Leaderboard

Quick mod of the Q4xp pilot mod for external views thats available on the org that will gives us pilots in the external view of the 650. Follow the instructions in the mod with the exception of the positions listed below. Use these positions instead and all of a sudden you will have pilots in your Challenger not a drone. External screenshots are massively lacking with a vacant cockpit this fixes that. The original mod https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/76400-3d-pilots-mod-flyjsim-q4xp/ 650 position data Challenger positions. 00964 00000 00015 Aircraft reference 1800 inside All views No prefill No more empty cockpits.

Captains, In the days since release of the Hot Start Challenger 650 there have been concerns that Gizmo and even the Challenger 650 plugins were causing a major performance impact. We went investigating this, and even got Laminar Research involved to understand what was happening under the hood of X-Plane to try and sort this out. As it turns out, Gizmo is NOT the source of problems, and neither is the 650 plugin; not directly, anyhow. What's happening is somewhat complicated, but I'll do my best to be descriptive, yet brief. X-Plane is programmed to use up all of your CPU cores in order to try and attain higher frame rates. In doing so, there's some major texture paging going on. The problem here is that it leaves almost no room for the Challenger to get its CPU operations done in the process, and mixed with a ton of texture paging, everything goes bust and tasks get stuck in a queue where X-Plane drastically slows down, things pause/stutter, and the experience becomes abysmal. If you happen to have your Plugin Manager open in X-Plane while this happens it will present itself as if Gizmo or the Challenger are using up an insane amount of performance, but this is actually just a mean trick when looking at it from a user perspective. X-Plane slows down so much that it LOOKS like our plugins are to blame as their tasks are not yet performed while X-Plane does other things. Before I go further, I should note, this is NOT applicable to everyone! Most customers here seem to have a great CPU/GPU combination that can handle all of this, but if you're one of the people on the struggling end of the spectrum, you'll want to keep reading this post! Version 1.1.0 of the Challenger 650 introduces a new installer that has a selection for GPUs with more or less than 6GB so we can best optimize your install for you. This will help with some of the VRAM/texture paging operations. That said, there's still more to the puzzle. Because X-Plane is using all the cores/threads on your CPU, it is not saving "room" for the Challenger 650 to do its operations efficiently and the CPU becomes oversubscribed. Laminar Research is likely to fix this issue for developers at a later date after X-Plane 12, so in the meantime we have a workaround to use that Laminar has sanctioned to give out to those affected. If you are affected by this issue, please do the following (this is for Windows users, as the issue seems most prevalent with Vulkan): 1. First, find X-Plane's application and create a shortcut so that we can create parameters. Right click on X-Plane > New > Shortcut 2. Right-click on your shortcut, and select Properties on its contextual menu to open the shortcut's Properties window. 3. The shortcut's Properties window is the place where you can add command-line parameters for that shortcut. Select the Shortcut tab and look for the Target field. 4. You will see a place that has the path to X-Plane labelled Target. X-Plane's path will be in quotes. At the end of the quotes, make sure there is a space after the quotes, then type/paste: --num_workers=n <==Replace the red 'n' with two less CPU cores/threads than your CPU has. As an example, if you have a 6 physical core + 6 virtual core CPU (known as Hyper-threading for Intel, SMT for AMD) for a total of 12 threads, you should put the number 10 in place of the red 'n'. Also be sure you have the TWO hyphens/dashes in front of 'num_workers'! 5. You can now rename this shortcut to something like Challenger 650 if you like. That way you can just click this one when you know you'll be flying the Challenger. If you are unsure how many CPU cores/threads your CPU has, go into your About Computer setting and Google your CPU model number to find out. Be sure to use the total number with Hyper-threading/SMT as your starting point! We know this is a bit unorthodox, but we're doing our best to make whatever solutions we can for as many people as possible. Hopefully this makes your flying more enjoyable!

It is with great joy that I’m announcing the release of XMidiCtrl Version 1.00! I started this project around one year ago. The initial commit was on the 4th May 2021 and I’m honestly rather proud how well it turned out. Since the release of the first version on 1st November 2021 I have received many nice messages from people all around the world. Within the last few months, the plugin evolved even more, thanks to the many suggestions and ideas I received from you. Together we succeeded to enable support of various MIDI devices and not just the Behringer X-Touch Mini. The release of the Hot Start Challenger 650 was another milestone in the young history of XMidiCtrl. Thanks to the great help of Graeme from Reflected Reality Simulations, I was able to offer support for this amazing aircraft from day one. Recently I did some major refactoring and added some ideas I had for a long time. With all the work done and some extensive testing from quite a few people, I’m confident to label the current version as 1.00. I hope this will be a clear sign to new users, that we are talking about a stable and feature complete plugin. Development will not stop here, of course! But all the initial ideas I had are finally implemented. Okay, let’s have a look at the new features: Support for all MIDI message types In order to support all kind of MIDI devices, it was necessary to implement support for all MIDI message types. Initially the plugin was able to send and receive Control Change messages, only. With the new version of can send and receive: Control Change Note on/off Pitch Bend Program Change New logging system I was never happy with the logging system. It was still the initial implementation from the first prototype. I wanted an improved system which shows the user exactly the information she/he needs to see without the need to search an extensive log file. First of all, there are no log levels anymore to choose from in the settings window. You can enable a debug mode if required, but otherwise all warnings and info messages are being logged. There are not many of them anyway and most get raised when loading an aircraft profile. In addition, there is a new tab page in the profile window. It shows you all errors and warnings for the current aircraft profile: When you open the new messages window and change to the MIDI Message tab page, you will see quite a few changes, as well: As you can see, I added some icons instead of text. Most icons provide a tooltip with additional information. This allows you to see all mappings and log messages related a specific MIDI message. However, all messages are still logged to the common log file, if you prefer to monitor the plugin this way. Log entries related to a MIDI message: Mapping used for a MIDI message: Enhanced Mappings I added some additional mapping parameters to allow more advanced mappings. Most notable additions are: Encoders – value_min and value_max Allows you to specify minimum and maximum values for the mapping. Example: { ch = 11, cc = 8, type = "enc", dataref = "AirbusFBW/XPDRPower", modifier_up = 1, modifier_down = -1, value_min = 0, value_max = 4 } Dataref support for Push&Pull So far it was only possible to specify commands for push and pull. With this version you can also modify Datarefs directly. It’s even possible to mix commands and Datarefs, such as have a push command and modify a Dataref for the pull event. Examples: { ch = 11, cc = 9, type = "pnp", dataref_push = "AirbusFBW/BaroStdCapt", values_push = ['0', '1'], dataref_pull = "AirbusFBW/BaroUnitCapt", values_pull = ['0', '1'] } { ch = 11, cc = 9, type = "pnp", command_push = "AirbusFBW/Toggle_BaroStdCapt", dataref_pull = "AirbusFBW/BaroUnitCapt", values_pull = ['0', '1'] } Labels This is one of my most favourite additions. Labels allow you to display display a text when a mapping event takes place. Lets assume you have a mapping to change the transponder mode using a knob on your MIDI device. The mapping would probably look similar to this one: { ch = 11, cc = 8, type = "enc", label = "xpdr", dataref = "AirbusFBW/XPDRPower", modifier_up = 1, modifier_down = -1, value_min = 0, value_max = 4 } That will work rather nicely, but often the transponder mode knob is between the pilot seats. If you want to check the current setting you must look down and that annoyed me. In order to display labels, you have to define the label in the aircraft profile: [xpdr] text = "Transponder Mode:" values = [ { value = "0", text = "STBY" }, { value = "1", text = "ALT RPTG OFF" }, { value = "2", text = "XPNDR" }, { value = "3", text = "TA ONLY" }, { value = "4", text = "TA/RA" } ] In this case I created a new label with the id xpdr. In addition, I specified a text to be displayed each time the mapping gets executed and some labels for the different values. Finally, you have to bind the label to your mapping: { ch = 11, cc = 8, type = "enc", label = "xpdr", dataref = "AirbusFBW/XPDRPower", modifier_up = 1, modifier_down = -1, value_min = 0, value_max = 4 } Whenever you change the transponder mode using the MIDI device, the label for current value will be displayed. If no label value has been defined, the Dataref value will be shown. The new settings dialog allows you to modify the position where the label text will be displayed: Init Mappings This new mapping option allows you to send some MIDI messages to the device just after the aircraft has been loaded. It can be useful when using the Behringer X-Touch Mini to initialise the behaviour or the encoder lights. Example: [[device]] name = "Behringer X-Touch Mini" port_in = 0 port_out = 1 mapping_init = [ # Encoder Lights # 0 = Single # 1 = Pan # 2 = Fan # 3 = Spread # 4 = Trim { ch = 1, cc = 1, velocity = 1 }, { ch = 1, cc = 2, velocity = 2 }, { ch = 1, cc = 3, velocity = 3 }, { ch = 1, cc = 4, velocity = 4 }, { ch = 1, cc = 5, velocity = 4 }, { ch = 1, cc = 6, velocity = 3 }, { ch = 1, cc = 7, velocity = 2 }, { ch = 1, cc = 8, velocity = 1 } ] New Examples The new version comes with some additional example mappings: Updated version for the ToLiss A321 iniBuilds A310 Felis Boeing 747-200 I hope you enjoy the new version as much as I do and please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Marco

Thanks for the new link, but I do wish people would do test flights before doing reviews. They are supposed to be demonstrating the plane, the landing lights dont show? he should of known that and sorted it out before the demo, he has being doing them a long time. But waiting its arrival,

Thank you.....and especially since I just spent the last 3 hours tweaking the 5-blade prop animation because I didn't like it (wobbled too much). No more!! https://www.dropbox.com/s/8gxp6uyghjbcri0/prop_anim_3.mp4?dl=0

Hi @geordie, There will be a free update for the X-Plane 12 version of the MU2 v2.

Your log shows that you have multiple monitors. The Activation GUI is probably hidden, this is a known bug. Apologies for the inconvenience.

v1.4 is now up on github and the file repository here. Changes for the CL650: - Status HUD to make it easier to check the Vspeeds are stored for takeoff. - FO can now be asked to put the aircraft in 'cold and dark' state - Sounds now mute in external views - Bug fix for climb thrust engagement on more than 1 sector. Other changes for non Hot Start aircraft can be found in the brand new manual https://github.com/N1K340/CrewPackXP

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.

Right. Clearly people are assuming that I'm telling the author of the aircraft what to do. But I am not. What I am doing is pointing out that whether this is the best option or not is highly dubious. I shall stay away from it because its technical lead is a highly erratic toddler.

DId I demand it be made to work? Or did I simply ask, why is this thing, which is supposed to be a going thing, seeming so not around and evanescent? It gives off well, an unpleasant first impression. You have heard about first impressions? They have them wherever you find yourself? The answer to this question is a bunch of loud-mouth idiocy from this Ben person. What a winner. Let's look at all the places where you were a jerk on this board. There's dozens of them. Guess what, when everyone else is the problem, it's you.

That might fly on a product that isn't essentially more than "if this, then that". But, as stated, the CL650 is essentially a 1:1 replica of a real aircraft, including how the computers communicate and come to the results they do. There are SO many variables at play in a scenario that can occur, that the training in real life is many weeks long to understand the systems. Summarizing 7,000 pages is edgy and even then not an easy task. We are happy the Smartcopilot docs exist, and hope that gets people by (in addition to the Reflected Reality video series and more to come). In the meantime, we are not willing to play with fire from Bombardier, and I hope you can come to respect that decision. Thank you.

Human understandable descriptions and instructions of deeply detailed accurate systems only have so many ways of being explained. Copyright intricacies aside; how long do you all think it would take for a professional technical writer to author such a manual in a clean room state after coming to an understanding of the systems and how much do you think paying them for such a work would've added to the cost of the project and product?

I think people are able to read and comprehend quite well. It seems to be you who is not understanding the matter being explained to you here.

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.

“That's understandable. If the product doesn't suit the kind of simulation you are interested in then it's great there are other addons that suit your needs better. Simulation isn't a game of "collect them all" - some products fit some people, others don't, and it's great to have variety. Regarding the failure system, some of the testers and consultants have been working on training scenarios, including handling notes and extracts from the abnormal procedures for the aircraft. The intention is to develop this over the life of the product to use the failure system to train sim pilots on Challenger 650 operation, just like real life pilots are trained at recurrent simulator visits“ …Graeme_77….I’ve probably failed to express myself correctly. Please accept my apologies for that. The fact that you had “testers and consultants “ that helped HOT START develop this add on “by the book” it is simply no doubt!….Anyway look at “BlackBird_GR “ answer. That is what I ( tried..) to get. I only asked some ( legal..) way to give us customers a way to put our hands on some sort of FCOM/Manuals/QRH. I’m an Airline Pilot and I don’t care flying a single engine approach or dealing with loss of Hydraulic system simply “guessing “ or trying to “figure out” the solution. The only approach I have to the so called “abnormal/emergency scenarios “ is through the study-interpretation of the books/manuals. And I don’t care if such books are current or experied. I simply need something to rely on when dealing with an Emergency…..anyway BlackBird_GR has already answers and sorted out the whole tread.So it is no point discuss this thread any further. Anyway please understand that I allow myself to criticize you only because I know you’re the best decelopers for XPlane so far. Rest assured thanks for this amazing add on please keep updating this amazing aircraft:-)

Hi! I let my friend send me a pure Cl650 file (Without activated) for me to see how's the performance goes in my PC And it only goes about 20 fps in cookpit and cabin, 25 fps outside ....... eh I tried to decrease my graphic setting, but still nearly the same fps So, is it get the same FPS after I purchase this aircraft and activate it? Will it be more or less? The current FPS is totally unflyable to me 2070s+i7 9700f+16g

I read their release notice and several forums and none of them say that. So have you got a link to where they say that? Aerobask issued a statement detailing which of their aircraft would and would not be guaranteed to make it into 12. Your assertion is worthless to me without a statement from them.