Release Candidate 1

[flyinhawaiian]

No kidding!  My wallet is open Javier, lets kick the tires and light the fires!

[scubajuan]

Thanks for the update Javier, but just so you know, I would have bought it just for the 3D model and UFMC capable from "tu tocayo". Knowing the quality of the planes you make and to support future developments would have done it for me. And now just waiting impatiently for the manual to be available for download and for the release of the plane. I plan to purchase it as soon as it is available, so take your time to finalize properly but HURRY UP! 

[Jacoba]

Does this one include an A380 that will run you over after you land at JFK?  ;D ;D ;D

[Goran_M]

Does this one include an A380 that will run you over after you land at JFK?  ;D ;D ;D

Gizmo!

[Rob B.]

was it found to be necessary to get permission during the development this model to sell it using the Canadair and CRJ logos?  I mean to ask did you have to get a license or agree to pay royalties of any kind?  ???

[Japo32]

I asked them at the beginning, but I didn't have any reply from them. All the references on the manual has the copyrights to canadair.. I hope there wouln't be any problem but if so.. then this plane would be the JRJ-200.

But usually there is no problem in this becuase as an artist If I make for example a picture of CocaCola and sell it there won't be any problem becasue I am selling my vision of the mark. Even if I do a photo.

Well I am not very strong in laws but I heart that when I started in this.

Other thing is I would like to "certificate" the plane... then I think I should pay and pass the tests from them... but remember that this is not like the real plane. The systems don't work "the same" are imitation and the behaviour would never be the same like the real one on a 29$ simulator.

Anyway.. I always have believed that is someone what to f--k you then he can. But I believe the money Bombardier receives from selling real planes are enough to not fight for the little money that this plane would make.

Anyway as said.. I asked the veryfirst day and didn't receive any news from them... then until today. But if I had to pay royalties to somebody then I would never release this plane.

[Rob B.]

i had a similar problem with Northrop Grumman, in good faith i firmly perused support for usage

of copyright logo, but it seemed as if nobody wished to help me or give permission. oh well,

all you can do is make a good faith effort and if they have a problem later then we may make an

apology. Nasa however i found very helpful and polite with permissions. they are much easier to work with than

these big corporate firms.  anyways,just curious about that. thanks for the reply Javier.

Ps- I like the idea of JRJ-200 LOL  you deserve the honor for this production IMO.

cant wait to play with your new development. perfectly real or not it will be very

fun to learn all the same.

[Nova]

Honestly, when i read, that it was dead, i was somehow relieved.

This project made so much progress in the first weeks, just to see it die slowly and abandoning hope after

it was "delayed" for the 3rd time (i know, there was never a release date mentioned, but i reference all

these "hopefully dezember" and following posts).

I wasn't even watching the board anymore and only stumbled over the thread by accident.

However, what i really want to say: DAMN YOU! Now that i know taht this bird is goiing live withing a month,

the waiting time will be horrible. I noticed how much i want this plane, when i read it. There are really few

things, that make me smile, but man, you made me smlie for 5 minutes!

All i need now is XP10 so i can utilize my 4x4.5GHz i5 and N570GTX.

Args damn you guys, i hate and love you for this news!  ;D  >

[MaidenFan]

This plane is going to change X-Plane. I foresee a lot od MSFS users migrating over.

[philipp]

As Javier already pointed out, the CRJ is not an Airbus. It is not a "gear in, autopilot in, coffee in"-aircraft.

First difference you will notice - the CRJ has no autothrust. So there is no way it can perform automatic VNAV climbs or descends. And it is not CAT3 certified, that means it can not perform autolands.

The FMS can do all the things for lateral navigation that you want: SIDs, airways, STARs, APPRoach TRANSitions,... and you can of course do stuff like change the APP and STAR inflight because the VATSIM controller tells you the wind direction has changed.

What you can't do is put VNAV on and leave the plane while fetching coffee.

The real CRJ FMS has only very limited advisory capabilities, and they are, as the naming suggests, only advice, never carried out by the plane itself in an automatic way.

I decided to not implement most of the advisories for now. Simply because we wanted to release the plane well inside this century.

So please be careful with PMDG comparisons - the CRJ is not going to be the PMDG MD-11 for X-Plane.

You will be able to fly the CRJ according to normal procedures - and you are going to have some really nasty experiences if you don't follow the normal procedures. But you won't find abnormal procedures modeled to a degree like the PMDG folks do these days. Keep in mind they worked on the MD-11 for five years or more.

Cheers,

Philipp

[crs]

Thanks Philipp for this clarification. As per Javier's post I thought lack of VNAV logic modeled is strictly due to a need (consumer pressure?) of providing this long awaited plane. I know it might be slightly naive but if real CRJ200 does not have VNAV implementation than sense of receiving fully simulated systems grows rapidly.

I believe advisory systems will be modelled at later point and distributed as an update.

I have been following this project for a long time and witnesses all excitement that every announcement brought along (well, all but one). Now, it finally materializes and - please forgive me for doing this - I can't wait!. Got little bit down when Javier mentioned lack of VNAV as I was just about to post a message how glad I am that finally there will be plane simulated at that degree. No more need for external FMC's and other stuff. And then Javier's post. Well. It is good to know that this is not strictly related to lack of time or good will.

Would one of you mind scribbling a list implemented v not implemented but present on real plane v not implemented and not present on real plane but what might be expected by customer. (Ain't this silly? )

Philipp, I do not know how long you have been working with X-A and/or Javier but welcome, thanks for rescuing this great project and all the best with future developments. Hope you guys had as much fun coding and designing this bird as future customers will have taking her where she belongs.

Kind regards,

Kamil

[YYZatcboy]

Will RNAV approaches be implemented?

[Cameron]

Would one of you mind scribbling a list implemented v not implemented but present on real plane v not implemented and not present on real plane but what might be expected by customer. (Ain't this silly? )

Hi, Kamil,

There's little that's not implemented in terms of procedural interactivity aside from what's already said. I think you'd be better off asking a specific question as to what feature you'd be questioning would be implemented rather than a list of this vs that.

This aircraft will require you to read in order to do things right...and "right" goes along with the real world manual procedures. We're confident you'll enjoy this aircraft a great degree!

[Jacoba]

Speaking as someone who flies the CRJ for a living, albeit I've less than a years experience in the plane.

It sounds like they have done what ever single airline who operates these little jets does, customize its capabilities according to their needs, wants and SOP.

Regarding VNAV, its advisory only, the interface is actually inop. on our equipment. Which prohibits the A/P from following any VNAV commands the FMC gives it. We use the cue/symbology for simple route/enroute planning and visual reminders only.

We still plot TOC and TOD the old fashion way, climb decent, crossing restrictions are all hand plotted and requires simple math on the part of the pilot to compute.

We alos have ALOT of other restrictions as well.

Such as GPS/RNAV approaches prohibited unless VMC and hand flown by the PIC.

[MaidenFan]

I just got an accound with Navigraph

[YYZatcboy]

Interesting. As far as I am aware at Jazz GPS/RNAV is used frequently, as it is often the only type of instrument approach available in Canada these days. Perhaps they have an Ops Spec for it that you dont.

[Jacoba]

Interesting. As far as I am aware at Jazz GPS/RNAV is used frequently, as it is often the only type of instrument approach available in Canada these days. Perhaps they have an Ops Spec for it that you dont.

Actually I completely understand that SOP for a Canadian carrier, many Canadian Jet routes are still NBD routes.

NDB Approaches are very common in Canada as well as Alaska.

We are limited by our destination cities and their respective pairing alternate(s).

[YYZatcboy]

NDB Approaches in Canada are all expected to be decommissioned by the end of 2012 here. All non precision approaches are being replaced by RNAV or LOC approaches. Back Course approaches are no longer authorised, and are being replaced with LOC or ILS approaches. By 2015 the goal is to have only ILS, LOC or RNAV approaches. No more VOR or NDB. The Jazz Pilots I spoke to said they could fly the GNSS/RNAV approaches, but I happened to be on the 705's when I asked so it might not apply to the 200, even though they supposedly have a common type rating.

[Jacoba]

In the US the type is common but you must still complete what is called "difference training", to crew both.

[YYZatcboy]

Figured as much. Next time I talk to someone at Jazz I'll ask about the RNAV approaches. (their dispatch is at the other side of the airport from ours) It might be that they have a different FMC or software patch to do this, or else the crew was mistaken ( I hope not) or I am mis remembering. Though it would seem weird for the CRJ to not be able to do what a Dash 8 can. (Though they do have a separate avionics package.)

[philipp]

Thanks Philipp for this clarification. As per Javier's post I thought lack of VNAV logic modeled is strictly due to a need (consumer pressure?) of providing this long awaited plane. I know it might be slightly naive but if real CRJ200 does not have VNAV implementation than sense of receiving fully simulated systems grows rapidly.

I don't think that's naive - you expect your simulated airplane to be closely modelled after the real one.

The real CRJ-200 has no A/THR and hence the autopilot has no VNAV button you can press.

Same with the simulated CRJ.

Will RNAV approaches be implemented?

Every Approach that is in the navigraph database can be carried out by the CRJ.

But as I said: without VNAV, there is no automatic vertical guidance on an RNAV appraoch.

Philipp

[YYZatcboy]

That's weird. The Dash has VNAV and no ATHR. I'm not complaining mind, I'm sure you know what is in the CRJ better than I, but lack of ATHR does not mean lack of VNAV.

[Rob B.]

Am I understanding this discussion correctly to have the idea that the CRJ-200

will not have an autopilot setting that controls the airplanes speed?    like

no dial you can set so the throttle will maintain a given value of IAS? 

that would seem unlikely to my mind.   

[Dhruv]

Am I understanding this discussion correctly to have the idea that the CRJ-200

will not have an autopilot setting that controls the airplanes speed?    like

no dial you can set so the throttle will maintain a given value of IAS?   

that would seem unlikely to my mind.   

The CRJ doesn't have an autothrottle. Yes, that means in cruise you have to manage the thrust levers manually *gasp*. The horror...

[Japo32]

Why the "horror"???   :o Maybe I didn't understand that "horror" well because my english, but I would say THE MIRACLE!!! Do you know what is to have the sensation you are FLYING the plane? That you have to take care of it? Do you know how many times I almost were stalling because didn't pay attention to the throttle... or that I almost overspeed?

this CRJ HAS AN SPEED MODE where the plane follows the speed that you set on the autopilot command panel... BUT it is only a vertical mode. That means.. that the plane will follow the speed you set but PITCHING more or less the plane to reach that speed. That means.. you can stall if you set a wrong configuration.

Look.. the CRJ is almost the same like the ATR-500. Have you flought the ATR-500 from flight1 in fs9? The same way is the CRJ... and I had the most fun flying times with the ATR.. and that is why I chosed the CRJ.. because is not a "oh I press this button and the plane fly alone for me!!!!"

I understand that a plane on real life has to have automatic systems.. like fly by wire, autothrust... but I still don't see it clear what is FUN to have those systems on simulated planes.

On real life you have to take care of possible failures. On simulated planes in almost all planes (only a few) they don't have a maintenance programm so they won't never fail in flight unless you programm that failure...

The CRJ have the Vnav and speed restrictions loaded on the LEGs Page on STARs.. but it doesn't have a "you have to go -3xxx fpm to reach that altitude you want" That will be on future updates, and I think it will be very easy to do. For now I use the formula:

1. 3 times the altitude I have to descent for starting my descent.

2. Ground speed / 2 the vertical speed I must set to reach that altitude on time... and it works!

But "horror"? I believe that I preffer to leave my popcorn bucket and the coke away.. and put a hand over the throttle to control the speed and the other on the yoke. Once you know how to fly it better.. on cruise, you can distract something with the landscape... but first you have to Take-off MANUALLY, control speed MANUALLY, descent MANUALLY and land MANUALLY.

If you want to do fully AUTOMATICALLY and just speak with your wife or be with your children while flying.. or just make a long haul flight while you sleep.. then... THIS IS NOT YOUR PLANE!!!   (I am not saying you Dhruv just anyone...)