The CRJ will be released for Xbox, but it needs some work because the interface was not designed for Xbox. As soon as some other projects are closed we’ll circle back. While we have still many things we still need to figure out (we got 6 manuals for the CRJ, hundreds of pages, and we simply do not know yet how to make these available to Xbox users), but we strongly believe in Xbox as a viable platform.
Btw, the Twin Otter HAS been prepared for Xbox from the start.
Any chance you can speak to the modeling of twin-engine off-axis dynamics? I’ve read that it doesn’t work well; for instance, differential thrust does not work appropriately for turning in the water, but, as noted above, there seem to be ways of getting the sim to model single engine thrust acceptably. I remember reading about the subject of differential thrust early on in the DA-62 project, and they were talking about it negatively then, too. Although, it appears they solved it?
Can MSFS model differential thrust appropriately? Has it been improved recently?
Best to ask me after SU6 has been released…
Well that’s a bummer that we have to wait a bit. I think many see the CRJ and DC-6 as saviors because of the avionics blackout issues on the default aircraft (not your burden to bear).
I definitely appreciate you working to resolve documentation availability to Xbox! And I’m absolutely stoked for the Twin Otter! - Been snooping your forums since you allowed screen shots watching progress 
Thanks!!!
(extra excitement to get to the silly 10 character limit)
Things ARE progressing at a rapid pace at this moment. In this forum, you mainly see comments about released products. But if you want to see what will become available you got to visit the developer’s forums. There you see how the ragged edge and how your sim will look and behave in a few months’ time.
Clearly being paid by Aerosoft I push our own agenda but just look at what we were able to show today: Aerosoft Airport: Brussels International (released) - Page 47 - Product Previews - AEROSOFT COMMUNITY SERVICES.
My point is that we got a new platform. With growing pains but with fantastic potential. If you only consider the representation of the world and the crazy speed at which is processed. Per polygon (that is what all structures you see are made of), MSFS is simply way outperforming any older sim. That allows the developers to add more detail. Better support of new hardware will unlock even more resources and in the end, that is all that matters. Give an add-on developer an extra FPS and he will use it.
I say not their fault because they have had their name dragged through the mud over and over for things of which they have no control. It became obvious with the Mooney that they had updated it but the delay was the update appearing on the Market place, then BAM a new Sim Update and it was broke again, and so began the cycle of fixing it and the horrific delay in the update being pushed out, I think I could not fly that plane for over 2 month at one stage.
As TheFalconOne has said, it takes time, and Carenado have really bore the brunt of what I beleive to be issues at MS/Asobo, it is not a blame game, I have been very vocal about things, but my point is, most often it really is not their fault most of the time.
Also a lot of people go insane over things like the Fenix A320 as an example, I am one of them, but I always question, whilst the systems are top notch and there is no denying that, taking all that away and just the plane, its control surfaces and manual power how good are the flight dynamics in the MSFS? I am asking not stating, Is MSFS up to the task at the moment at simulating aerodynamically an A320 in flight? how comparable is that to say P3D or X-Plane at the moment? I ask this because whilst we will all mostly be knee deep in the systems, I question as a matter of curiosity not comparison how accurately the plane is flying…and I imagine it will be very different 4-6-8 or even a year after release and I have no doubt for the better as the sim updates.
So taking the above on-board, and going back to my original point it must hard for Carenado to keep updating now several planes and keep up with new projects to make money to continue development when in a lot of cases not all, but a lot, the platform in some ways works against them…That’s really my point. Flying Iron, Aerosoft, PMDG can issue updates on their time, Carenado cant, they may have better FDE’s ready but it could be months till the updates appear on the Market place which they cant control.
I agree with you, But that is Your Experience. My friend bought a 3090 on release, he has a better CPU than me, same RAM 32GB, I have an AMD CPU he has the 12/24 Core Intel one. His 3090 is the best Gigabyte one they make, mine is an INNO3D iChillX3 that’s all I could get, and I paid £1800 for mine, £200 more than he paid for his. Mine is not as well known as Gigabyte but still its a decent 3090.
I personally think my system is leaner and I have it better optimised but that is a different argument, I do not overclock anything neither does he. However I can Sim with MSFS @4K Ultra settings and everything MAXED OUT and I really mean everything maxed I lock to 30FPS. My friend cant do that, it is just not smooth at all. If he sets his setting to high and sims @2k it fine??? Go figure right.
On the flip side his VR is smoother than mine! not by much, but it is smoother. Its just the difference’s I guess
There are some countries than US you pay with Dollars. I suppose, he is from australia…
Just look at it:
This plane is on my to-buy-list, but what I see here is a clear five out of five stars. Many people really seem to enjoy it and give it a high rating. Beautyfully rendered photorealistic cockpit, and twin-engine CPL plane. Perfection.
I bought it a few days ago and it seems solid. Looks fantastic, sounds great. My chief complaint is that its turbocharged engine logic is all messed up, but that is a simulator bug and not from Carenado specifically. It’s also fixed by a mod. Mixture Behavior Mod for Turbo Arrow, Seneca V, and Turbo Bonanza
If you own the Seneca I recommend giving this mod a shot, especially if you are disappointed with its climb performance.
I don’t know why Carenado INCIST in use the old panels in his planes…
When the actual Seneca panle its a Garmin G1000® NXi Avionics Suite…
ALL NEW is better, and the oldies are only collectibles. 
Because they basically ported their model to MSFS. You can tell because the gauges aren’t very clear when zoomed in. It is what it is and I’m still happy with my Carenado purchases (I understand what I’m buying at 20 bucks)
Why do you assume Carenado is a ‘he’?
Eh, I disagree. Most of the GA in MSFS have the Garmin Glass panels already. It’s nice to switch to steam gauges for a change.
Well, the ultimate solution would be two separate variants. But there are so many G1000 or otherwise glass cockpits in the game already. It’s nice to see some variation imo.
I tallk about REALITY. Before buy a Payware plane I check the builder web…
If the panel it’s not like the ORIGINAL TODAY… it’s a oldie and I dont’ buy…
For steman (analog) panles we have de PMDG DC-6, maybe the next DC-3, the Grummand Goose, the Concorde and many others…
But a Piper or Cessna needs to have the NEW Avionics to be a REAL PAYWARE…
My personal opinion 
Well, your loss I guess.
I buy oldies only, almost.
I have bought the Seneca and been pleased with it. Good for serious instrument flying (with Navigraph). The view outside is not great but with a classic “six pack” and GNS530 it will keep you on your toes and focussed on the panel. Not been above FL100 yet or tried single engine but stalling with/without flap and gear is a must. The Seminole is in a similar price range, does not have weather radar and probably not the same performance. Senecas in my patch are/were used for twin ratings and IR training so quite a realistic tool to practice on IMHO!
