to this project in order to give it it's due attention? Having your write up validate the folks who come in here to give feedback is great to see, I hope that you can keep being a part of this CRJ project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Developer
13 hours ago, jstnj said:

(which was also the first update cycle)

The version numbers and the change log say differently, but whatever...

 

One word on the weather radar: This can not be implemented before an SDK update for Sim Update 10 is released which gives us access to the functionality. For the recent Sim Updates, the SDK has been released between a few hours and a few days after the Sim Update itself (I'm not talking about the beta but the actual final Sim Update release). That means that there can't be a weather radar update until after this date. How long after this date depends on how complex the integration is going to be. For now, I am unable to give you any estimate for this.

 

On future updates: Yes, there will be future updates, but it's too early to talk about features or release dates.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
20 hours ago, Aplato said:

Will this also resolve the issue with the TOD time estimate on the MFD getting stuck? This value currently displays correctly on the PROG screen of the FMC, but usually stops on the VNAV section of the MFD after reaching the final fix prior to the TOD.

 

As of this time on the very latest beta, it's not yet fixed, and was actually just recently brought up again by one of our beta testers. It's however on our scope. Need to do a bit more investigation on this first.

 

20 hours ago, Aplato said:

but I'm curious to know if you've also improved the advisory VNAV so that it correctly shows the altitude restrictions on the arrival rather than the calculated descent path. I'm struggling to find the video, but this is something that a real-world CRJ pilot called out on his largely positive review that Aerosoft posted not long after release.


It is something that is known as well, but for now we decided to leave it out of scope for this update.


                       

 

20 hours ago, Richard Dastardly said:

Has rewriting LEGS sequencing fixed any LNAV issues anyway? some of the problems seem to have stemmed from the FMS prematurely stepping forwards & then the aircraft having to correct & overshooting.


For this I'll quote myself from the original post:
 

21 hours ago, Secondator said:

As I promised to be as open as possible, I am afraid to reveal here that there will not be any LNAV related fixes on this update, which I know some of you are eagerly waiting for. We are aware of these issues and plan to work them out eventually. But they require deep dive into the code as well changing some of the fundamentals, and we did not want to delay this update any further.


                       

 

17 hours ago, jay jay said:

Just wondering if this update gets even further delayed, would you consider releasing the components that are functional and stable (ie - the weather radar)?   Also, any chance you will resolve the issue with being unable to select any of the ILS landing HGS modes (or explain to me what I am doing wrong because I'm unable to get any of them to work)?


I guess you mean the terrain "radar" that is previewed on the screenshots. Weather radar is currently yet to be implemented and we are waiting for SU10 with weather radar API for it. That's all we can say about it right now.

Due to the way how things connect together, it's not really possible to release things separately at this point. The product code has gone forward a lot since the last update, so rolling back and starting again trying to work out the features we know as "stable" would require another cycle of testing to make sure they are still stable etc. So at this point it will be just better to go forward with it. And we don't expect this update to drag too much further anymore at this point since things are starting to look more and more stable now with each new beta version there is.


As for your second question about the HGS. We are aware that there are some issues with the HGS and have been monitoring requests to improve the HGS as well on the forums. However right now we have other issues on our scope with higher priority.


     
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the update - the communication is most welcome.

 

Are you able to comment on progress with Asobo regarding the pitch trim/autopilot engagement issue?:

 

 

Many thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
55 minutes ago, Wakner said:

Thank you for the update - the communication is most welcome.

 

Are you able to comment on progress with Asobo regarding the pitch trim/autopilot engagement issue?:

 

 

Many thanks!


Yes, this issue has been addressed. There is still a possibility for a small snap between two extremes. Reason for this has been covered already fairly well in the topic you mentioned. But the aircraft does no longer become completely unflyable when engaging autopilot nor renders the autopilot completely unusable when this happens. All I can say that it's greatly improved. In normal flight it's completely unnoticeable.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Secondator said:

As of this time on the very latest beta, it's not yet fixed, and was actually just recently brought up again by one of our beta testers. It's however on our scope. Need to do a bit more investigation on this first.

 

9 hours ago, Secondator said:

It is something that is known as well, but for now we decided to leave it out of scope for this update.

 

Obviously not the answers I had hoped to hear, but I appreciate the response nonetheless. I'm glad these are both at least on your radar...hopefully in subsequent patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
19 hours ago, Secondator said:
On 6/9/2022 at 10:55 PM, Aplato said:

Will this also resolve the issue with the TOD time estimate on the MFD getting stuck? This value currently displays correctly on the PROG screen of the FMC, but usually stops on the VNAV section of the MFD after reaching the final fix prior to the TOD.

 

As of this time on the very latest beta, it's not yet fixed, and was actually just recently brought up again by one of our beta testers. It's however on our scope. Need to do a bit more investigation on this first.


Follow up on this: I am happy to let you know that this has been now fixed on the latest beta version that was pushed for testing earlier today.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this update (finally) include the rate of descent required to the next restriction in the VNAV MFD window? Has been bugging me since the original CRJ X that it is missing when the data is clearly available.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few months ago, I had posted something to air my disappointment with the lack of communication from Aerosoft on what’s going on with the CRJ.

 

This post is definitely a step in the right direction. I appreciate the openness and honesty, and I’m certain many people in the community can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that their spent money isn’t wasted.

 

Looking forward to the update when it’s ready. Remember, quality >>> hitting the target date on the nose

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

can definitely understand the difficulty in fixing/reworking the nav function and hope it gets sorted in the future.  there are some quite easy cosmetic things that could have/can be fixed that users have been asking for (but with no word on addressing them) that impact quality of user-facing functions: bad HUD symbology placements and system synoptic displays with bad highlights.  these items stare you in the face each and every time the crj fires up, whereas the nav shortcomings not so much.  getting the easy/high-impact ones out of the way is obviously the way to proceed. 

 

and everyone, what's called the "terrain radar" on the crj isn't a radar--it's a terrain awareness database just like what you have on the garmin gns gadgets.  maybe the real crj wx radar has a ground mapping function, but that's a separate thing from the wx radar that asobo will be giving access to wasm models.

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
On 6/11/2022 at 3:58 PM, CRJay said:

Does this update (finally) include the rate of descent required to the next restriction in the VNAV MFD window? Has been bugging me since the original CRJ X that it is missing when the data is clearly available.

 

18 hours ago, jstnj said:

@Secondator can you comment whether this FMS version (screenshot from a Jazz CRJ-200) is something Aerosoft is attempting to replicate for the VNAV displays?


There are some minor fixes to the VNAV display. One of the most noticeable ones is the fifth top line that has been now added to indicate the distance to TOD. However, the advisory vertical speed rate for MFD VNAV display has not been touched on this update.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Secondator said:

 


There are some minor fixes to the VNAV display. One of the most noticeable ones is the fifth top line that has been now added to indicate the distance to TOD. However, the advisory vertical speed rate for MFD VNAV display has not been touched on this update.

Thanks for the information, good sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am 9.6.2022 um 21:55 schrieb Aplato:

Also, I'm not super optimistic about this request, but is there any hope of increasing the simulation depth a little bit? I don't particularly care about failures and am fine with Aerosoft's stated objective of accurately simulating normal operations, but I think there's room for improvement while abiding to that principle; I feel that you should have to do things correctly to get the aircraft to behave correctly. For example, the nosewheel steering and hydraulics switches are currently just for show and it's possible to taxi and fly the aircraft perfectly fine without turning them on. I think wiring these types of functions up, even in a relatively simple way, would significantly enhance the experience.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for this, above, idk, it doesnt let me write anything in that quote i just posted....

 

Anyway...

First off, thanks for this update, very appreciated! I really hope the CRJ gets the love it deserves again. I like this plane and it is a nice addition to all the Airbuses and Boeings currently flying. I really want to use it more than i actually do, which is... not at all. Unfortunately.
Great to hear that she is not a legacy product already! :)

 

Second, i know Aerosofts perspective and target group. Its not the "Hardcore-Simmers". It doesnt have to be. But, you guys are doing Airplanes, and it is a bit frustrating to see that some very logical things, like @Aplato mentioned above, dont work correctly. It doesnt need to have a fully functional and simulated hydraulic system. But atleast put a "fake" system behind it, so we have to switch the switches a Pilot would have to switch in normal operations.
Please do it. I guess its a minor thing to do. But it will add ENORMLY to the immersion and want go over normal operations, which is your way to do things.

Thank you guys for the update, i cant wait for that, hope you get around the issues with not too many headaches. :)

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about the nosewheel steering thing, it's probably one of the most irksome parts of the Aerosoft CRJ currently (how the switch is basically for show.) I'm sure implementing it is not as simple as setting some "nosewheelsteering=0/1" flag in the sim, but I'm sure there are a few different ways it could be cleverly worked around (multiply rudder and tiller axis values by 0 while the switch is off? temporarily bind the rudder/tiller axes to an imaginary/non existent controller axis? that sort of thing...)

 

Anyway, thank you for opening up a bit more and letting your customers know what's going on.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...