Just speaking from experience…
Haha well I’m Dutch. I think Matthijs Kok is too? It’s a Dutch name anyway but German and Dutch are of course closely related. Anyway, it sure is true about our nation. We are very often described as very very forward/direct. Germans, in general, are mostly named for being very polite and correct (and humorless, of course). At least that’s how they’re generally regarded in The Netherlands.
Ah well. Overall you should of course not talk down your customers and at the same time customers shouldn’t bother developers with uniformed issues. I really think that’s a bit new with this new market… old simmers were used to figuring a lot out ourselves because Microsoft never looked back at us after FSX. We just had to hold it all together with a ton of very expensive addons and confusing tweaks.
I’ve not found the Dutch quite as direct as the Germans, maybe that’s where the humour comes in! I’ve seen quite a few colleagues get a bit upset after speaking to some of our German colleagues, if they think you’re wrong then they will tell you, usually very bluntly. I find it quite refreshing, but then I’m not sure I would appreciate that kind of response if I’m having a problem with a product.
1 Like
I think it’s worth getting back to the original topic - Aerosoft CRJ bugs.
Have they all been resolved or are people still having problems?
If we can catalogue issues that still exist we might be able to get them resolved.
So if you have a CRJ issue lets add it to the list and if you know the solution, please post (even if you’ve done it too many times already)
Let’s get the CRJ fixed if it’s not already.
Only issue I really see with the CRJ is STAR and SID problems, where there can sometimes be gaps in the flightplan which can totally throw the AP. Often seems to happen with tight turns.
I’ve not figured out if this is something to do with the Navigraph data being used, or just a general problem with the pathing in the CRJ.
Yeah you’re right.
Well I’m not experiencing too many issues that aren’t platform-related. I would however like to make a suggestion if this forum too gets forwarded over there:
The switches could use a brush over. The animation and clicking is all a bit static to me.
Other than that I’m just very much looking forward to the terrain and weather radars but I know that’s not only up to them and is probably on top of their list too.
1 Like
With regards to this issue I’m under the impression to have a solution around this. When I use Simbrief to create and export a flight plan, I cut out the SID/STARS from the suggested route.
When I only import the route like this, it seems fine to select sid/stars in the FMS. So my guess is that’s more a ‘rewrite issue’ than any thing else. Or said differently: adding SID/STAR isn’t an issue but rewriting an existing one in your FMS is.
2 Likes
Ah ok, I’ll give that a try when I next take the CRJ for a spin. Thanks!
2 Likes
what for a stupid dicussion, why you not do this in Aerosoft forum
While they might be arrogant, I do have to say other than the ILS issue, the CRJ is overall a great product and most bugs can be lived with. However, something like basic ILS functionality is a must, and I won’t buy the CRJ900/1000 if they can’t get that right. I will however purchase their Twin Otter, as it looks incredible and my overall experience with the CRJ has been great. I won’t continue to buy or support the CRJ though if they can’t admit and fix the ILS problem. And if they become too arrogant and dismissive of customers, I might consider not buying from them again after the Twotter.
The advisory VNAV is still not working properly when you input the STAR during flight or change a runway during the STAR. It almost never calculates the correct rate RoD.
And - I don’t know if it’s sim related but I haven’t experienced it to this extent in other aircraft - sometimes at high altitudes it would struggle to keep it’s state of energy as I would sometimes lose altitude AND speed (without stalling), even though engines do spool up.
In the real aircraft pilots use the RoD advisory from the ‘Direct To Page’. Trick is to first look at your legs page and identify a waypoint with a fixed altitude, such as for instance 16000 or 13000B, then go to the Direct To Page and use the advised RoD from there.
Mind that the calculation is based on the VNAV-Page descent speed which is standard at M.074. I usually cruise the aircraft at M.081 and descent at about that rate too, little below. For me this procedure has been dead on every time I take her down.
The FMS is of course a lot less complete than any given Boeing FMC but this is a real world procedure. There’s a fun YouTube around with a real CRJ pilot flying it in the sim together with a funny Brit. For me these two hours were extremely useful, giving a lot of insights on where the plane differs from what you usually fly in the sim. Good advice on engine performance too.
As for the drop in energy at higher altitudes the real world pilot explained that they usually don’t cruise that high in a CRJ as they’re mostly flying on short routes. Very often they don’t come above FL330 or FL350 max. Also, he mentioned that when the plane doesn’t go up a lot more without losing energy there’s really no shame in contacting ATC and requesting a lower cruise altitude.
3 Likes
Only time I’ve seen a performance issue at altititude is if I’ve left all of the anti-icing devices switched on. Took the CRJ-550 upto 41k ft before it started running out of puff.
Haha yeah that anti ice is a big drag too. Can be compensated by the High Engine Rate switch close to the throttles during climb though. Giving it a little extra punch.
Real CRJ Pilot here… Nope, we do not use the RoD advisory from the direct to page that often. The main feature we (in my company) use for that is something that they simple seem to refuse to implement ever since the CRJ X for FSX/P3D… RoD in the MFD VNAV Window.
At M0.81 you are right at the limit of RVSM certification and burning a whole bunch of extra fuel for little gain. Usual cruise would be more like M.77/.78.
And basically any flight longer than say 40-50 minutes should be going above FL350 simply for fuel economy (depending on winds, but in my experience, flying lower is actually more rare than higher).
And the High Power Schedule switch is not to be used by pilots, lol. Maintenance only, it basically puts APR power at the TO/GA detent.
The Aerosoft CRJ is still quite flawed in my experience. Just for fun, open reverse in flight and monitor your engine instruments. With reversers disarmed. Sim limitation they’ll claim I’m sure. Sure, won’t happen in real life, but in the sim without an idle/reverse detent it is easy to accidentally select reverse. Climb performance is quite unrealistic. PFD has been proven inaccurate and hard to read but they have flat out refused to correct it. Ghost waypoints with direct to’s. Not able to follow VOR radials. Completely messed up ETA and fuel calculations (supposedly fixed soon). Random incomplete aircraft states on loading a flight with it from time to time, where nothing works and reloading the flight is the only option to fix it, sometimes multiple times. Refusal to look in to it because “tens of thousands of people do not have this issue”. Incorrect engine startup sequence. PERF INIT weight inaccuracies. Holding inbound courses not being flown. More issues still open, list is getting too long.
Haven’t heard much from Mr. Hartmann over on their forums lately either, he might be a bit too busy to actually fix any of these issues since I understand he is doing the ATR for Asobo?
8 Likes
Wow … and “some” persons say people should not complaint because most bugs are gone huh 
Thats an easy claim to do if they fly the plane wrong and di not know on the ins and outs 
Another nice one (since DAY ONE)
Flightpath on display says right turn to intercept radial … so the CRJ goes …. LEFT 
While I appreciate your explanations you seemed to have missed the point that I am indeed sort of familiar with aircraft performance and also the Collins FMS IRL. Since we’re throwing around with professions here, I am an aerospace engineer (not for Bombardier but that shouldn’t matter).
And the VNAV advisory is as I said flawed when it comes to entering/changing STAR during flight (which may happen, especially in Europe where some runways have assigned STARs) and RW during STAR. If I selected everything before takeoff and stubbornly fly my route without worrying about weather (or worse, ATC on VATSIM) I’m sure you’d think everything is fine. And BTW, those ‘tutorials’ from this real CRJ pilot over at Aerosoft, while good for a start, were not at all realistic imitations. Also, I’m pretty sure you fly the CRJ higher than F330 (they are used for close to 3hr flights in the states after all) plus the service ceiling I think is FL400. So the plane has to be able to manage that (given the weight and all is OK).
Again, I see you are trying to defend AS with everything you have, which is fine. I’m glad you enjoy the bird and I like them IRL, too. But there is no way this thing still hasn’t a long way to go until it’s remotely usable like IRL (and I don’t mean fuses working or faults or whatever some higher fidelity aircraft have - just the basics). A/P still is flawed, I am pretty sure that even with the lesser capabilities of the Collins FMS the plane should fly a route along its lines. Period.
To add to that list: have you ever tried flying a hold? good luck with the accuracy. If an actual CRJ were so off course during a hold you’d hear nothing but TCAS warnings
I hope Aerosoft decides to fix these, I didn’t realize there were so many issues. I know it doesn’t track turns well still, cuts them short then chases its way back to the PFD flight line. Floats when adding flaps on landing and looses the ILS glide slope, then chases its way back to the glide slope but almost always overshoots it and ends up well below the glide slope. Maybe I won’t be spending more on the 900/1000 afterall… one crj550/700 with issues is enough for me.
1 Like
You and Noobtastico both raise good points with regards to limitations in this phase of development. However to me these issues don’t constitute as bugs. They are limitations in design that Aerosoft is somewhat known for: delivering a pretty good aircraft that is very good looking for a reasonable price. That’s what this CRJ resembles too.
Bugs would be the horrible throttle issue that the previous version suffered from. Or the ILS being off for too long and sluggish along the way down. That’s things you try to put in there and then not working due to bad programming: a bug. Limitations as described above, to me, is just a lack of ambition. For that you’d have to go over to PMDG, FSLabs or now Fenix.
With regards to the aircraft not following its programmed route I haven’t experienced this anymore ever since the last update. Then again I haven’t had it in a holding pattern yet and I don’t expect it to execute that flawlessly, mainly because I don’t thrust this type of basic autopilot to do very well. Holding patterns in general are quite complex to autopilots, even a PMDG 777 can sure struggle on that. That’s not an excuse in itself by the way, I just figured this Aerosoft version would not be able to handle it well. Same goes for the SID/STARS but as written above, for me it works as long as I don’t import them with the original flight plan. It messes up when you’re rewriting them, like in the FWB Airbus, but not on original input.
Overall, and that’s where I’m coming from with this particular aircraft, I kinda like the fact that it’s different than I’m used to in the thousands of hours in PMDG’s products with complex (and very complete) Boeing machinery. I was looking for a new aircraft to fly, something requiring more piloting and this model of the CRJ sure delivered with it’s rather basic autopilot functions. I use it on short hauls/one hour flights, fly a lot of it manually and mostly engage the autopilot for the D&D part of operations. I do get however the points of Noob where you’re coming from the original and missing limitations in software design that are just off and aren’t even that difficult to fix without slamming a PMDG logo on it. It would sure be bonus if they’d come around and fix that. I think it was never intended as a ‘study level aircraft’ but these things mentioned aren’t the type of things that would be that terribly difficult to fix. It’s just not something I’d constitute as bugs that are left unfixed, they’re lose ends and you can have a fair debate on quality vs. pricing to that regard.
Was the original Aerosoft CRJ for FSX/P3D more complete with regards to the aforementioned functions? If so, I’m sure they’ll fix these too. If not, this is the level of depth you’re gonna get for this price.
2 Likes
OK, now you got us on the same page.
I stopped agitating about the shortcomings of MSFS addon planes anyways and just went back to my favorite, the 757.
I am sure over time when the likes of PMDG release more stuff I’ll be back and raising more concerns about airplane functions 
I mean, I like the button pushing procedure thing a lot, maybe there is something wrong with me
1 Like