New Release: VirtualCol Embraer ERJ-170/175

Discussion Hub Aircraft
, ,
104

I think it’s a mix. Some “developers” can certainly be malicious, like the one that’s been caught plagiarizing. Some are possibly clueless. Others know their product is poor, but they don’t care because a certain 737 paved the way, and many realized they will make a lot of money regardless of quality. Even if they release a poor product, some people will defend them, they’ll still have a fanbase, and they’ll make lots of cash. For someone lacking any kind of pride in their craft and respect for the market, that’s an entirely acceptable situation.

I don’t know this developer well enough to know where they sit in that range, but to not realize that by selling something like this they’re selling a poor product, they’d have to lack a lot in self-awareness.

2 Likes
105

I think apathy , or disregard for quality.
i see reviews for some of the aircraft for fsx or p3d are a mixed bag, but frankly fsx/p3d quality simply wont cut it in msfs. its simply not good enough. If it was, id be flying the legacy sims
if this is the highest quality the dev is capable, then they may very well be in over their head
this “work” is a year old. im not sure it even lives up to p3d standards:

image
image1360×768 109 KB

1 Like
106

I generally shy away from sharing e-mails… but this one doesn’t contain anything private and explains A LOT. You guys can judge for yourselves.

Dear Customer,

We apologize the horrible impression you have of our model. With respect to your alert using different displays, we aren’t secure what is your affirmation or based in what information, because MSFS works with SAME CODE for all process, displays only follow RESULTS not EVENTS. If you are using an external software to test, I can not promise this work. But the inconvenience you mentioned with Autopilot is not you are indicating. We change complete the Autopilot because nor Airbus nor Boeing works with Embraer logic (at least with Autopilot setting included in panel). Additionally, we don’t modify or send code to PFD in CJ4, you can use both models at this time, and this does not affect nothing. We are only calling the gauge to send information INTO our model, NOT modifying CJ4 gauge or its behavior.

Our Autopilot does not use NAV to adjust route or follow a flight plan, NAV and APP are used as LOC mode only or manual approach for ILS (VOR/LOC). As this MSFS remove the option GPS/NAV for Airliners code, it’s necessary separate both codes. We separated with FMS button, and this is the only command used to follow FMS flight plan as it was indicated in Video tutorial 5. Just read the last comment of user @Israel, who corrected his review in simmarket when follow our indications.

“ If you wish would avoid this “abruptly down”, you need first set Altitude, VS value and button activated (not ALT) or FLCH with a speed inserted in FMS first and after modified in SPEED KNOB if you wish adjusted it, also FMS button activated too and after all this select AP. Take in mind, the button NAV is not used with FMC navigation, please use FMS. NAV or/and APP is used only to follow VOR LOC frequency or ILS, replacing the old GPS/NAV in FSX because in MSFS the airliners do not use this option now.”

The PFD used in our model was most close to real used by EJETS, for this reason we selected it because we are working in our own PFD, but this is a loooooong work, securely for the next year. However, it works very fine with our model and shows information we requested as the code ask to it. Take in mind this is a new Flight simulator, Asobo and Microsoft removed several codes used through 20 years, this obligates to all developers on market, to use several parts of them, approved by Asobo too, while we work in a new gauge. If you comment after all this is use as example AEROSOFT and their CRJ, this is not applying, AEROSOFT and Asobo are partners begging the project MSFS, they have years of distance to all of us.

Just see Captain Sim, to release their 777 with own code, they will need 2 years at least to release a decent product as they used to their clients. They only tried to provide one of their models momentarily as the new code allows, while finding a solution to the complexities of the situation. We are still experimenting and the only way to do it is on the fly. If not, would not exist more than props using as example the Diamond DA62 included as example in SDK and with analogue cockpits. Including PMDG in their DC6 recently used the GPS default in C152, why? Because create one currently is very delayed and high cost.

We don’t modify the CDU A320 for two reasons: First, we developer for Begginers and Flight simmsers it’s our mainly target, we search avoid instructions additional. If you know A320 FMS, don’t worry, you can use this, it’s the same. And second because we are obliged to respect the copyright of the Asobo, who made it, we cannot modify and add as our own, ungauged that is not ours. Same for the PFD and MAP used in our EICAS. In 737 they included the code of 787 because not all have Deluxe MSFS who include it and with the permission of Asobo they included the code modified in their product, but the logic it’s the same, they had to use what exists, there is no other way to do it for now.

This message is not searching bad relations or inconvenience with you, unlike, we search you understand why we development this product so and what is our flight plan to respect. See our Beech 99, the first turboprop for MSFS. Result of this test, our partner NextGen (my Son) created his Bandeirante working fine. Now we are working in an overhaul with all logic found for this product and securely before to end this year our ERJ will be updated and improvement.

God bless you!

Kind regards,

JOSE J GONZALEZ

2 Likes
107

There’s something to be said for a family business, and seem to have targeted their audience quite deliberately.

1 Like
108

■■■■ ,so both the father and son makes ■■■■■■ aircraft

1 Like
109

what I take form that…The “ye old…blame Asobo/MS the SDK” Ultimately doing something right, and properly does not mean “STUDY LEVEL” .

1 Like
110

I mean I dont like these kind of streams, but when I look at this video…Skip to 27Min…I just have to think what the hell is going on. Look at how it just flies around, even with the spoilers up!!! I mean does the sim even register this?

OMG Pure garrrrrbage!

111

He needs to drink more before he goes and comments on my stuff. He is not drunk enough yet, though drunk enough to slur words and fly like an idiot.

112

He? We talking about AvAngel here? I thought it was a she :joy:

113

No. Talking about Alan (Chock)

114

I was afraid someone would post that. :thinking:

This is honestly terrifying.

Perhaps it would be a good start to “test” an aircraft with crash and stress damage on. :thinking:

115

I didn’t even go looking for it. It quite a highly rated video. I really dont want my hobby turned into that!

1 Like
116

Every time I see something like this, I realize that I have absolutely no clue of what makes YouTube content popular. And perhaps I’m better off that way. :thinking:

But this is pretty much the gist of it. Between this and overly-generous “reviews,” the message about the actual quality of an addon gets lost in the noise. :thinking:

6 Likes
118

I had better-looking planes on fs2004.
for the first time in the ms history, default planes are much better than addons.

3 Likes
119

I bought my first VirtualCol plane for FS2004, the Jetstream 31. It was OK after a bit of tweaking here and there to the gauges, textures and flight handling, but the windows (ALL of them) had reflections on the inside which moved in the wrong direction relative to the aircraft and couldn’t be tweaked.
I bought 4 or 5 more VirtualCol aircraft for FSX for the sole purpose of tweaking them. I actually enjoy tinkering with gauges, switches, textures and flight handling, and had a lot of fun in the process.
Unfortunately there are limits to what I can tweak in MSFS, my limit is the gauges and switches, and so I’d rather avoid VirtualCol and similar developers than be frustrated.
I’ll be switching to Xbox next month anyway, so my tweaking days are coming to an end.

120

Usually the developers are the first ones giving their own products 5 stars :rofl:
Its so obvious in many cases…

2 Likes
121

even worst , i feel sorry for people that never flew on x plane or fsx and dont know how to spot all those scammy paywares

1 Like
122

I just sent a detailed response to VirtualCol outlining my issues with their products. I can only hope he takes it constructively.

Jose,

I appreciate you reaching out and trying to explain the situation. But just because some Israel on SimMarket is fine with the “it’s ME, not the product” reasoning, it doesn’t mean all of us are that naïve. Here is the bottom line – your aircraft, whatever reasoning you may provide, DOES NOT WORK WELL AT ALL. The entire reason to purchase 3rd party aircraft is so that they would be AT LEAST on the level of default aircraft that comes with the sim. I own LITERALLY almost every aircraft that was ever released for MSFS (and about 70 or so on P3D v5)… It’s not about the money to me, I have a good career and I am able to purchase all these aircraft for the purposes of reviewing them for the users of the sim and help them make a decision on whether to buy or not to buy aircraft. I barely ever post SimMarket reviews because their review system is useless – most of the negative reviews don’t even get published. I only did that so that you would hopefully see it. I am also not trying start any wars and there is absolutely NOTHING personal about any of this – I am sure you’re a lovely guy trying to do his best. This is strictly business and professional. I don’t EVER ask for any sort of refunds or any of that stuff – that’s not my prerogative. I have volunteered as a tester for 2 developers on some of their products so that am able to find and point out issues to them BEFORE their products get released. Because at release there WILL be bugs, but they shouldn’t be MAJOR bugs – that makes the aircraft simply not ready for release. SO… here are point by point things I feel are worth pointing out. Again, none of this is a personal attack – let’s talk aircraft and the issues I have with your products!

  1. Let’s not even compare this to Aerosoft, PMDG, etc… Let’s also be FAIR in terms of the project’s scope. This is not meant to be a study-level aircraft. What exactly does that mean? Well, it’s pretty clear – basic functionality is all there, but lacks simulation of specific hydraulic, electrical systems, etc… BUT it’s at least on the level with DEFAULT aircraft – THAT means, WORKING AUTOPILOT THAT BEHAVES SIMILAR TO THE REAL AIRCRAFT. Keep in mind that all default Asobo planes are able to operate in VS, FLC, and NAV modes.
  2. Let’s just compare this (AND your Beech 99) to the work your son has put out. The Bandeirante is not perfect. But it’s pretty good – the textures are passable (cockpit and external). There WAS that initial cloth separator behind the pilot seat that was AWFUL to look at, but I pointed it out to him on release day and he has fixed it since. Much better. My only problem with that aircraft is – the weather radar is INOP (even though Carenado has that VERY SAME piece of equipment and it works – mind you, Carenado ALSO doesn’t do study-level, but in their aircraft, all the basic systems you need work really well and visually they are STUNNING to look at). Also, his RMP gauges are wrong and it’s hard to fly it by numbers because your prop levers don’t really do what they should do in terms of engine performance reflected on the gauges.
  3. So let’s look at your Beech 99 first and how it compares to Bandeirante – visually, it’s a DISASTER. That overhead console with the 2004 looking mesh/texture work? But whatever, let’s not even harp on the visuals. Let’s talk about how it works… Autopilot DID get better. Mind you, it’s still not perfect, but it mostly works – the biggest problem is when you engage it while climbing, it tends to nose down for a while even though VS is positive rate in the enabled mode… BUT!!! You have DEFAULT G1000 and it DOESN’T EVEN HAVE A FUNCTIONING RANGE KNOB!!! That makes the MFD pretty useless! How do you implement a DEFAULT Asobo system and manage to not even make it work the way it does EVERYWHERE else? That’s a MAJOR problem. Besides that… currently the Beech 99 is flyable. Nicely done on the external model, but an eyesore to look at and REALLY UNPLEASANT to fly at night because most of the gauges on the panel and NOT SUFFICIENTLY ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT. So now I have to limit the flights to daytime only. The G1000 range knob kills it.
  4. The E-jets – 170 and 175. That cockpit door is pixelated 1998 thing. Doesn’t look well. Whatever. The external model is pretty decent. I can’t complain there. BUT THE AUTOPILOT IS A DISASTER. This aircraft (which in real life HEAVILY relies on Autopilot) is currently NOT flyable. I DID set up the speeds in FMC as per tutorial. None of that matters. First of all, if you want to change your speed with autothrottle active, you should just be able to do it using the dial on the control panel (which currently doesn’t have a tooltip indicating speed selected)… If you have that speed selected, when you activate FLCH mode, it should climb or descend to SELECTED altitude and control pitch to match that speed. That’s how autopilots work. BUT. Your assigned altitude knob likes to reset itself to previous value. I have to keep changing it in order for the aircraft to get to the altitude I need. So FLCH mode deactivates itself whenever that happens. It’s horribly buggy. Moreover… If the AP is TURNING, it won’t maintain SET ALTITUDE! It will usually ascend or descend for an unknown reason. Forget about ILS – localizer hunting is an issue. It’s easier to just fly approaches by hand because you can never predict what the autopilot does.
  5. A majority of MSFS forum users uses the Working Title CJ4 mod. It modifies the default Collins ProLine system in that aircraft to bring it very close to study-level. It’s almost perfect. Your aircraft simply won’t work with that mod. Working Title is now working for Asobo and will be gradually incorporating their work on the Garmin units and CJ4 into the base sim. So you can expect that the CJ4 mod will most likely eventually be a part of the sim and WILL LIKELY BREAK YOUR AIRCRAFT. You really should download that mod and do a test with your aircraft. You will see what I am talking about. These third party avionics packages WILL BE a choice most serious simmers use and third party aircraft developers ALREADY SUPPORT THEM – JustFlight and Carenado even incorporated support for PM50 GTN750 mod into ALL THEIR AIRCRAFT! PMDG’s DC-6 works with the PMS50 GNS430. MilViz will ALSO enable GTN support in their upcoming C310. So… this is a suggestion I really hope you take. Download the free CJ4 mod. Take a look at the CJ4 and see what it does there. And see how your aircraft is completely incapable of working with it because there will be no flight plan. Here is the link. Working Title CJ4 - Intro

So… Bottom line is that a product should work on a BASIC level even in aircraft that isn’t study-level. When you release a jet with a broken autopilot, horrible cockpit textures, AND an incompatibility with a WIDELY USED CJ4 mod (cause it shares systems with CJ4)??? The question you have to ask yourself is… why would anyone want my Embraer 170/175 when they can use a close to study-level CJ4 that comes FREE?

So I hope this clarifies a few things.

Cheers and regards,

Jeremy Smirnov, M.D.

4 Likes
123

Maybe there’s a reason why this EMB 170/175 (I don’t have it) is the best selling addon at Simmarket atm even though it’s also sold at 6 other sites. I had the Virtualcol Embraer 190/195 in FSXSE and was very happy with it aswell as with a few other Virtualcol planes. Will buy it when it arrives to MSFS as it is Virtualcols next offering. This 170/175 seems to have alot of issues sofar compared to the 190/195 FSX/P3D version although the FMC is better but we will see what will happen in time for the 190/195.
I know nothing about the CJ4 mod mainly because it’s a business jet but if it means very deep systems I don’t think it is necessary for the base Virtualcol audience like myself. Virtualcol is/was very popular in FSX/P3D and if they can better their level from there just a little bit like better FMC I think they will keep their popularity.

124

I like it. I don’t use autopilot anyway.