Оn the MFD а piece of the airfield has disappeared

[Bulat]

AT the beginning of the RW26R at the PARIS airfield on the MFD there is no piece of concrete covering of the airfield from the beginning of the RW to the transferred threshold? 

Where is correct on the MFD of the aircraft or in X-Plane11?

LFPG RW.pdf

[Cameron]

11 hours ago, Bulat said:

Where is correct on the MFD of the aircraft or in X-Plane11?

Both are correct!

The airport has a displaced threshold, so X-Plane 11 is showing you that with the available take-off area.

The Challenger 650 does not display available take-off areas, only the beginning of runways/thresholds. As such, it is also correct.

[Bulat]

4 hours ago, Cameron said:

Оба правильные!

В аэропорту есть смещенный порог, поэтому X-Plane 11 показывает вам это с доступной взлетной зоной.

Challenger 650 не отображает доступные зоны взлета, только начало взлетно-посадочной полосы/пороги. Соответственно, это тоже правильно.

The RW26R is displayed correctly in X-Plane 11. You have an incorrect display on the CL650 and you will need to fix it! You have a big mistake in 1969.
I am posting for you an extract from the ARINC 424 database for the LFPG airfield. Please read it and show it to the lead programmer.
They send you errors and help you test your software product for free.
CL650 you poorly tested before selling.

 

ARINC LFPG RW26R.docx

[CaptCrash]

Thank you for the feedback. We have both documentation and video from our real world CL650 pilots in the aircraft which clearly show no displaced threshold being drawn on the primary flight display synthetic vision runway. If you can provide any sort of Rockwell Collins documentation or images from a CL650 with synthetic vision displaying a displaced threshold we will investigate this issue.

[Cameron]

3 hours ago, Bulat said:

CL650 you poorly tested before selling.

Hi @Bulat,

Please stop accusing this product of being poorly tested. There have now been several instances of you making claims like this when you were actually wrong. We have tried to be kind to you in how we explain why things are the way they are, but you continue to make comments like this.

It's very clear right now that you do not know everything about the 650, and instead of learning first before accusing us of wrongdoing, you instead try and tell us we are wrong.

Here is the documentation in the Challenger manual stating that the way our 650 is programmed is correct:

 

So that you can easily translate this in a translator, I'll make it something you can copy and paste: "When a runway has a displaced threshold, the SVC uses the actual location of the threshold (not the available take-off area before the displaced threshold) as the runway starting point".

 

As I stated before, X-Plane 11 is correct to show you the area prior to the displaced threshold.

The 650 is also correct to NOT show you the area before the displaced threshold.

[Bulat]

15 hours ago, Cameron said:

Hi @Bulat,

Please stop accusing this product of being poorly tested. There have now been several instances of you making claims like this when you were actually wrong. We have tried to be kind to you in how we explain why things are the way they are, but you continue to make comments like this.

It's very clear right now that you do not know everything about the 650, and instead of learning first before accusing us of wrongdoing, you instead try and tell us we are wrong.

Here is the documentation in the Challenger manual stating that the way our 650 is programmed is correct:

 

Чтобы вы могли легко перевести это в переводчике, я сделаю так, чтобы вы могли скопировать и вставить: «Когда взлетно-посадочная полоса имеет смещенный порог, SVC использует фактическое местоположение порога (а не доступную зону взлета до смещенного порога) в качестве отправной точки взлетно-посадочной полосы».

 

Как я уже говорил ранее, X-Plane 11 правильно показывает вам область до смещенного порога.

650 также корректен, чтобы НЕ показывать вам область перед смещенным порогом.

You interpret the given position of the document on the SVC in a peculiar way and this is incorrect!
There are a lot of airfields in the world with shifted thresholds., especially in mountainous and urban areas. But, no aviation document reduces the length of the concrete part of the airfield by the amount of the displaced threshold. There are a number of important reasons for this!
You were the first to come up with the idea to finalize the world aviation order.
Your flight simulator is no longer professional, as it contains a number of gross errors and simplifications compared to the existing large aviation.
Obviously, the CL650 flight simulator should go into the category of an interesting toy for boys 10-12 years old who dream of aviation?
Or will you eliminate errors?
I will not enter into a debate on this issue until you consult with experts!

[Goran_M]

@Bulat You are crossing the line with your comments.  Reel it in, please.  You are on a fast track to getting no further responses.

[CaptCrash]

@Bulat did you see my message? We have consulted with the experts and they provided videos and photos. The synthetic vision presentation is accurate. Once again, if you can provide photos or documentation showing the correct presentation and discuss how the runway is incorrect it will be fixed. But until then it will remain as is. Hot Start has original documentation from the manufacturer describing exactly how the runway is presented and the cl650 pilots validated the runway depiction with what is in the actual aircraft.
 

This airplane was made with the very generous donation of several hundreds of hours of video and aircraft consultation by the pilots who fly the actual aircraft, including the additional time they spent during recurrent training in the simulator checking items and answering questions. Hot Start and the beta team worked very hard to make this airplane as accurate as possible, please don’t be insult the team. Constructive criticism is always welcome but insults are not. I hope we can continue this discussion without you feeling the need to insult the team. Thanks.

[Bulat]

LFPG данные ВПП.docxLFPG данные ВПП.docxLFPG данные ВПП.docxLFPG данные ВПП.docxLet's look at the drawings.
The lower figure of the LFPG airfield diagram shows that the RWY26R threshold has been moved to 1969 (ARINC data section "PG"). What did it affect? TORA TODA ASDA (You can google the abbreviation) since RWY 08L and RWY26R have not changed and are gladly used by pilots to calculate before each takeoff. And only one thing has changed: for RW26R -LDA, it decreased for landing on 1969f.
Thus, the entire surface of the concrete strip is used for take-off from both directions and for landing from one direction 08L and only one direction 26 R uses a shortened length for landing.
If I were a leading programmer, I would display on MFD all airfields within a radius of 10-15 miles in flight below 5000-3000f. The ARINC database has all this; and the computer needs one time to calculate and display for one airfield or for 5 airfields. Just imagine, after takeoff you have a fire in the plane and you need to urgently land at the nearest airfield until the cabin is filled with smoke. This is where a competent program for displaying airfields will help.
I wish you success. You will succeed and you will be praised! I apologize for the mechanical translation. But I think you understand me.