Aerosoft - The home of abandonware

[pmrobinson 9]

First, you release the CRJ, update it a couple of times, and then abandon it.

Then, you unrelease (abandon) the Twin Otter so you can cash in licensing it to Microsoft for 2024. Thats my guess at least. 

Now, you push back the release of the A330 so you can cash in on the release hype and likely abandon it after a couple of updates. 

 

Fortunately for you, people probably will still give you money. I, however, will not. 

There are plenty of other addons out there, buy them instead. 

[Mathijs Kok 135]

How does 'cashing in on the hype of the release hype' work for a product that you can't buy or pre-order?

[pmrobinson 9]

6 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

How does 'cashing in on the hype of the release hype' work for a product that you can't buy or pre-order?

Because the demand will be much higher for a product that will release native to that platform, much like the CRJ was. 
 

Don’t you work for PMDG now? Shouldn’t you be on their forums instead? lol

[Herman 1591]

On 1/23/2024 at 9:21 AM, pmrobinson said:

Because the demand will be much higher for a product that will release native to that platform, much like the CRJ was. 
 

Don’t you work for PMDG now? Shouldn’t you be on their forums instead? lol

After working with/at Aerosoft for 20 years, he can't help being connected, reading the forums here, and commenting just like any other interested person. His moving to PDMG doesn't change that.

[Mulder 0]

Got the CRJ recently before I discovered it hasn’t been updated in years, and I’m STILL trying to figure out how to solve game breaking issues that were already known in 2021 here on the forums…

 

And it seems like the default response by the devs here on the forum to the issue is “it works fine for me, have you done the tutorial”, so it’s not even worth making a post about… Terribly disappointing.

[S P 18]

Well, have you done the tutorial?

Every plane has its own quirks. If it works differently from what you'd expect, it could be either a bug or operator error. If the feature works for others, it means it is most likely an operator error. 

Several well-known YouTubers (who also happened to be professional pilots) have been posting recent flights on CRJ with a new Boris soundpack and were not seeing any "gamebreaking issues". 

Consider doing more research before making a fuss. 

[CRJay 429]

10 hours ago, S P said:

Several well-known YouTubers (who also happened to be professional pilots) have been posting recent flights on CRJ with a new Boris soundpack and were not seeing any "gamebreaking issues". 

 

Professional pilot does not equal having any useful knowledge about the CRJ... I've seen similar cases of YouTube professional pilots flying the CRJ without knowing anything about the plane or its operating procedures, and therefore having no clue that stuff is not working like it should.

[S P 18]

Professional pilots also do not plow straight through the localizer at more than 45 deg intercept angle then mash the APP button at the last moment and expect the autopilot to fly the approach for them. 

 

[amahran 608]

This argument is a bit disingenuous. Simply put, the addon has deficiencies that are well documented with no corrective action planned:

Aircraft turning too soon:

Please login to display this image.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

 

Aircraft unable to hold:

Please login to display this image.

Please login to display this image.

 

Please login to display this image.

Please login to display this image.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

Not to mention the various issues I've also noted, which have gotten absolutely no acknowledgement from anyone at Aerosoft:

But please, feel free to tell me (the one with years of experience integrating and designing avionics suites including Collins architectures) to read the manual. And feel free to tell numerous people (all of whom are observing the same issues and have demonstrated exactly how to reproduce it) that they're incorrect because you assume they didn't read the manual.

 

(FYI, I have read the manual and found errors in it regarding the HGS operation).

[S P 18]

There is a difference between submitting a well-documented bug report and spamming "I just bought CRJ today, pressed the APP button and nothing happened! Aerosoft bad!1!". 

It is important that latter do not drown out the former. 

[S P 18]

10 hours ago, CRJay said:

 

Professional pilot does not equal having any useful knowledge about the CRJ... I've seen similar cases of YouTube professional pilots flying the CRJ without knowing anything about the plane or its operating procedures, and therefore having no clue that stuff is not working like it should.

 

Here is a YouTube from an actual professional CRJ pilot showing how to properly execute an ILS approach.
Note how "abandonware Aerosoft CRJ" seems to work just fine if you do it the right way. 

 

 

Surprisingly, real flying is a bit more involved than simple button mashing. 

[Mathijs Kok 135]

1 hour ago, amahran said:

with no corrective action planned

 

 

Uhhhh... you do know Hans is working on an update right? He stated so on this very forum. And I know he is, I am seeing the work being done.

[CRJay 429]

4 hours ago, S P said:

Professional pilots also do not plow straight through the localizer at more than 45 deg intercept angle then mash the APP button at the last moment and expect the autopilot to fly the approach for them. 

 

 

You'd be surprised... And technically it is not an issue. You can arm approach from 89 degree angle. And if the mode captures, it should 99% of the time be flown properly. 4000+ hours on the CRJ, ask me how I know...

 

2 hours ago, S P said:

 

Here is a YouTube from an actual professional CRJ pilot showing how to properly execute an ILS approach.
Note how "abandonware Aerosoft CRJ" seems to work just fine if you do it the right way. 

<...>

Surprisingly, real flying is a bit more involved than simple button mashing. 

 

Ah yes, it works for someone else so the problem can not exist. The classic Aerosoft defense has rubbed off on you. 

 

2 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Uhhhh... you do know Hans is working on an update right? He stated so on this very forum. And I know he is, I am seeing the work being done.

 

The only thing we know is;

 

Quote

...that it will be a major one, that it will include the much awaited LNAV/VNAV fixes as well as Simbrief, Navigraph Charts, an updated model with a detailed cabin and more.

 

Which of the long list of issues in a previous post and in many unacknowledged bug reports fall under the "and more" part, we do not know. So whether any corrective action is planned or taken, we do not know. Would be cool if someone, say the developer, would acknowledge issues and let us know whether they are planning to fix them or not.

[amahran 608]

Wow I really kicked the hornet’s nest with my post…

 

As @CRJaymentioned, we don’t get any acknowledgment on anything we post. At some point, Aerosoft was actively doing so, and @JRBarrettwas actively engaging and letting people know when root causes were found. This behavior disappeared for no reason and we’re back to being left in the dark.

 

May I recommend Aerosoft actively acknowledge and aid their customers (instead of doing that thing when community managers only engage in threads once the OP solves their own issue to tell them that they could have read the manual, which seems very much less like community support and more like community criticism?)

 

And do you actually want bug reports or not? Because I’ve been documenting everything meticulously, but if Aerosoft is signaling that my effort is a waste of time by simply not acknowledging anything I’m reporting, I can go back to lurking and let this forum go back to being as quiet and inactive as the Twin Otter support forum. This crap takes time and makes my simming evenings take twice as long as they normally would be, and if my effort is wasted here, I’d rather do this whole reporting and feedback with a different aircraft, and help a developer that makes me feel like my time is well-spent.

 

Ball’s in your court.

[S P 18]

1 hour ago, CRJay said:

 

You'd be surprised... And technically it is not an issue. You can arm approach from 89 degree angle. And if the mode captures, it should 99% of the time be flown properly. 4000+ hours on the CRJ, ask me how I know...

So, a $30million+ real-life aircraft, flown by trained professionals, and it still can have ~1% ILS capture failure rate, essentially at least once a month.
But a $30 add-on to a computer game fails to work perfectly, most likely due to user error, and its torches and pitchforks time.  

 

I am not claiming Aerosoft is perfect, but they need to focus on fixing actual bugs, not chase user errors. 

[CRJay 429]

  

8 hours ago, S P said:

So, a $30million+ real-life aircraft, flown by trained professionals, and it still can have ~1% ILS capture failure rate, essentially at least once a month.
But a $30 add-on to a computer game fails to work perfectly, most likely due to user error, and its torches and pitchforks time.  

 

I am not claiming Aerosoft is perfect, but they need to focus on fixing actual bugs, not chase user errors. 

 

See, you are one of those for who it is never OK. If I would have said 100% of the time you would have found some anecdote to refute that. 

The 1% of cases I allude to are captures of false localizers, where essentially the plane still does exactly what it is supposed to do, but with a false signal.

 

No one is expecting perfection, but flying an ILS approach is definitely one of the basics it should get right. And who are you to determine it is user error? Why could it not be an actual bug as well? I have seen the same issue in the sim more than once, and I am pretty sure I know how to operate the plane properly. In the many linked posts above it is also clearly demonstrated no one seems to focus on fixing the actual bugs either. Anyway, enjoy making excuses for AS & HH.

[mikkel 63]

14 hours ago, amahran said:

And do you actually want bug reports or not? Because I’ve been documenting everything meticulously, but if Aerosoft is signaling that my effort is a waste of time by simply not acknowledging anything I’m reporting, I can go back to lurking and let this forum go back to being as quiet and inactive as the Twin Otter support forum. This crap takes time and makes my simming evenings take twice as long as they normally would be, and if my effort is wasted here, I’d rather do this whole reporting and feedback with a different aircraft, and help a developer that makes me feel like my time is well-spent.

 

Ball’s in your court.

 

I hope you'll get a sincere reply to this. I see the effort you've done, and hope it's appreciated.

[fsimonline 1]

To put it another way: I fly on vatsim, but not with the CRJ, because on vatsim I need a plane I can trust. The CRJ is for me like a beautiful box of chocolates. When I open it, it‘s empty. I hope, aerosoft is able to repair the bird.

[snglecoil 12]

I don’t have the numbers, but I’d take an educated guess that in the world of ATPs, the CL-65 is one of the most common types held by ATPs given that so many fly/flew it at regional airlines. It’s pretty easy to spot someone with “insider knowledge” … if you are on the inside as well. Otherwise, I can understand how it would be natural to be skeptical and/or write off a genuine observation of a virtual airplane as user error. 
 

My observation is that type rated pilots have submitted detailed and accurate feedback on where this plane can and should be improved. I’m disappointed that the developers have chosen not to be more transparent with their plans and progress. I’d like to think that they are working with people with significant and meaningful experience in the plane to correct inaccuracies, but alas they have chosen a different approach. 
 

Perception of “abandonware”, deserved or not, appears to be based on past behaviors. Much like financial markets, past performance is no guarantee of future returns…but if behavior is a language, what is it telling me? 
 

I’m looking forward to the update when/if it comes. And if it never comes, I’ll be disappointed, but life moves on. The naysayers will have justification for their predictions, and everyone will have an additional datapoint on which to base future purchasing decisions. Pretty simple. 

[jstnj 108]

On 4/7/2024 at 12:56 AM, CRJay said:

  

 

See, you are one of those for who it is never OK. If I would have said 100% of the time you would have found some anecdote to refute that. 

The 1% of cases I allude to are captures of false localizers, where essentially the plane still does exactly what it is supposed to do, but with a false signal.

 

No one is expecting perfection, but flying an ILS approach is definitely one of the basics it should get right. And who are you to determine it is user error? Why could it not be an actual bug as well? I have seen the same issue in the sim more than once, and I am pretty sure I know how to operate the plane properly. In the many linked posts above it is also clearly demonstrated no one seems to focus on fixing the actual bugs either. Anyway, enjoy making excuses for AS & HH.

Spot on ^

So weird when people come out of the woodwork to defend a corporation as if it is a threat to their own identity.

 

Also, it seems kinda weird to me that "S P" has never done anything on this forum besides [be rude to people and bootlick Aerosoft] since they created their account.

 

Thank you for the reply, Hans. Just ordered the CRJ bundle and will wait patiently when the update is done. 

 

Good job little soldier!

 

...If by

wait patiently

you mean

berate people asking for information and clarity

then you nailed it @S P!

[amahran 608]

On 4/7/2024 at 4:43 AM, mikkel said:

 

I hope you'll get a sincere reply to this. I see the effort you've done, and hope it's appreciated.

I’m glad to hear my posts are actually appreciated by users here. But I don’t think I’ll ever get an answer from Aerosoft. 
 

My question to @Hans Hartmannor @Mathijs Kokstill stands, is my involvement in active bug reporting still even desired, or should I stop trying and contribute to another developer instead? Either tell me you want me here, or tell me you don’t.

 

On 4/6/2024 at 3:50 PM, S P said:

I am not claiming Aerosoft is perfect, but they need to focus on fixing actual bugs, not chase user errors. 

What the hell are the forums mods here hired to do? Pat themselves on the back for locking a thread every time a user answers their own question?

[Mathijs Kok 135]

I no longer work for Aerosoft, so I am not the right person to ask.

 

Mathijs Kok

PMDG

[jstnj 108]

On 4/12/2024 at 8:27 AM, amahran said:

My question still stands, is my involvement in active bug reporting still even desired, or should I stop trying and contribute to another developer instead? Either tell me you want me here, or tell me you don’t.

...If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

...if there's is no acknowledgement of a bug report or feature/improvement request...is the product supported?

 

At some point, the answer becomes evident. Considering Aerosoft's consistent lack of customer interaction during MSFS aircraft releases and their absence in ongoing support, what other conclusion is there to draw?

If we are not getting the feedback we hoped for, it might be worth considering focusing our efforts on developers who are responsive to their users.