Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/28/2022 in Posts

  1. Hello all. Those who have followed know that the IXEG 737 develoment has been stagnant for a long time while I've worked on my MU-2 project and stabilize it after the release. That stabilization phase is nearly done. XP12 is imminent and I'll be porting the MU2 to XP12 beginning next week...and it should not be terribly long (I hope). After that, the 733 will move back into rotation as the primary focus of development with the port to v12 being the first priority. The IXEG is minimally operable in V12, but that's all we can say. We obviously had to make it baseline flyable in order to test/develop it with all the XP12 changes, which have yet to be addressed. As such, our official position for those who wish to try the V11 IXEG in V12 is "VFR joyriding only". I expect we'll set up a 'volunteer forum' where folks can give feedback as to their V12 observations as its better to have more eyes on this stuff; however, we request that nobody report any shortcomings of the V11 733 in V12. We are keenly aware of a lot of things that have to be changed....so we'll want to wait until we believe we've caught all we can find before other folks chime in; otherwise we'll end up with a massive stack of the same reports. So, certainly keep XP11 around if you wish to fly the IXEG seriously until we get it ported over. I've always kept "old version / new versions" side by side on my computer for these transitions. Long-time XP users know that after a major release to X-Plane, there is an inevitable debug period that goes on for some time, though many other devs have begun already, we're behind. ....but nice to have the process underway.....Below screenshot shows what the cockpit looks like in V12 daytime. -TomK
    24 points
  2. Please for god's sake make it a paid upgrade, if only to get you guys to be more financially motivated in your work. The IXEG has been languishing for years, and I've seen addons from other developers being released at an unfinished state, and those devs lose interest as sales slow to a trickle. I loved the 737 Classic and I would love to throw money at you guys if I can get a fully featured (i.e. proper VNAV and holding), fully functioning addon. I also want the -400 and -500 if you want to make paid extensions as well, like what PMDG is doing. Also some Brunner force feedback yoke support would be nice.....
    8 points
  3. I have not officially begun to test / port the MU-2 to X-Plane 12; HOWEVER, I have been testing it regularly in X-Plane 12 and the good news is that it seems at first glance....to be mostly functional....FOR.....daytime flight. I say this because the biggest change in X-Plane 12 is the new atmospheric and lighting engine..and this requires new "directive commands" for lighting that were not present in X-Plane 11. The nightlighting is practically non-existent until I make the required changes. Also I have to make some notable changes to take advantage of the rain effects....so the V11 version "in V12" will not have the new windshield effects. So....daytime and dry seems to be mostly OK using the V11 version in V12. I know there are some turbine engine changes also I have yet to test...so unsure what their effect will be. The plan is to get the next release patch, 2.0.3 out for V11 (relatively imminent), and then begin the official port / testing process for V12. Probably will begin the work next Monday. I do not expect it to be terribly long. Chances are XP12 will go through some growing pains anyhow and I'll be right there alongside the process testing/tweaking the Moo. Experienced XP users should know to keep their XP11 versions around until they're fully happy with V12. Here's a few screenshots of the Moo in V12. Not terribly bad, but I may tweak it after I get going. Things tend to look a little bit shinier in V12...but also brighter, which is good.
    7 points
  4. If this is such a huge focus for you (you've mentioned doors multiple times now), you were never really the target customer for IXEG anyhow. Hate to say that, but it's true.
    6 points
  5. quick update. Last week was a wash for the Moo XP12 conversion....the AP docs taking a bit longer than anticipated (but 95% done) ....and a few "transition obligations" were called in last week by companies I severed ties with but pledged "transition help" to not leave those groups hanging....including Laminar. I fully expect to have the next 2.0.3 patch out in 2-3 days with the GTN option for the windows guys...and will roll right into the MU2 12 update. -TK
    6 points
  6. WINDOWS users only......when a RXP GTN plugin is present, you'll get a new option in the GUI. Because RXP uses the same plugin for both the GTN 650 and 750....I have no way of knowing what products you have licensed...which is what controls what the RXP GTN plugin allows you to have. So you use the pull down to set your configuration. If you only own the 650...then select that...only the 750...or both, etc. The pull down simply controls the 3D layout of the radio panel. In the video below....I also have the RXP GNS 430/530 installed....but because these don't require a differing panel layout, there is no GUI pull down for those. The GNS units are set up via a RXP *.ini file in the Moo folder, which will be included in the next update...so if you have the RXP 430/530, those should just appear depending on your licensing I suspect. TK GTN_opt.mp4
    6 points
  7. We are testing preliminary X-Plane 12 support in the beta release of CL-650. But there’s a lot of work to do to make it fully compatible, and may take multiple releases.
    5 points
  8. The boys sent me some more today
    5 points
  9. ...and for updating the 'last working XP11 version to similar behavior in XP12?....neither will we....we've said it many times and this is not in debate. It is a bit more of a process because XP12 has changed quite a bit with regards to engine and systems, which means we have to audit everything and surgicaly remove code that clashes with XP12 functionality...and we put in a LOT of customization. As far as a discussion of charging a fee relative to "when its finished"., too subjective......I have enough statistical evidence that says to me that a lot of folks have really enjoyed the 737 for a lot longer than the price of a 2 hour anniversary dinner...(for newlyweds anyhow). To those who would argue about 'unsimulated things', all I'm going to say is Pffff. I've been a software 'consumer' for over 40 years, and not casually, I make my living from using software, 100s of titles over the years....and this stuff is always evolving, always changing...LOTS of software is missing things. I use what I can, enjoy the good parts, don't buy what I don't like and everybody has the same choice here...we're not hiding anything. I could easily argue that a lot of products lack "immersion", realistic lighting....or decent sounds. The flight sim dev community isn't like it was. Its more saturated, the bar is higher and the detail we have to put in is a heck of a lot more than PMDG had to in its early days when it had a monopoly on the airliner market. So what would we charge for? ...I can't say, but its true we have no incentive to keep on working for free in perpetuity. Have you noticed how everything is moving to the subscription model? There's a reason for that...and guess what, I have at least 8 software subscriptions...every month/quarter....how would you guys like that? (hint, you wouldn't). If we charge for any update, its fair to say that it would have to justify the deliverable for a majority of customers (cause it'll never be all). Probably....thinking off the top of my head...., includes more variants, the FMS more complete, animated everything, more robust failure interactions, etc...stuff like that. AND it wouldn't be a full price upgrade either, I never like that idea. So...feel free to discuss as much as you like, but I just wanted to throw out some of my thoughts for folks who haven't gotten to know me over the years through other posts. TK
    5 points
  10. We've waited for XP12 since the announcement. Thankfully it's finally here. Here are my initial thoughts. X-Plane is, and will continue to be, my sim of choice. When it first loaded up, other than the trees, I could see little difference between it and XP11. However, I noticed immediately that I was getting more FPS. BUT (there's always a but, right?), I did not have any plugins installed. Everything was/is default. VISUALS: X-Plane is not MSFS. The graphics will (probably) never match MSFS. I'm personally OK with that. However, I was a little disappointed that LR did not address the ground textures. But hey, they never said they would. I suspect the ground textures will improve over time. The airports are obviously the same as XP11. XP12 is supposed to have many more assets that can comprise buildings, cars, etc. With the 1000's upon 1000's of airports, perhaps LR is leaving it to the community to improve airports. However, it would have been nice to have improved airports out of the box. The trees look great. There's just not enough of them. Again, left to the community? Bear in mind that much of what's left to the community might come at additional cost. The cloud textures are fantastic. While they don't look exactly like MSFS's they are doable for me. There is room for improvement though. Polygons: LR talked about getting rid of the straight lines around lakes, beaches, etc. Perhaps this has yet to be implemented? There's a lot more I could say about the visuals but at the moment I prefer my XP11 textures with all its add-ons. I expect that XP12 add-ons will eat into FPS as I add them. I know there's a lot I didn't mention, like wet runways, and changing seasons. I'm delighted to see this stuff implemented. I'm hoping for undiscovered gems. AIRCRAFT: I haven't spent a lot of time here. I can say that I loved the Citation X. I have the payware version of the SR22 so it's hard to draw a comparison that's objective. I can say that the default SR22 lacks the depth of payware SR22. That's to be expected. The Evolution is a blast to fly. If Austin's Evolution performs like this one then I can see why he enjoys flying it. I'm not an airline guy. However, I heard that the flight computer on the Airbus is a big disappointment. I think the additional default aircraft more than justify the price of XP12. I've been spending so much time in the XP11 - CL650 (recently purchased) that I just haven't explored much of XP12's aircraft. FLIGHT DYNAMICS: This is where XP12 is suppose to shine. Quite frankly, I haven't been able to discern much difference from XP11 - yet. LR has devoted a lot of time explaining how 1st principles apply to XP12. I thought much of the same principles applied to XP11. There is a developers blog that talks about this flight modeling and Austin has talked extensively about it in interviews. I tend to think of flight dynamics as under-the-hood stuff. Its power will be revealed when needed. WEATHER: Two words: Love it. I hope LR will keep developing it. SUMMARY: XP is my sim of choice. During this beta period I'll continue to fly XP11 for the most part and build XP12 as add-ons and version updates become available. I'd hoped to see graphics and visuals closer to MSFS but LR is not Goliath. I trust that the sim only get better, graphically, with time. I don't feel like I wasted any money getting XP12; I believe LR has a long way to go, given that MSFS is a thing. What are your thoughts?
    4 points
  11. Hang in there...fixes are closed for the next release, but the docs are taking a bit. I'm writing docs on not only the GTN integration setup, but also a more indepth "SPZ-500 autopilot supplement" for newer folks...which I think is needed given this older autopilot integrated with new GPS units, etc. Soon as the docs are done, we'll package up the next update. -TK
    4 points
  12. So finally got this figured out. Originally, I could find no indication or documentation of when the SBY button should be illuminated or extinguished with no other modes active....mostly how do you extinguish the thing at all....so in the interim I tied it to the Flight director..which is of course ON when the other modes are active, which is why the SBY light shows with other modes active (clearly wrong). But the question remained about what powers the thing? i.e. can the SBY light ever be off during normal ops? So it turns out, being part of the SPZ-500 system, it initially illuminates whenever the Radio busses are powered, so its always READY to accept a flight director mode entry. Naturally then, it extinguishes only when the radio busses are powered off or other modes are active. This can be seen in the above video at 8:11 and 8:29, where during rollout, its clearly on (but the AP servos are not)....and when he pulls in to park, its off...but so is the GPS, indicating he flipped off the radio master switches. So during nominal operation, the SBY will always be lit when no other FD mode is active. This will be implemented in the next update patch. -TK
    4 points
  13. TEB: RUUDY SID: 1) If you're using climb via procedures and VNAV, make sure VNAV is armed prior to takeoff. If it's not, you're not going level at 1500' with the ASEL set to 2000' 2) If using DCL CPDLC to get your clearance, and ATC sends an amended route, make sure you reload your SID because it won't be in the revised route. Not sure if that's replicated with FANS, Hoppie's, VATSIM since I have not had time to explore that feature, but it has caught a few IRL pilots recently. 3) Want to know more about climb via/descend via, please see NBAA's briefing page and presentations: Climb/Descend Via and Speed Adjustment Clearances | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association ASE: LOC/DME E: 1) once comfortable in VMC, try flying it in IMC conditions. Most pilots/operators require visual with the airport at the FAF or they don't descend further. If you see the airport at the FAF, how do you get down. It's a steep 6.00 plus descent angle? VNAV is no help. 3) Balked landing? What if you have go around after you well below MDA and past the MAP? You're climbing into high terrain with no missed approach procedure? Can you stay visual and land? Can you rejoin the missed? If the engine fails, you better have an OEI escape procedure. Somewhere, I have copy of one for CL604 or CL605. Need to find it. Can't build one for my CL300. No performance data for an OEI escape procedure with 30 degree banked turn, which is what's required. Had it for our DA2000. ASE: LINDZ9: Hopefully you have OEI procedure if an engine fails. KSNA: Instead of the DSNEE5, fly the STAAY Four: 00377STAYY (faa.gov) 00377STAYY_C (faa.gov) New flight codes released this month will allow pilots to indicate "RF Leg" capable without being RNP AR APCH. Those that do, can expect the STAAY departure. This is one of the few procedures in the NAS that use RF legs that is not also RNP AR APCH required. You also get to practice climb via procedures and airspeed management through the FMS - Pink bug since airspeed control is critical to maintaining track on RF legs. Just a few thoughts. Rich Boll Wichita, KS
    3 points
  14. was a bug on my end Bulva. I tested for the "nav type" and accounted for VOR and ILS (LOC + GS), but "LOC" is its own separate "enumeration" in X-Plane when GS not present...in the XP radio ...and I simply forgot to add that to the list of navaids to test when the NAV is pressed. working for the 2.0.3 patch which I'm packaging up for X-A distro, pending their schedule...but at the least I plan to send it their way later today. TK
    3 points
  15. I assume you havnt watched all the interviews, The biggest thing is lighting and every plane addon will need that upgraded, Not so simple, than there is the N1 N2 on jets, thats changes an engine rewrite. Would you upgrade someone 20 year old car for free. Happy at any price.
    3 points
  16. I'll dig into this pretty quick Bulva. Working on the AP docs today so this is good timing. I put it on the todo list so I don't forget. Was dealing with some family stuff last few days. -TK
    3 points
  17. At this time the CG is essentially fixed based on fuel load (IIRC), and payload has no effect on it. This is because a more complete simulation of passengers (and potentially a flight attendant) is still on the drawing board. X-Plane 12 provides a more sophisticated load station simulation so this feature will likely find its way up the priority list.
    3 points
  18. I am pasting in a link to a video that demonstrates the visual approach with automation assist in the Challenger. Taking off from KMBS (Saginaw, MI), very short flight south to Flint, MI, enter downwind and use NAV+VNAV as an automation assist with a 4nm RX (runway extension) from the FMS to aid with the approach. I hope this is of value for the community.
    3 points
  19. Initial testing shows that they largely do currently work unofficially, but we will be doing proper XP12 (free) updates for both.
    3 points
  20. An X-Plane 12 update will come for most all products, including the TBM. That said, X-Plane 12 is considered Early Access. We are not necessarily focused on releasing updates just yet while the dust settles and bugs get worked out.
    3 points
  21. Every operation will be somewhat different of course.... Once we complete the last leg of the day and the shutdown check is complete, one of us is immediately getting up out of the seat to open the cabin door and go verify chocks are in place, the nose doors are opened, and 5 pins are inserted. Of course if our last leg is a passenger leg - they are disembarked first. One pilot typically stays with them for the walk to the vehicles or the FBO - while the other pilot heads to the interior of the baggage compartment to pass the bags to line crew. That pilot then comes through the cabin to check for forgotten personal items - concluding with a thumbs up to the pilot adjacent the vehicles. If they walked inside - typically a text is sent between pilots that the cabin is clear (or isn't). At this point the pilot with the airplane will coordinate with the line crew re: required services - verifying chocks are in place - then retrieving the pins and inserting them. Different operations have different philosophies/standards regarding nose doors opened or closed. At our home base - we will always open the doors and insert 5 pins. Away from home while on the road we can exercise discretion to leave them closed. In a location with security concerns, or if there are any concerns regarding tugs, line crew, etc - we may elect to go with 3 pins and leave the doors closed. I'd say in our operation the doors are left open with 5 pins the majority of the time. Under no circumstance will we leave the nose doors open without inserting the 2 additional pins. Once pins are inserted and we're both back on the jet - it's time to start cleaning up and preparing for the next flight. Garbage is gathered, old coffee is dumped, drinks in the drawer with paper labels are removed from the ice bins - leftover catering is emptied from the chiller and either given to line crew as trash, as a gift, or to be stored in the FBO fridge. If the cabin needs to be vacuumed - we vacuum while power is still on. Tables and surfaces are cleaned at this point, seatbelts are cleaned and put back into presentation , the sinks and lav are cleaned and while this is happening - line crew is probably performing the lav service. Dishes and linens are given to line service as well. We like to keep power on until all of that is finished so we can check the lav - that enough (hopefully clean) water has been put back in and its back to smelling/looking fresh. We also have to restock from the storage drawers in back. Things like snacks, drinks, chips etc - all have to be replenished. If 15 minutes has gone by - one pilot is checking/servicing the oils in the utility bay. If temps will dip towards or below freezing - we purge the potable water system. This is often done at TOD depending on circumstances to avoid dumping 10 gallons of potable water on an FBO ramp which will turn into an iceberg. Water lines must be purged on the ground which is similar to prepping a recreational vehicle or boat for winter storage , minus the antifreeze, although there's different techniques there too. Sometimes during all of this we may also fuel for the next day's flight - circumstances of course dictate when we would do this as there are considerations to keep in mind leaving the jet with a lot of fuel. We also will consolidate crew baggage and put it in the baggage door opening in preps for offloading. We ensure the garbage, catering, fridge items, etc - are indeed all off. The parking brake at this point has probably long been released since chocks were verified - and the signs put in the cockpit windows indicating the jet is safe to tow. We verify one of us has recorded the 'numbers' from the FMS for the trip paperwork. (OFF/ON/FLIGHT times and OUT/IN Fuel) Suction cupped iPad mounts are removed from the windows, the Sentry is verified as off and packed up so it can be charged at the hotel if needed. If it was a night flight and next flight is day, and we're about to secure the airplane - lights will be brought back to a daytime config (full bright). If it's a hot and sunny location - cabin window shades are closed and cockpit reflective covers are put in place. We also have a pin to secure the emergency exit in the cabin that gets inserted. At this point we verify requested services have been received/completed and we check with the other crewmember or crewmembers that they are done with cabin power. From here one of us typically runs the securing checklist and shuts down the APU. But we aren't done yet. Our bags get unloaded at this point and we build our 'pile'. All external panels are locked. A thorough post flight walk-around is completed, typically by both of us. Covers are put on all 3 pitots, both ice detectors, the AOA cone and both AOA vanes. Both batteries are disconnected. Whichever pilot didn't do the cockpit securing - must 'check switches' to make sure all is where it should be. Now it is finally time to make sure everyone is 'done inside' and the door gets closed/locked - and now - we can walk into the FBO, or to our rental car which has been brought planeside. We check in at the CSR desk regardless - providing contact info, verifying the schedule and services requested. This is a great time to make sure we go over the 'stuff in the fridge, the lav service, hangar arrangements, etc etc'. Only after this is all done do we leave the airport and head to the hotel where the trip PIC does 'the paperwork' which in our operation is electronic and must be submitted in a reasonable amount of time after the flight. At home base our operation has a cleaning service that will take care of many of the above tasks, and since another leg often isn't happening the next day - we're off the airplane pretty quickly. Hope this helps understand some of the things that go into this side of the business. On an international arrival after a long day mid-trip- it wouldn't be uncommon for the crew to take 30-45 minutes to do all of the above correctly.
    3 points
  22. Just a developer commentary to any who may also read this. CaptCrash did discuss these with me and I am happy he is looking at the performance and I am also keen to improve the performance numbers; however, the relative work (relative to everything else required to be done to get 95% of the customers happy) ... to get the last 15% of performance accuracy is such that I have always found it best to do those final refinement tweaks last, after everything else is working. This is generally because the final performance tweaks can be made quite quickly....with all due respect to the FLIGHT TESTING...which is not very quick though. As soon as the obvious issues slow down, I'll will take a deep breath and start on the fun stuff, which includes performance. Call it.."round 2" of V2 work! -TK
    3 points
  23. The solution here the Marquise employed is the TCS mode (Touch Control Steering). This is documented for the 2.0.3 update which should go out soon...its in X-Aviation's hands, but they're also working through multiple product transitions to V12, so it should hit soon enough. The TCS is an effective way to alter IAS and VS values without having to look down or change/disable AP modes...and once you get used to it, dare I say somewhat preferred (by me anyhow) over a knob based solution...you can keep your eye on the instruments at all times while holding down the TCS button and changing the VS or IAS values. -TK
    2 points
  24. Agreed. THe clouds in the beta are wonky, they look like some kind of strange compositing is happening and the shadows are not as high res and crisp as I was hoping (either shadows of clouds or the sun cast shadows on aircraft). But this is a great beta and it will only get better.
    2 points
  25. I do not agree to pay for an upgrade because during the lifetime of XP11 the IXEG 737 was abandoned. Even the doors of the aircraft do not open to this day. If it was a product that had received a lot of updates in the XP11 period I wouldn't bother paying for an XP12 upgrade. The right thing would be to upgrade the 737-300 free of charge and then sell the 400 and 500 versions as DLC. Or raise the value of the 737 package for new buyers with the 400 and 500 variants. I don't want to fight. I just want to demonstrate my point of view. I wish you success.
    2 points
  26. In general, if it means the difference between an indie developer continually investing in their products or not, I would definitely take the subscription. But it seems I may be in the minority there.
    2 points
  27. Guys - this have to get off my chest: I have been exclusively flying the Challenger 650 for many months now, and I still find enormous pleasure in every flight I make! I really still learn every day about the aircraft and it systems, be it the avionics, but also the aircraft systems itself, the flight envelope etc. The videos I watched in the beginning make much more sense now, as I now can appreciate every little detail in them, detail I can put to use now. The X-Pilot forum is an incredible source of information, with a very high level of knowledge and support. Second to none. It has also given me an edge in understanding the real life problems we encounter with our CL650. The aircraft has taken taken me all around Europe in about 150 flights, almost all of them on VATSIM creating an added dimension of 'surprise' - they never give you what you expect. In short, in my view this aircraft is absolutely worth every penny and I'm looking forward to making many, many more flights with it! The picture - Challenger meets Challenger during a VATSIM on line event in Corfu, Greece
    2 points
  28. There are at least 3 major ones I can think of just off the top of my head. Lucky for us consumers several of the X-Aviation developers have decided otherwise. But IXEG should feel free to decide for themselves. At least the 737 has already been supported for multiple versions of the sim for those who bought early in its life.
    2 points
  29. X-Plane 12 is in early access. It's a public beta. There will be many changes, some minor, some major. Laminar have had a private developers chat channel for months already. We've helped them work through a lot of bugs already. Opening the product to the public will find many more. When X-Plane 12 settles down and exits "early access" you're likely to see more products officially updated.
    2 points
  30. ...and today also.....almost done TK
    2 points
  31. After doing a review of the flight model and taking a fine chisel to it I was able to get the Performance more in line with the POH cruise figures. The take off performance seems better but has not been evaluated. This mod is NOT supported by TOGA Simulations. They are aware of it. TOGA Simulations are not obligated to offer any form of technical support to a modified aircraft, so don't contact them. IF YOU CHANGE YOUR ACF YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. If you are not familiar with modifying the acf file with a text editor you will find this challenging but doable. You will find this very difficult to do if you aren't using notepad++. You will find this very easy if you use a file patching utility (https://www.google.com/search?&q=applying+diff+file+windows) or (https://www.google.com/search?q=applying+diff+file+mac). Things this mod does: 1) New wing airfoils 2) New Prop and prop airfoils 3) New max power 4) Tuned prop governor 5) cruise performance TAS within 1% of POH values 6) Take off behavior more aligned with POH takeoff profile 7) *NEW* Added ventral and wing tank fins Things this mod does NOT do: 1) alter fuel flows *NEEDS TOM* 2) modify the lua code 3) make the airplane easier to fly Things to do: 1) validate takeoff performance 2) validate climb performance 3) Tune EGT more, you will be at 660C at FL200 and cruise power *REQUIRES TOM* 4) Tune CG *DONE* 5) Validate OEI performance 6) validate airfoils xplane parameters (theres some nuanced values which dont affect normal regime flight dynamics but should be adjusted for correctness, these will become more important as stall behavior is validated) *DONE* 7) validate stall behavior - suspected flap aero is the issue, will probably require custom flap lift controller Things used to make this mod: 1) POH and AFM 2) Hartzell Aluminum Blade overhaul manual Things that were tested: 1) Climb and Cruise TAS at POH settings for 10k, FL200 at 11,500lbs, FL310 11,000lbs Instructions: 1) unzip the airfoils zip file into the following folder X-Plane 11\Aircraft\X-Aviation\Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise v2\airfoils 2) BACK UP YOUR ORIGINAL ACF FILES. For those of you that want to use a patch file open the MU2_mod_unified.diff or the MU2_mod.diff and apply that patch file. MU2_mod_unified.diff is a context 0 unified diff file, the MU2_mod.diff is a WinMerg normal patch file. Proceed to step 4. 3) For the rest, I applaud your dedication, you will need to open the acf and manually modify the following (i highly recommend notepad++ for this) DO NOT under any circumstances use planemaker to make the changes. Plane maker converts all the values on file open then reconverts the values on file save which WILL induce uncontrolled file changes. The more times you open any file in planemaker and save it, the more changes get imparted. a) open the MU2_mod.diff file using notepad++ b) Each section is formatted in the following way [start line number],[end line number]c[start line number],[endlinenumber < old thing --- > new thing so for example 25621,25626c25621,25626 < P _wing/0/_Croot 0.500000000 < P _wing/0/_Ctip 0.583333313 < P _wing/0/_afl_file_R0 Clark-Y (good propeller).afl < P _wing/0/_afl_file_R1 Clark-Y (good propeller).afl < P _wing/0/_afl_file_T0 Clark-Y (good propeller).afl < P _wing/0/_afl_file_T1 Clark-Y (good propeller).afl --- > P _wing/0/_Croot 0.349166662 > P _wing/0/_Ctip 0.678333342 > P _wing/0/_afl_file_R0 NACA-2330.afl > P _wing/0/_afl_file_R1 NACA-2330.afl > P _wing/0/_afl_file_T0 NACA-0003.afl > P _wing/0/_afl_file_T1 NACA-0003.afl there was a change starting at line 25621 through lines 25626 the C means change. The change to be made are all the lines with ">" markers. c) manually replace all the values in the acf with the ">" values. excluding the ">" markers and replace so for example at line 25621 to 25626 your acf will look like this: P _wing/0/_Croot 0.500000000 P _wing/0/_Ctip 0.583333313 P _wing/0/_afl_file_R0 Clark-Y (good propeller).afl P _wing/0/_afl_file_R1 Clark-Y (good propeller).afl P _wing/0/_afl_file_T0 Clark-Y (good propeller).afl P _wing/0/_afl_file_T1 Clark-Y (good propeller).afl after modifying it should look like this: P _wing/0/_Croot 0.349166662 P _wing/0/_Ctip 0.678333342 P _wing/0/_afl_file_R0 NACA-2330.afl P _wing/0/_afl_file_R1 NACA-2330.afl P _wing/0/_afl_file_T0 NACA-0003.afl P _wing/0/_afl_file_T1 NACA-0003.afl 4) Save the file once all the changes have been applied. 5) In xplane adjust your prop lever axis response to go up to 100% per the image below I am very limited in time so I have done my best to explain the process, I highly suggest patching the file instead of manually editing. Enjoy. I will update things as they happen. I have very limited time to offer technical support (troubleshooting) for this, so I leave most of the trouble shooting as an exercise for the reader. Additionally the ods version of the W&B document doesnt contain the text labels that the excel version does (image of the excel version below) airfoils.zip MU2_mod_unified-2022-08-09.diff MU2_mod-2022-08-09.diff W&B.xlsx W&B.ods
    2 points
  32. Guys I updated with new AMD driver release (ver. 22.8.2) and the problem is resolved !!
    2 points
  33. Thanks! Some time in the future yes, but first I have to finish my job on DC3, then update both DC3 and C23 to XP12 standards, and then I hope to find some time for Avanti. I have tested in XP12, there are a few issues need solving to be fully operational. (Images are from early alpha versions)
    2 points
  34. Hi Daniel. there is some variation between airlines, but most common use for takeoff would be: 1st bug to 80kts, second bug to V1, third bug Vr, set speed cursor to V2, fourth bug to V2+15 (this is the speed that is minimum for going over 15 deg bank), fifth bug to 170 (for flaps 5 and 15 takeoffs), this is the speed to retract 5 to 1. For landing we set 1st bug to Vref, speed cursor to target speed, second bug to Vref + 15 (min speed for going over 15 deg bank) and i often set another bug right next to the second one if planning a flaps40 approach (as a reminder). Cheers, Jan
    2 points
  35. It would be nice, but also keep in mind the XP 12.00 beta period will likely be several months long, and be a constant moving target for developers. So we’ll see.
    2 points
  36. Thx Pils, that's a good list, will definitely give those procedures a try..
    2 points
  37. Thanks for the update! Really looking forward to the next releases, the IXEG 737 is one of my personal favourites. With the help of some of your fellow custom FMS developers, we have been curating a list of instrument procedures that are “challenging” in some way or another for GPS navigators to follow correctly. I think you would find it a useful reference if you plan to delve deep into that part of the product. I am also open to any additions you might find! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MubloGDNCNSqmfNcQe5PmnvsAUF_FK8zYhmuSHa-UUw/edit?usp=sharing Good luck with the ongoing development!
    2 points
  38. Hi Daniel, I did not check your calculation step by step, but it sounds about right. Naturally if you change your remaining distance to the airport you also need to change your angle of descent - the best way to do that is using FL CHG mode. VNAV will have a hard time regaining the path - as it descend steep to get back onto the path, it will overspeed and then pitch up - that is the "wavy" descent that you observe. VNAV descent will ONLY work well if you fly exactly on the planned path and never get too high - otherwise you need to revert to a more basic mode and do the math in your head (remaining distance x 3.3 is a good approximation). Viele Grüße in den Hunsrück, Jan
    2 points
  39. Nice Glass (lucky Windows users)....something tells me there'll be a few 'GPS source" headaches to work through on this stuff. right now, its just get the things in place. TK
    2 points
  40. You’re in FMS navigation, and LNV is armed (white), you’re all set. Look at the CDI or the PPOS map on the MFD, and fly using heading select onto the magenta line and FMS navigation will take over.
    1 point
  41. I wouldn't mind paying an upgrade fee either, especially if it would mean we could fly it in XP12 sooner In any case, it'd be happy to help in testing.
    1 point
  42. WARNING: DO NOT USE THE ABOVE AIRFOILS IN XP12 THEY WILL CRASH THE SIM IN FUTURE VERSIONS. THEY WILL NOT WORK.
    1 point
  43. There are many changes in XP12 that need to be incorporated into the Saab. Whether that happens in the Saab v1 or v2 remains a question, but it will happen at some point.
    1 point
  44. I created a video of a missed approach / go around / missed approach procedure for the Challenger. Hope this is of value to the community. Will continue to get better at this, but I think it does demonstrate the key elements reasonably well. The input of an IRL Challenger pilot on this forum (@VictoryAJ) as well as Pils was critical to this - thank you! And with feedback I am happy to refine and correct this as appropriate.
    1 point
  45. Yes! Fantastic document I cross-checked the table during the flight I described above.
    1 point
  46. Kirk, The visual approach functionality is one of the best things about this airplane and we use it all of the time. I'd have a hard time giving it up. If the ATIS is advertising visual approaches, we will select the visual approach in the FMS. Most of the time we will select 3nm for the RX. Assuming we are more or less 'straight in' when we're cleared for the visual approach, the PF will ask for 'direct to the RX'. The PM will make the selection in the FMS, verify with the PF that it is correct before execution, and when that is complete, the PF will typically ask the PM to 'spin [it] to zero' , meaning the PM sets the ALT selector to zero. The AP is typically on at this point, and the PF sets up the FCP by selecting APPR and VNAV. The PF will also check and verbalize that the computed TOD is 'in front' of the airplane to ensure the airplane isn't already above the computed path. If it is - then the PF will have to select a vertical mode to get the airplane heading downhill to an intercept of the PATH. (The timing of all this varies considerably depending which way we are approaching from, what altitude we are currently at, etc.) Quite often when an airport in the US advertises the visual approach - ATC may still reference an IAP waypoint as part of the initial approach; typically the GS intercept if the runway is served by an ILS. For this reason we always insert that waypoint before the 3nm RX - and we input the IAP crossing altitude. Quick example: KBDL is advertising visual approaches to runways 24 and 33 on the ATIS. Today we are going to Signature Flight Support and the winds are light and variable - so we brief that we will request runway 33 when checking in with BDL Approach. We setup the FMS with the visual RW33, with a 3nm final - ands insert HOMEY at 1800ft. (HOMEY is the GS intercept for the ILS 33). Upon being handed off from Boston Center to BDL Approach, we check-in with the ATIS and request 33. We're given direct HOMEY for the visual 33. This happens quite often, and is why we are prepared to reference the primary underlying approach even though the ATIS is advertising visuals. If we're somewhere we don't fly often - this can surprise you if you aren't prepared and don't know the IAP waypoint. From here at some point we'll be asked if we have the airport in sight or the preceding aircraft - and if we do - we're cleared for the visual 33. We setup per the above and from here it's just automation and energy management. The AP is on - our eyeballs are outside - we have automated lateral and vertical guidance to a stabilized visual approach. Better than an ILS in the sense that there's no NAV to NAV transfer and a go-around already has us selected to FMS source. Briefing for the missed when expecting the visual would take into account traffic pattern altitude and direction for that runway as well as some situational awareness on obstacles on the upwind and close-in to the airport. Thoughts on your scenario 1 outline vs IRL: - Select Visual Approach in FMS and possibly adjust the distance (defaults to 5 nm). [Most typically use 3nm IRL, more if required by circumstance]- arm NAV and APPR [pick one - but can't do both - we leverage APPR - schoolhouse suggests NAV for some bigger picture consistency (save that for later)]- ALT set down to the ground (I believe this is req'd w/ "Visual Approach" in FMC) [ALT set to zero or field elevation in order for airplane to descend at PATH intercept]- VNAV armed (is this req'd for the simulated GP to display in the "Visual Apch" mode?) [VNAV armed with ALT set to zero for airplane to descend on PATH]- AP and ATS deactivated [Up to you - depending on circumstance - Automation has benefits you progressively forfeit as levels of automation are reduced - but it's good to keep hands and skills sharpened. Be smart with your choice based on situation; don't try to be a hero handflying in a busy terminal area with lots of traffic, lots going on] Thoughts on your scenario 2 outline vs IRL: This would be what we'd describe as 'a visual backed up by the ILS' where the jet will nav to nav transfer from FMS to LOC. - Select the ILS approach in FMS (rather than Visual Apch) and use it as a reference, similar to Scenario 1 [Yes]- rest is the same except ALT does not have to be set down to the ground, and VNAV does not have to be activated [Correct - GS will capture similar to VGP regardless of ALT selector - and you can set your pattern altitude - or briefed go-around altitude upon GS capture] I much prefer scenario 1 as it is cleaner - but scenario 2 is handy when it's VFR yet the ATIS advertises an ILS or IAP - and therefore that is what you're setup and prepared/briefed for. At some point on the approach you may press the situation and announce the field in sight - and maybe you'll get the visual clearance -or perhaps ATC asks you and reply you have it in sight and get the visual clearance. Since you're already setup for the ILS - it becomes a visual backed up by the ILS - no more messing with the box close-in - and that's a good example of when you'd use Scenario 2. Considerations: If it's our first time to the airport, or we haven't been there in quite some time - or it's an airport with obstacles/terrain / 'sh*t to hit' or it's dark, we may just ask for the IAP despite the good weather. That pushes us more into 'scenario 2'. Home base - sea level airport - no terrain, minimal obstacles = Scenario 1. If approaching the airport from opposite side of airport - example: Visual 33 KBDL and we're coming from the NW and being vectored onto a left downwind to RW33 = Setup per scenario 1 except put the RX at 4nm, if on radar vectors and flying in HDG mode - perform a Direct To Intercept to the RX but enter a base course in Right LSK 6 spot on CDU. For inbound course of 330, this would be 060. Once cleared for the visual approach - selecting APPR (or NAV) + VNAV + preselect to zero = the airplane will fly a beautiful left base to final and because of the 4nm RX - you're ensuring a more stabilized rollout before 1000' above the airport. If approaching airport from straight in side of airport in HDG receiving radar vectors - perform a Direct TO Intercept to the RX and 'extend the line' through the RX by inputting the final approach course in Right LSK 6. For example with RW33 = 330. Then when cleared for the approach you select APPR (or NAV) + VNAV + preselect to zero = the airplane will intercept the extended centerline for the visual approach. ALT selector to zero vs field elevation will change the altitude alert dynamic. Some pilots prefer field elevation for this reason. If you're expecting and or subsequently cleared for a visual approach from scenario 1 or 2 - understand you were not cleared for the ILS or other IAP. Therefore in a go-around scenario - ATC is not expecting you to fly the IAP MAP. I've flown with a lot of professional pilots that will enter into scenario 2 and brief 'visual backed up by the ILS' and proceed to brief the IAP MAP. NAV vs APPR: The schoolhouse has suggested that to keep our heads straight between the different types of approaches and FCP selections - for the visual approach they have recommended NAV/VNAV
    1 point
  47. View File Hotstart Challenger 650 OE-IPZ Hello everyone, here is the livery of the executive OE-IPZ. I would appreciate any comments to improve the work I do. Enjoy!!! Submitter FamousMUÑECA Submitted 03/10/2022 Category Hot Start Challenger 650 Livery For https://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/product_info.php/take-command-hot-start-challenger-650-p-212  
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...