Leaderboard

That’s correct, it’s not implemented as like a few things it was deemed low priority. Maybe in the future. Thanks for the continued feedback.

Ben THANKYOU!! fantastic that worked.... very much appreciated Best Richard

124thATC was the culprit. Thanks

Thank you for adding this to the updated release. I have a RSG Entegra console with a garmin 500. The simultaneous IAS and ALT, VS and ALT seem to work as expected. I will be swapping the Garmin 500 for a RSG DFC90 in the near future and I will let you know how accurate it is to the actual one in my SR22 I have not had any issues so far with update release. R

Thanks. It’s known by the developer.

Soooo....with an empty leg, good clear VFR weather, and an understanding co-pilot, I did a little flight direct experimentation trying to replicate the video in Hotstart in the Challenger 350....not 650, I don't fly that model. Same Collins Proline Enhanced system. I was to say the least surprised with APPR LOC and GS active, when the aircraft was pitched up smoothly but rather swiftly, that the flight pitch bar initially followed the pitch change for about 2.5 degrees (one mark on the pitch ladder) much like what you saw in the Hotstart CL650 video. I was able execute a slight pitch up and then re-stabilize several times. In case anyone from FAA is reading, I was stable speed throughout the approach with only a slight GS deviation and ceased the activity to stabilize at 500' all the while in clear VFR conditions to meet stable approach criteria. I have good friend who worked in pilot training and customer support in Collins for many years. He has trained me on the Collins equipped aircraft that I have flown in the last 20 years. He agreed with me that the Hotstart CL650 was not how he expected the flight director pitch bar to behave. I have shared my real observations with him but have not heard back yet. It also does not agree with our understanding of how flight directors work, especially with the old mechanical FD 108 and FD 109. I may ask around further. For now. it appears that Hotstart's CL650 flight director is behaving as it would in the aircraft. I'll stand corrected on my comments above. Kudos once again to the folks at Hotstart! Rich

This is on our radar and is IVAO related only at the moment. It's likely we will get it in for the v1.5 release.

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.

The only thing I would say - please only put it in as it is in real life! Too many people are used to 'sim-isms' (just take a look at the debate on visibility at altitude..).

We really don't mind. If it isn't too much of a big deal to add a bit of eye candy, we're more than happy to accomodate those who want it. I'm a big believer of the little things that make people go "Wow!" In saying that, I will be adding wingflex, however, it will be very subtle. I think it flexes by about 10 inches up and down (20 inches in total), but I will confirm. We have quite a few things on our plate at the moment, and my top priorities right now are the ADG and some external decals. If I can fit wingflex in before the next update, I will.

I always wonder about these tiny little details that have nothing to do with flying the aircraft... are people flying around looking at the wing view!?

Hi, I am always wondering what criteria user lays on a simulated arcraft in Flightsimulations. For me I am sitting in the cockpit and try to study all the technical stuff what Hotstart provided in a very impressing way. There is a lot to learn about. Until now I had not one look to the wings, to see if or how much they move.. Imaging real pilots are practicing in a real simulator, and complain about no wingflex. Funny.. Sorry this is my humble opinion, take it as a joke... Best Steff

Thank you for the report, we have pretty good details of the amount of "wingflex" the CL650 has. The wing does technically bend but the bending moment is large and is very similar to the stiffness of an airbus wing. The wingflex implementation was not a priority for release and is planned for a future update.

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

Es correcto. Mejor imposible darse cuenta de lo Obvio. Pues aun que sea un mínimo detalle o no sea de importancia para quienes lo diseñaron. Es HACERBIEN LAS COSAS DESDE UN PRINCIPIO. Y no estar negando lo OBVIO. Pues si. Pero por el valor del addon ese DETALLE de la Flexión de las Alas es algo a estas alturas del diseño de aviónes para simulador algo BASICO. Lo que no es Realista es MENOSPRECIAR lo OBVIO y negar las quejas de los clientes de HoTStart. No son divinidades y claro que tienen sus errores. Y por OBLIGACION les guste o NO lo deben de hacer. ASI DE SIMPLE. USTED NO SE PREOCUPE POR NUESTRA IMAGINACION. DEBE CORREGIR ESTE ERROR . ES SU OBLIGACION.