1 hour ago, Chock said:

Worth bearing in mind that Abacus might have banged out a lot of cack things, but they also made Flight Sim Design Studio, and I bet there's never been a piece of software more responsible for kickstarting add-on developers than that thing. Same is true for Virtualcol; you'll get people having a gentle introduction to airliners with their stuff, and then down the line they'll be buying a PMDG 747.

I liked your video. It looks like VirtualCol stepped their game up for this one but it still falls well short of PMDG, Aerosoft, or Quality Wings.

Not trying to disrespect your system but my main question is: Is your frame rate normally that choppy and slow or does the Virtualcol cockpit lack optimization?  The reason I am asking is I did buy the Virtualcol A220 because no one ever made it for FSX/P3D.  I noticed a pretty severe FPS drop from Aerosoft Airbus X or PDMG 737 to the VirtualCol A220.  How does the in cockpit frame rate compare to the FBW A32NX?

1 hour ago, aniiran said:

I liked your video. It looks like VirtualCol stepped their game up for this one but it still falls well short of PMDG, Aerosoft, or Quality Wings.

Not trying to disrespect your system but my main question is: Is your frame rate normally that choppy and slow or does the Virtualcol cockpit lack optimization?  The reason I am asking is I did buy the Virtualcol A220 because no one ever made it for FSX/P3D.  I noticed a pretty severe FPS drop from Aerosoft Airbus X or PDMG 737 to the VirtualCol A220.  How does the in cockpit frame rate compare to the FBW A32NX?

What you have to bear in mind is that when recording a video at a suitable frame rate and quality for a video, plus a V/O track at the same time as running the sim, that has quite an impact on frame rates, so I would go off what I say about performance on reviews, not necessarily what you see on screen. The streamed video file for that particular review is 14.2 Gb in size, which gives you an idea of what making such a video does as far as computer resources go when also running the sim as well

Personally, for what it is, I think the Virtualcol E170/175 for MSFs could be better optimised; it's a relatively simple jet, with mostly default avionics, but it's not got the best frame rate I've seen for an MSFS add-on. It's perfectly usable, but it's not the slick fast fps affair that you'd typically experience with Virtualcol's offerings. I think they have some work to do on learning the best approach to making stuff for MSFS, although in fairness, the Embraer does have a lot going on in that cockpit in terms of flight displays, so this may be at least partially the reason for it not running like greased lightning.

Don't let it put you off the thing though, it runs okay when you're not trying to be Cecil B DeMille at the same time as flying it. 🤣

I bought this against my better judgement and I have to say it's twice as bad as thought it would be.  

In my opinion it is unflyable.  And there are some major issues I found that are not in various review videos.

The graphics are the least of the problems, I was actually pleasantly surprised at the exterior model, texturing and interior cockpit model.  but that's where it all falls apart. 

Some things I have not seen mentioned.

Take off is wonky I tried several different trim settings and the one that is the least wonky was actually a nose down setting. but it still did a weird skipping thing and it constantly sways side to side excessively. 

-The most major issue is the Autopilot simply does not work. 

-The VS mode seems to work selectively, but it doesn't work in a turn. If you change heading the plane actually will stop climbing and start descending if in the turn long enough. This makes it unflyable.  Sometimes it leaves off with a positive rate even though I selected a lower altitude. and it will climb its not smart enough and you can't preselect it because it will just revert to the last setting.

-The VS mode seems to have a mind of it's own.  It's slow to react and if you do anything to upset it it instantly begins nose diving or climbing but mostly nose diving.  For instance, if you set  VS 2000+ ALTS 10000 armed then you retract the flaps the plane won't respond and nose up and it will start nose diving.  Once it starts nose diving you have to take the autopilot off, AP won't try to save the air plane.  

-AP will automatically activate heading mode to 0 degrees as a default.  So even with out selecting HDG it will make a beeline for 0 degrees.  So you have to set runway heading before takeoff.  I don't think that's correct from the video I watched about the E175.

-ILS doesn't work it constantly sways from side to side then as you add flaps in the Autopilot doesn't keep up.  The trim is just out of control bad on this.  The flaps cause nose up and then it climbs out of the glide slope and doesn't try to correct itself.

-Even hand flight is difficult cumbersome and unrealistic.  You cant trim it right, you can't trim and leave then add flaps you have to constantly trim which has to be fixed every time you slow down or add flaps it does that thing where it's twitchy when you pull back on the stick. It also rolls right constantly at low speeds.  Rudder trim doesn't help and actually make it worse.  This horrible flight model issue actually shows up in Virtualcols own videos. 

-The most hilarious thing was when I first landed I f2'd for thrust reversers and they weren't there (yes its mapped right and works on the A320 just fine).  That's right no reversers but I researched and for sure both the E175 and the E170 should have reverse thrust.  In the cockpit there are detents but you can't drag the handles backwards, and there is no where to unlock. There is no indication or animation for the reversers.  It's reverser is similar to the 737 there are several videos on youtube showing the reversers in action.

-The heading on the MFD for some reason shows 10 digits... that should be easy to fix. Also, we already know that these are not accurate displays. Most are stock Asobo Displays.  Their FSX and P3d version is actually much more accurate and better looking. Yeah.. go look at the screenshots and compare them to the real one.  The FSX/P3D one was much better.  It actually had a working vertical profile map and a correct MFD, and was flyable. This is definitely not as good as Wilco Feel/There E jets V2. Virtual Col and Wilco were close in quality towards the end, but this is actually a step backward.

-The scratches and smudges on the windshield are excessive. I think they never fixed that on the B99, so I'm not hopeful.

-WX mode does nothing, TCAS does not operate (nothing displayed).  TERR mode does work though so that's something.

-A problem from FSX shows up here. When you go through the clouds the cockpit gets hazy as in the clouds aren't kept from coming into the cockpit graphically.  That's ridiculous.

-Of course, we already know the textures in the rear of the cockpit and seat are bad, but bad is underselling it. 

-No custom views. Just awkward external views in showcase.  I'm sure someone will make a file for it. But come on.

-The sound balance seems off.  the engines sound like distant vacuum cleaners which is fine... but the gear and flap noises are super loud.

Is there anything redeeming?

Well, the start procedure works.  There is a checklist to follow and it's mostly right.  

I found the frame rate to be on par or slightly better than the FBW A320NX.  No complaints there.

The repaints look okay and there are bump maps but they aren't to MSFS quality standards. 

The A320 FMC works... cause Asobo made it.

Animations are good and fluid.  Although some of the animations are missing along with some key functionality.

It's really bad.  I think they could fix a lot of the issues though and they do tend to fix things.  The first ATR they made was utterly awful and the final version they made was less awful. So there is a little hope. a little. 

And just so you know be careful in your reviews on Simmarket, they delete them if the Developer requests 90% of the time.  I have had 3 removed recently.

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 20215 yr by aniiran

As this plane uses default avionics I wonder whether the various enhancement mods lots of us have installed are having an adverse effect on it? 

I bought it after watching the video, and have since deleted it. @aniiran is spot on with how i found it to operate. AP simply does not work correctly and dives as described on every flight. Ah well, you liive and learn.

A review that concludes with "I do not recommend this addon" is perfectly fine by me. But "buyer beware" screechy posts and youtube videos are simply clickbait. 

Obviously, the advertisinng tagline of Virtualcol is "this plane is not study level" and not "we franken-slapped together avionics from three different default planes" - the latter would lead to sales sinking faster than the Titanic. 

Again, reviews are out there, so come to your own informed conclusion. 

Don't buy this plane and then come crying that it isn't what you expected. 

53 minutes ago, Car147 said:

AP simply does not work correctly and dives as described on every flight

Did you contact the developer or are you just content with crying on this forum?

Edited June 24, 20215 yr by Ricardo41

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

Did you contact the developer or are you just content with crying on this forum?

I think i'll cry on the forum, just for your benefit. Another met my ban list... lol

Edited June 24, 20215 yr by Car147

4 hours ago, Car147 said:

AP simply does not work correctly and dives as described on every flight.

Hi;

Most had the same issue. After watching tutorial  5/ 7 by the developer, it is learned to do these;

First adjust the altitude, then the positive vertical speed, then swithch the FMS button for MCDU flight plan.

The plane stop to dive and gain altitude. Hope this helps. Happy flying.

Edit : Not working all the time 😞

Edited June 24, 20215 yr by kt069

1 hour ago, kt069 said:

Hi;

Most had the same issue. After watching tutorial  5/ 7 by the developer, it is learned to do these;

First adjust the altitude, then the positive vertical speed, then swithch the FMS button for MCDU flight plan.

The plane stop to dive and gain altitude. Hope this helps. Happy flying.

Edit : Not working al the time 😞

Thank you  @kt069, good to see some are  prepared to give decent advice.

I'm getting a 'no flight plan' issue on the displays even though I have it correctly set up in the FMS. There's a conflict with a mod. But which? Any that mod a default aircraft I suspect. Has anyone encountered this? The moral of the story is to never buy an aircraft that uses default avionics.

Edited June 24, 20215 yr by jarmstro

46 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I'm getting a 'no flight plan' issue on the displays even though I have it correctly set up in the FMS. There's a conflict with a mod. But which? Any that mod a default aircraft I suspect. Has anyone encountered this? The moral of the story is to never buy an aircraft that uses default avionics.

It's the WT CJ4. It doesn't work with it. 

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

CEO & Owner

 

My response:

 

 

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 3^rd party aircraft is so that they would be AT LEAST on the level of default aircraft that comes with the sim. I own LITERALLY 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 vast 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 all their work on the Garmin units and CJ4 into the base sim. So you can expect that the CJ4 mod will 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.

Just now, BostonJeremy77 said:

It's the WT CJ4. It doesn't work with it. 

Ah! Hmmmm. Think I prefer the WT CJ4! Thought it might be the Heavy Division as well. I'll try it without them both then I'll probably archive it.

Just now, jarmstro said:

Ah! Hmmmm. Think I prefer the WT CJ4! Thought it might be the Heavy Division as well. I'll try it without them both then I'll probably archive it.

It's the CJ4. I don't use HD and disabling CJ4 fixes it. My communication with the developer I posted above very clearly explains how big of an issue this is. 

Edited June 24, 20215 yr by BostonJeremy77