Deputy Sheriffs Popular Post Secondator 643 Posted June 9, 2022 Deputy Sheriffs Popular Post Share Posted June 9, 2022 Hi all, This will be a long post diving deep into what has caused the delay with the latest update. Here is TL;DR: We are extremely sorry for the long break between updates and can understand the frustration with no real progress updates what is going on with the product. We have been working on the next CRJ update since the start of this year. With this update we have reworked some core areas in the backend code which led into taking a step back and stripping down the product into a “unflyable” state for a while. We had the first beta version in testing already in late March but got into a cycle where each beta version would reveal new issues that had to be addressed before we could think of releasing the update. Earlier this week however we made some very promising progress. We anticipate to finally get the next update out by the end of this month unless something extremely drastic comes up. And then to the actual post that dives much deeper into details about this. Over the past few months the question about the next CRJ update has risen on the forum with people growing more and more anxious about this over time. And we can understand the frustration. The last CRJ update dates to last year and this has begged the question whether Aerosoft has simply abandoned the CRJ. We have failed your trust by not being able to provide an update sooner. So, I think we (I) owe you an explanation what has caused this large gap between updates and why the update is still not out. It is time for some real talk, and I will try to address this subject openly to the best of my ability. First, I want to address the question if Aerosoft has simply abandoned the CRJ and has no intentions to release any further updates. This could not be further from the truth, and we do have long term plan to support the product long until the future. I am aware that our communications to the outside should have been better as it has been rather quiet on the forum, but in this case, it has mostly meant that we have been extremely heads down in the development work itself working on the next update. The real planning process for this update started after Twin Otter release as a lot of our resources were tied with the Twin Otter until then. We had kept a close watch over the forum reports to have a good idea of issues that users were noticing with the product so that we could address these to the best of our ability in the update. Here are few that I have picked up here as few main areas (not limited to, there are plenty of other fixes as well included): VHF2 RX being unusable Terrain radar added Adjustments in flight model to calm down especially the pitch axis control MFD DATA fuel predictions being completely off DIR TO functions (including DIR INTC) LEGS waypoint sequencing Especially the last two mentioned on that list have turned out to be more troublesome than we ever anticipated them to be. When we originally started work on these areas, we had no idea how deep into the code we would have to eventually dive to get these things right. Basically, the way departure and approach procedures are handled had to be completely rethought and therefore also recoded. Depending on the airport location there can be a lot of local variation how the procedures are published. For example, in the US most STARs share the same name but can have completely different routing depending on the runway. Rest of the world mostly follows the scheme where each runway has individually named procedures. Some procedures end into a vector leg during the SID or at the end of the STAR, some have transitions that connect everything together nicely and some don’t. On a code logic level even the selection order of STAR & RWY matters and must be considered. So there simply was a lot more local variance and different cases to go through that caused us trouble than we originally thought. This is also the reason why we have not been able to push an update in the meantime with other fixes while sorting out the issues on the LEGS sequencing. Many things connect and as we were rebuilding the backend code for correct waypoint sequencing, it also meant that the product was in a state where pushing an update would have just made things worse than better. And during that stage it is extremely hard to really give any real progress updates either as there is nothing visual to show in terms of sexy preview screenshots of the new features or fixes and everything would just seem completely buggy and broken. In late March we believed we got most of it fixed and pushed the first beta version out. Ever since this initial beta version as we fixed something and pushed a new beta version something new came up that we had either missed before or that the fix simply broke some other area we had to then investigate. This is also the reason why it was mentioned few times on the forum that we had update in the works and that a beta version has been pushed to the testers but have not been able to release. Earlier this week however we made one of the furthest steps so far with almost all the issues with the new code fixed and so far, have not seen any new issues on the latest beta version either. There are still few items we want to get looked, but things are starting to look very promising and unless something extremely drastic comes up, we will have the update released by the end of this month latest. Even if this means leaving some very minor things still open for the next update. In the hindsight, looking back to some of the decisions that were made and knowing how much trouble some of the areas we have fixed would cause, it would be easy to say that things could have been done differently. And for sure we will (and have already) internally review what went wrong so that we can avoid making such mistakes again and improve for the future. I can also say that getting this now finally fixed is also a big step forward for the product overall and fixes some extremely major issues we were monitoring in this area. I hope this now reveals the curtain a little what has been going behind the scenes and why it has taken so long for us to work on this update. 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. I am sure you have lots of comments, opinions, and questions about the current situation. I am happy to answer any questions you have but please keep the discussion civilised. Jouka Ahponen CRJ Lead Tester I will leave you with some preview pictures from areas that we have been working on. First one to spot all fixes gets eternal glory and honour! Please login to display this image. FMS Legs sequence is as is after procedure selection. No manual cleanup is done/required anymore as long as the last enroute waypoint and the first STAR waypoint match. If they don't it will of course create a discontinuity Please login to display this image. Since this is still a beta there are some minor issues still also present that we are trying to get fixed. This picture includes two of them if you can spot them. But the main thing is that MFD fuel predictions are more sensible now and (VECT) leg is followed by discontinuity not connecting the last waypoint before (VECT) with the next waypoint after (VECT) anymore by default. Please login to display this image. Please login to display this image. 5 22 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Popular Post Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted June 9, 2022 Aerosoft Popular Post Share Posted June 9, 2022 And from my side.... What went wrong on communications is that I inserted Jouka as technical project lead and test lead and Joonatan as internal tester and did not ask them to communicate about it. My bad. Now clearly communicating to customers is not their prime task. That would be me or Vanessa as out marketing lead. But handling many projects it is hard to stay on top of all in the technical details of an update. I simply should have asked Jouka to explain things many week ago. As said, my mistake. The MSFS CRJ is one of the best selling projects we ever did. Knowing a bit about the market in the last two decades I dare say it is it one of the best selling FS add-ons in the last decade. Part of that is because of the timing of the release and the fact we had some serious help from Microsoft. Part of it is because it is simply a very solid product that sells extremely well to this day. Fact however, is that time is valuable and we got to assign resources to projects. Aerosoft runs 30 projects at any given moment, unlike other smaller companies that basically are able to focus on two or three projects. Sometime that helps, sometimes it bites you in the behind. It is not forgotten. Both Hans and Aerosoft stand fully behind the project. 5 5 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aplato 133 Posted June 9, 2022 Share Posted June 9, 2022 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: 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. 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Dastardly 108 Posted June 9, 2022 Share Posted June 9, 2022 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRJay 427 Posted June 9, 2022 Share Posted June 9, 2022 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay jay 93 Posted June 9, 2022 Share Posted June 9, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Aerosoft BenBaron 287 Posted June 9, 2022 Aerosoft Share Posted June 9, 2022 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. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Markowski 139 Posted June 9, 2022 Share Posted June 9, 2022 Thanks guys for the very in depth write up on what's happening behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay jay 93 Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 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 More sharing options...
jstnj 106 Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Developer Hans Hartmann 3694 Posted June 10, 2022 Developer Share Posted June 10, 2022 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. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs Secondator 643 Posted June 10, 2022 Author Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted June 10, 2022 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakner 2 Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs Secondator 643 Posted June 10, 2022 Author Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted June 10, 2022 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aplato 133 Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs Secondator 643 Posted June 11, 2022 Author Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted June 11, 2022 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. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRJay 427 Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 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. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amahran 601 Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 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 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstnj 106 Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 @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? Please login to display this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfw 20 Posted June 14, 2022 Share Posted June 14, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs Secondator 643 Posted June 14, 2022 Author Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted June 14, 2022 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstnj 106 Posted June 14, 2022 Share Posted June 14, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Sandro Vitalini 57 Posted June 14, 2022 Share Posted June 14, 2022 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandro Vitalini 57 Posted June 14, 2022 Share Posted June 14, 2022 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. :) 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molleh 20 Posted June 14, 2022 Share Posted June 14, 2022 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts