Leaderboard

Always nice to post a short info how you solved/found it... Someone else could have the same problem and could be happy to find your solution!

Not something we're going to be discussing here. If your "friend" sent you a copy of the aircraft then they too are a software pirate. This is both illegal and deeply insulting not only to the developers who have spent years of their life developing this project, but also to everybody else on the forum who spent their own, hard and honestly earned cash on this product. I'm locking this thread to protect ClearForTakeoff from the impeding community fallout, as that sort of thing does no good for a community forum. I'll also add the strong recommendation that they, and their friend, consider how they value simulation products and the community, and consider the fact you are, in no uncertain terms, stealing from a small, dedicated group of developers that have done nothing but good for the wider sim community.

As far as I know, the VNAV descent defaults to 3.0 degrees, so it makes no difference what the winds are. I would imagine the downloaded winds are used for fuel planning purposes only. If you had a steady 80Kt tailwind on descent then it would make sense that speedbrakes would be required as the wind would be 'pushing' you off the computed 3.0 degree descent angle. I'm no real life pilot but I would hazard a guess that this is correct.

Hi @jenijek, The gap is produced due to objects being killed that are not in view when the door is closed (basically trying to increase performance). We are aware of it though and will probably try and move mesh around to address that particular area not getting killed.

You have a Mac.

I will as the build proceeds. Still doing modeling with Fusion 360 right now. -M.

A = 14.4cm B = 12.2cm C = 66.4cm D = 38.1cm E = 25cm F = 31.8cm

This is an adjusted crosspost from the Hot Start Discord, but I think it's relevant to this thread. Every wing ever made will flex. A PA28 has wingflex. A Lockheed Starfighter has wingflex. The Challenger has a very stiff wing, and as such you won’t see significant movement in flight. There are no engines out there on the wing, so the bending loads at the root are minimal. Aircraft like the 737 and 747 carry the engines out on the wing, so on the ground the gear supports the engine and the wing will bend down with the engine and fuel weight. In flight, the wing carries the weight of the engine and fuel, and so will flex upwards. The Challenger only carries the fuel in the wing, and it's only just over 2000KG with full tanks, so the difference in flight and on the ground is minimal. Without the engine out there as a mass damper the wing flex is also smaller in magnitude and potentially higher in frequency, essentially it will flex less and stop flexing sooner. In X-Plane the turbulence simulation feels pretty poor IMHO. Low intensity chop, where the flight path doesn’t change and it feels more like driving slowly over a cobbled or washboard road is most likely to show the wing moving, but X-Plane does a pretty poor job at replicating that - XP11 lacks subtlety in most parts of the weather simulation. There’s also the fact that real wings show smooth deformation / bending (one single continuous curve) but XP can’t do that sort of smooth body animation, so it’s necessary to chop the wing up into sections and have angles between them. This can then cause other issues with the wing like flap positioning etc. As such, wingflex in XP is a compromise - it will never look perfect. Goran has been clear that Wingflex is coming to the Challenger, and the devs may have some magic up their sleeves to make the subtle movements happen. However judging by other addons, large movements of the wing (like a 787 or 737NG) in XP turb are what some sim pilots want to see when they ask for “wingflex”. The Challenger will not have this, as the real thing does not. I think it’s important to set expectations correctly for the community.

Hello, The angles of the screenshots and photos are definitely playing tricks on you. The "flex" you are seeing in the first screenshot is heavily aided by the change of angle in the wing's leading edge as well as the low angle of the photo. You cannot directly compare the winglet position from the ground photos taken at around 0° camera angle vs 30-40° camera angle in the airborne photo. Lastly, as Cameron stated, a test was done on a real Challenger 650 which provided no flex. It's a stiff wing! Simmers love their wing flex for some reason but it's just not realistic in this case. Brgds

You could be a little more appreciative of the time @Graeme_77 has put forward to try and help you learn this product...free of charge on his behalf. There is not likely to be something like an FCOM found with a real aircraft. Bombardier owns this material and sells it for thousands of dollars, or included with a $30 million purchase. We are not authorized to re-distribute this at all. It's 7,000 pages too, by the way. Along with @Graeme_77, there is also several video series of operating the aircraft complete with explanations by @skiselkov. Most customers have taken to this to learn the product and get along quite well. I do not expect anyone to understand everything here in a day, but exploring and learning through watching the series is rewarding. This is the answer we are able to give you now. Your impatience is evident, so there's your "right now" answer. I have never once looked through any manual for any car I have bought. This is probably not a great example. Ironically for things like this I'd default to YouTube, of which there's also a ton of livestream content to soak in as well for the 650. @Graeme_77 is a volunteer of his time. Please be respectful of his willingness to assist you considering he is not officially a Hot Start developer. He's an extremely knowledgable, kind person who is trying to help you and was gracious enough to help beta test this product before it went to market. He receives no money from this product. There's enough info in this thread to lock it for the time being. Please, use the free training videos out there at your leisure and learn best you can. If you are unable to make sense of something, post here and any of us will be happy to further explain things to you short of sending you thousands of dollars worth of copyrighted Bombardier manuals.

another quick update. Not much has changed since the last report, except I'm a whole lot further along on my MU2 project than I was at last report. X-Plane is still full time work for me and I'm making steady progress towards returning to this guy. Jan is standing by for the aftermath of the MU2 release when we jump back onto this guy full time and work the FMC and other 3D for a good while I'm sure. I suspect we'll be back on the IXEG by the summer months. -tkyler

Navigraph are preparing a Hot Start navdata file for the CL650, and this will also be used in the TBM once we get around to updating it. Due to the impending 650 release, the TBM will be updated soon after the 650.