Leaderboard

I don't think I'm going to make it in April Marco.....though I am very close to wrapping things up. Targeting first half of May it looks like now. Right now there is a lot of quality control checks being done. With 3 variants it is quite a lot of flight testing. The last week has been compatiblity work with all the probable hardware configurations and setting up the preferences etc. All the lighting / night lighting is done and the only thing that remains is a punchlist of small items, a few more liveries to do and the last thing will be the sound. This certainly won't drag out, there is nothing else on my plate and this work is all day every day for me until release. -Tom

Quick report. I'm moving things back oh so slightly. At this point, I'm updating the docs and working on the sound engineering. The sound is the long straw here, FMOD is a bit new to me and quite intimidating for first timers and taking a bit more time than I hoped to get up to speed..... and I'm quite picky about sound. I am still working on it daily and safe to say that when the sound is done, we'll get it out. I won't say when, but I myself will be quite disappointed if its more than 3 weeks. -tkyler

Captains, It's with a lot of excitement that I get to announce this product officially now! Back in 2008 we started X-Aviation with the MU-2 as our first product for sale, and now we're re-inventing it with this beautiful new version. Many people in the X-Plane community found the original v1 we sold as one of their very first payware aircraft back in the day. Today will be the first of a series of progress updates leading up to the forthcoming release of the Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 Marquise 2.0 simulation for X-Plane. Since its beginnings in 2005, the MU2 has been a labor of love by @tkyler and has been nursed for 13 years and for the upcoming 2.0 release, has incorporated the latest X-Plane features. The MU2 is poised to last for many more years to come and certainly through future versions of X-Plane. We are also pleased to announce all previous owners of v1 will be receiving an upgrade discount to v2! The MU-2 is a perfect GA airplane to have in your hangar and get you around X-Plane quickly when you need to feed your flight simulation addiction and actually cover some ground but don't feel like flying tube-liners. With its distinctive profile, engine sound and a cruise speed of 270+ knots, it can cover a lot of X-Plane scenery in a simulator session and have you off the computer before dinner time. In this first report, we'll discuss the most obvious improvement in version 2.0, the visual 3D model and textures. When looking at the MU2 Version 1.0 series 3D, it it quite apparent that there was major room for improvement (mind you this was X-Plane 9 days). As it turned out, trying to remodel the existing 3D was not a viable option and the 2.0 version had to be completely redone from scratch. There are a few noteworthy factors that have enabled the improvements to the 3D detail. Major advancements in Blender 3D, the modeling tool used as well as advancements to the exporter by Laminar, have facilitated a painless workflow between Blender and X-Plane, allowing focus on the geometric detail. In addition, the capability of today's graphic cards to handle fantastic numbers of polygons and high-resolution texture sets have really taken the visual aspect of flight-simming to a level barely imaginable a decade ago. The first order of business was to increase the geometric fidelity of the model and get the challenging shapes and curves more accurate. It is a difficult aircraft to get to look right. Increased geometric fidelity results in much sharper and crisper detail at close camera angles and generally a more natural look all-around. The two images below shows the Version 1.0 3D model against the Version 2.0 3D model. Version 1.x Wireframe Version 2.0 Wireframe If you study the two images above, you will see version 2.0 has a higher density 3D model all around; however, note the darker areas of the 3D wireframe mesh. These are areas where higher 3D detail has been applied in order to achieve sharper visual results that reflect light more realistically as you move the camera around. The traditional way such details are added is through the use of higher resolution texture "decals", much like the decals on plastic models. While decals are a great technique and absolutely useful, they do lack the accuracy of subtle light interaction around geometric edges at closer camera angles. Lighting details on 3D edges have always been one of those areas that make the difference between a fake looking 3D model and one that comes alive. The image below shows a few areas where the 3D detail makes a difference to the lighting. Though higher detail is applied where it counts, it wasn't added where not needed, yielding an efficient 3D model that is very performant in X-Plane. With the 3D detail in place, you have to bring it alive with texturing. X-Plane's PBR (Physically Based Rendering) has always yielded a wonderfully crisp and beautiful color palette when taken to its limits, and X-Plane 12 looks to improve that even more when it arrives. One critical component of believable texturing is a solid implementation of what is known as 'ambient occlusion', or AO as 3D artists like to say. AO is a phenomenon where light loses energy as it bounces around into corners, resulting in darker corners and recesses. Below is a comparison of a 3D model with and without ambient occlusion. The results are quite stark! AO in real time for lots of 3D polygons is still quite performance heavy. X-Plane actually has a small bit of real time AO between the ground and airplane when in HDR mode. You may note the subtle darkening of the ground around the landing gear tires sometime as aircraft taxi; however, X-plane provides no AO effects for aircraft. We obtain this AO effect by "painting" the shadowing into our textures. This is a process known as "baking" in the 3D community and our 3D software tools actually do most of the painting work for us. By baking AO effects into our textures, we can achieve a much more realistic lighting look throughout the 3D model. Baking AO lighting though is a bit of an art and can be a bit time consuming but when done well, the results are quite immersive! AO really shines when applied to interior spaces, giving lots of visual depth and avoiding that flat, cartoony look. When all of the 3D elements come together: the geometric 3D detail, attentive ambient occlusion effects, PBR texturing and X-Plane's great PBR engine, the results are exactly what we've been waiting for 13 years! A SPECIAL NOTE is warranted about this last screenshot. We include it because it shows the 3D detail and texturing in the cockpit at its best! However, the G500/600 GLASS display shown will NOT be included with the MU2 purchase. It is a separate product available by Real Sim Gear through X-Aviation, but for those folks who wish to have some glass in their MU-2, then you'll be happy to know that we support it fully and it will be available straightaway when the MU2 is release for owners of the Real Sim Gear G500! In our next progress update, we'll talk about the cockpit variants, controls and animations and how they play a major role in our immersion! Until next report, Blue Skies and tailwinds!

Hi Pils, I contacted my retired Collins customer liaison/training pilot about this behavior. He gave me a good explanation of how this works. When you enter the ORIG and DEST airports, you create two DEP/ARR page selection "silos", one for the ORIG airport and one for the DEST airport. On the ground, or airborne within 50 miles of the ORIG or less than 1/2 way between the ORIG and DEST airports if the distance between the two is less than 100 miles, the first press of the DEP/ARR key bring up the DEPART page (if on ground) or the ARRIVALS page (if airborne) for the ORIG airport. The second press brings up the DEP/ARR INDEX Page, where you select DEPARTURE or ARRIVAL page for either the ORIG (first option) or the DEST (second option): In the air, the first press of the DEP/ARR button bring up the ARRIVALS for the ORIG airport is less than 50 miles or less than 1/2 of the distance between the two airports if they are separated by less than 100 miles. More than 50 miles or more than 1/2 of the distance between the two airports, it brings up the ARRIVALS page for the DEST airport. These are the two "silos" ARRIVAL options that can be selected once airborne. The engineer's intent was that in an emergency return the departure airport, the pilot will want quick access to the approaches available at the departure airport, which is why the first key press of the DEP/ARR key brings up the arrivals for the ORIG airport. The closer the two airports are together, the greater the chance the airport selection can confusing. For example, a short flight from Wichita - Eisenhower (KICT) to Wichita - Jabarra (KAAO), separated by about 10 miles. After takeoff and while getting radar vectors to Jabarra, if you load the approach and complete the landing data on the APPROACH Performance page, but then for whatever reason start getting vectors back to towards KICT and the distance to KICT becomes closer than KAAO, the FMS can think that you're now trying to return to KICT, the FMS has moved back to the ORIG silo and the APPROACH Performance page has moved back to the ORIG airport and as result has dropped the V-Speeds and performance data. If you look on the APPROACH REF page of the FMS, there are two airports - the ORIG and DEST: The FMS has gone back to the ORIG airport in this case and dropped the V-Speeds. It gets more confusing when you're in a round-robin training mode, for example the ORIG and DEST airports are both "KICT". in the air If you press the DEP/ARR key, the FMS brings up the ARRIVAL page for the ORIG airport, KICT. If you load the approach and then complete the APPROACH REF page based on the ORIG airport ARRIVAL loaded in the FMS, as you fly downwind for the return approach, at some point the FMS will think it's more than 1/2 way away from the ORIG airport and switch to the DEST airport's silo, and its APPROACH REF page is blank because you have not entered any data for this runway. The FLT PLN and LEGS page still show the approach you selected using the ORIG airport, but the Performance page has switch from the ORIG airport to the DEST airport. If you press the DEP/ARR key twice to bring up the DEP/ARR INDEX page, select the approach from the DEST airport (i.e., the second airport in the list) AND....you select the DEST airport on the APPROACH REF page (i.e. the second airport option - in the example above that shows KMSP/KLAX, select "KLAX") you are less likely to have the V-Speeds dumped. He says it's not impossible, but much less likely. Again, if you turn back around and it thinks you're going back to the ORIG airport, the FMS can switch back to the ORIG airport performance page. The behavior I was seeing in HS CL650 did initially mimic this behavior, and it's what I have seen in the Level D CL300 simulators when we're doing circuit training, i.e. multiple back to back approaches. What I was also seeing in HS CL650 was the FMS drop the V-speeds multiple times on final. My contact says that should not happen. As long as you're in one branch or "silo" of the ORIG or DEST airport, the V-Speeds should not drop unless you switch silos, which is not likely as your final approach and you've set one or the other branch/silo - the ORIG or DEST. Please let me know if this makes sense? Thanks! Rich Boll

Patience, please. There’s another big update coming.

Hi Coop... So I unplugged the monitor, and then ran it from the laptop monitor and yes, the Gizmo login screen was visible! I logged in and now the G5 works. So the key point I learned is to open xPlane11 with just the one screen and the login is visible. thanks for your help. Paul

Hi guys, had our pilots take this little video on the aircraft VID-20220510-WA0004.mp4

I hope so too Jan! An aircraft much loved in the XP community of course: deserves all the TLC you can give it.

My European brain can't fathom routes with discontinuities in them! Direct direct direct with no airways please! FMS-6000 doesn't allow this and the 605/650 manual words it almost identically to Textron's PTM. Filed up for fix, nice one!

They are still looking for staff at the NTSB Rich!

I have to laugh at this. I have worked on various industry & FAA working groups for last 18 years. We see these discrepancies flying, and now they're following me into the flight sim world! Gotta love it! Thanks for hunting this down! Again, kudos for HS CL650! Rich Boll

Hi Skiselkov, Explanation makes perfect sense and the issue is actually quite well known in the real aviation community. MagVar discrepancies between the aircraft, the IRU, the procedure source (i.e., the 8260 Forms) have been a known source of problems on instrument procedures for a long time. It resulted in a real mess in ORD last Fall on the STARs. it's also the the reason why we lost a bunch of CAT II and CAT III approaches in the US a few years ago for older airplanes where the The fact that you have modeled these MagVar discrepancies between the avionics and the procedure source data (i.e., 8260 Forms in the US) is another feather in your cap. I've never seen this discrepancy modeled in a flight simulator product before, so I did not even occur to me that this could be the issue. Been a lot of talk of going to True in various part of the world. Airbus and Dassault are pushing for it. Again, excellent job with the HS CL650! I withdrawal the issue. Thanks! Rich Boll

I had a look at this and it doesn't appear to be a bug or badly implemented track indicator. What you are seeing is the accurate magnetic ground track donut. The problem appears to be that the database-provided magnetic variation for the Pine Bluff VOR/DME is incorrect. You are quite correct that the databases say it's 4°E. However, and here's a funny one: the Pine Bluff airport near to the VOR/DME is is declared as 2°E: Now, as to how the airplane knows its magnetic heading - the IRSes contain a magnetic variation database, which is valid from 2020 through to 2025. The IRS feeds the current date + position and this database computes the actual magnetic variation expected at that position and that's what you're seeing on your avionics. And here's the kicker: the magnetic variation database says the actual magnetic variation should be around 0.3°WEST: Similar results using the IGRF magnetic model: You can run the computations for select positions yourself here: https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/calculators/magcalc.shtml Investigating enroute charts, there's a 3 degree declination change over the span of a mere 65 miles. This seem to suggest that the Pine Bluff VOR/DME is misaligned and needs to be realigned IRL: To summarize: doesn't look like a bug to me. Seems more like either the navaid is misaligned IRL, or the navigational database needs to be updated.

The ODP or SID is not intended for OEI terrain and obstacle clearance since the criteria does not consider both the actual takeoff flight path of the aircraft following an engine failure nor does the climb gradient on an ODP or SD account for all obstacles that much cleared to meet the operating rules. An ODP or SID provides obstacle clearance with all-engines-operating because that's what its criteria assumes. Make sense? With the proper obstacle information concerning obstacle height above the runway and distance from reference zero, the FMS calculator can be used to calculate OEI takeoff obstacle clearance in accordance with the operating rules. Here's an important caveat. You need the relevant terrain & obstacle data and collecting that data no small feat. There are multiple data sources that need to be consulted, which is why the airlines have performance engineering departments dedicated to that task. For the business aviation community, we have contract providers such Aircraft Performance Group, ASAP Inc., Aerodata (now owned by Garmin), and Jeppesen OpsData through ForeFlight that provide this type of engineering support, and provide takeoff performance/obstacle clearance data in the form of airport runway analysis. As real CL300/350 pilot, I would never attempt to gather the obstacle data from the various sources and use the FMS calculator, in the same way that I would never attempt collect obstacle data and build my own instrument approach procedure to a runway. The FAA is expert in building instrument flight procedures and these performance engineer providers are the experts in airplane performance and engine failure escape procedures. I was never really quite sure why the FMS manufacturers (OEMs) put the obstacle clearance routine in their FMS. It's not unique to Collins. It's in the Garmin 5000 as well. If you had one known obstacle that you wanted to clear, one that as not accounted for in your contractor-provided analysis, for example a temporary obstacle, then yes, I could see a use for it. Although in 18 years of flying Collins FMS equipped aircraft, I have never used it other than for experimentation and familiarization. Rich

Hi, thought I’ll show the electrical panel . Still not wired but Almost there . ive decided to paint the panels all in black , think it provides a better contrast with the white backlight . I know it’s not like the original grey-ish , but hopefully I won’t regret it later requires the bolt cutouts painting ..

Hi all, changes have been made to the beta build to eliminate this behaviour. This will be included in the next release.

This isn't just about online ATC programs--the nonstandard altimetry breaks compatibility with other utilities that determine altitude using the provided X-Plane dataref. Why can't Hot Start just provide a user switch to turn the "realistic" altimetry off? It's got to be a whole lot simpler than auto-detecting online communications from specific ATC programs, and it would preserve the option to employ the standard interface to X-Plane. This *is* a Hot Start issue--this is the *only* add-on I am aware of that chooses to do its altimetry independently of the X-Plane platform dataref, which breaks compatibility with anything not specifically coded for that...in other words, lots of stuff. In my case it's Radar Contact v4, which is not being developed any longer but which works flawlessly with any aircraft that adheres to use of the standard platform dataref. It's also an issue with the Pilot2ATC and PF3 offline ATC add-ons as well. Why is it considered preferable to build complex auto-detection routines in for a select group of ATC clients, rather than just allowing the user to de-select the nonstandard HotStart altimetry with a tickbox?

Thanks guys, I only have XPUIPC installed because a VA 'tracking' plugin requires it to read sim status, I don't use any of it's control assignment features. BTW I found 2.0.4.7 here: https://vasystem.org/support/vas-acars/x-plane/, So will give that a go. Grateful to hear others don't have the issue between the IXEG737 and the FF757, suggesting it's a local issue.

Captains, This will serve as a formal forum announcement that we have released the version 2.0.1 update for the RealSimGear G5 Instruments. All customers who have purchased the G5 Instruments up till now have been sent an e-mail by X-Aviation with complete instructions on how to obtain your update. We have made this a very simple process! For those that purchase the G5 Instruments from today forward, your purchased download will already be updated to version 2.0.1 for you. Please Note: This installer will update the Cessna 172SP, BN-2B/2T Islanders, as well as the Beechcraft Sundowner if you own any of those products. What if I didn't get the update e-mail? If you did not receive your update e-mail don't fret! X-Aviation has updated our system to allow all customers to update with ease, regardless of whether you received an e-mail for the update! Here's what to do: 1. Login to your X-Aviation account here: https://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/account_history.php 2. Find your original G5 Instruments download and re-download the file. It will download as the latest version! The following is a list of additions/fixes included: Improvements/Bug Fixes: [T-457] Let horizon offset degrees be adjustable [T-357] Add option to rescan monitors from plugin dropdown [T-162] Fix config file changes (such as auto-swap) not saving [T-458] Fix jittering of some gauges [T-459] Update boot screen text [T-460] Fix C172 naming convention to match fleet As always, thanks for being a customer with X-Aviation. We appreciate your feedback and support! Enjoy these latest updates, and stay tuned to the forum as we continually announce the latest happenings.

Simmers don’t verify their flight plan fully every time?? I’m shocked, shocked I tell ye.

The levers in the Hot Start rendition are silver, though XP lighting may mess with that a little. The general theme throughout the 604/605/650 is white levers except where leather stitched yokes are fitted. Never seen black ones before though I don't doubt that they exist.

I figured it out. It was my joystick that needed to be recalibrated

Since a week or so ago, VATSIM rules were changed to allow more than one ATIS station to be manned by a single controller. Some are using this new rule to provide separate departure and arrival ATISes, using position callsigns <facility>_D_ATIS and <facility>_A_ATIS. They do not seem to be picked up by Challenger's datalink implementation. The feature request is to support these new callsigns in the Challenger's VATSIM ATIS datalink implementation and wire them up to the "SERVICE TYPE" selector on the "ATIS RQ" screen. Note that VATSIM controllers are not required to provide multiple ATISes, even at the facilities which have separate departure/arrival D-ATIS IRL, so it probably should support both position names transparently.

Just wanted to make sure it's logged.

Yes, the G1000 is using the X-Plane G1000 with modifications with has its differences. We are looking into options to do a P+ system down the road, if we find suitable options, we will look into doing G6 options.

Hi Coop, Many thanks for your help - it all worked out! Very much enjoying the G5's! Best wishes Lennard

Fuel dumping is only provided for the tail tank in the event the transfer function fails (see attached photo). In your case, likely the best solution is to hold to burn off the excess fuel before landing.

Its working now thanks

Typically, the normal takeoff procedure will result in you climbing well above any climb gradient requirement on a SID or ODP. If there is no SID or ODP, then a 200 ft/NM climb gradient is required. For takeoff the minimum takeoff speed, all engines operating is V2+10. That provides you sufficient stall margin with 30 degree bank. I can get into a whole bunch calculations, etc. concern how to compute a percent climb gradient and rate of climb when you have a SID or ODP climb gradient in feet/NM. The Collins Proline 21 has a neat feature that makes this easy. Use the Flight Path Vector. If you have a SID with a 400 ft/NM climb gradient, after takeoff make sure that the Flight Path Vector remains 4.0 degrees or more above the horizon. The climb gradient in feet/NM roughly equals the flight path angle in degrees - See the US Government Terminal Procedures Publication Legend below. Turbojets are generally capable of meeting a 500 ft/NM climb gradient on a SID or ODP without much further consideration up to 1500' above the airport elevation simply on the basis of the aircraft's OEI takeoff climb requirements. Again, it is not required nor expected that you meet the SID or ODP climb gradient with OEI. Initially, rotate to the TO command bar pitch attitude. That's to prevent on over-rotation accident. After the aircraft is accelerating, then use FLC and 200 Kts to continue the climb. See FCOM 1 takeoff procedure below. Rich

Return to base usually avoided, due to the costs of the empty flight. If you fly for the owner you stay as long as the owner stays put. If you are in charter, if you are at a busy hub there might be PAX at that hub for the next flight. If you are at a smaller airport, you may well have to position to a nearby hub for the next assignment. What you can do is follow a real Challenger on Radarbox24 and simulate those flights. What I used to do was fly a particular tail, and try to fly the 30 most visited airports by that tail. Else you can follow it day to day. All data is available in Radarbox24 if the tail is not blocked. I see eg that VJT 9H-VFF is a tail livery that is available on this forum. Quick look at Radarbox24 learns the following : one gives the most visited airports, the other one some recent activity.

It would be really nice if I could, from the XP menu, select which checklist I want, without cycling through them all. Also if the Next Checklist and Prev Checklist menu items could indicate which ones they are, that also would be helpful. Minor point, but would be nice to have. Thanks for consideration.

Sure! Quick turn with no power down. Yesterday, after leaving KELD I had two quick turns in KICT and KDEN before returning to KICT. On each leg we never powered down, which normally re-sets the fuel used. When you do not power down, the only way to reset the fuel used for each leg is to press the DEL key and put DELETE into the scratch pad. You then move the DELETE from scratch pad into the FUEL USED field with the LSK and that clears the fuel used and restarts the counter in the FMS. That way, we can record how much fuel is used for current flight leg. Most operators track the fuel used on each leg. They can track metrics like fuel used per flight mile, fuel used per hour which then goes into the DOC for the airplane for cost analysis and billing purposes. Even part 91 corporate operators will usually bill back internally the per hour cost of the airplane to the unit using the airplane. What I call "funny money" because it comes out of one group's budget and goes into another group's budget. if you are flying charters, then it's very important to know the fuel burn per hour because that goes into the hourly charge for chartering the airplane. In a more practical "flying the airplane" sense, it is also important to know how much fuel has been burned from the start of the flight for the current flight leg. Let's say you left on your oceanic flight with 15000 lbs. of fuel. You're 2 hours into the flight and burned about 5000 lbs. You should have 10,000 lbs. in the tanks. if fuel gauges are showing 8000 lbs., you might have a problem. For example, a fuel leak. You might be going down the line of Air Transat flight 236, the A330 that dead sticked into the Azores after a fuel leak developed. Since that incident, most of the checklist for fuel imbalance have the pilots check for the possibility of a fuel leak by comparing fuel at block out minus the fuel used against the total fuel remaining in the tanks. If they grossly disagree then you might want to 1) think twice about balancing fuel, i.e., feeding a fuel leak from the tank(s) not leaking, and 2) consider getting on the ground before things get real bad...and real quiet. Unfortunately, Collins doesn't mention using the DELETE to reset the FUEL USED in the FMS in the CL650 FMS manual that I have, and for what it's worth, it doesn't mention it in the current CL300/CL350 manual that I have. In fact, the pages discussing the FLIGHT LOG CDU page in these two manuals are identical. I hope this helps! Rich Boll

Reference material - https://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/CL605-FUEL_SYSTEM.pdf Page: 16 Fuel tanks are expected to be within 400 lbs / 181 kgs of each other on taxi / takeoff / landing OR 800 lbs / 362 kgs during flight, to avoid Fuel Imbalance EICAS message. First, orient yourself on the overhead panel, we'll be working in the 2nd row (or middle row) of the FUEL panel area. (Fuel.PNG) All three of these buttons should be extinguished under normal operations. Gravity XFLOW Press to begin the process, there's a 1 second delay after pushing the button for it to illuminate OPEN. This will allow fuel to flow freely between both main (wing-based) tanks. There is no EICAS notification that this is open/occurring. (gravity.png) To observe what's happening in the sim. You can go to the Challenger 650 menu -> Study -> Engines -> Fuel System... You'll notice that whatever Main Tank (either Left or Right) has more fuel that this will continue to consume, whereas the side with less fuel will not. Thus balancing the tanks. L (R) to AUX XFLOW Press the appropriate button to begin the process, there's a 1 second delay after pushing the button for it to illuminate ON. This will remove fuel from whatever side is select and transfer it to the auxiliary tank. Determine which tank has more weight in fuel Left side? Choose L to AUX (L to AUX.png) Right side? Choose R to AUX (R to AUX.png) There is a lock out mechanism that does not allow you to press the opposite button when one is already selected. Pressing L to AUX, for example, then pressing R to AUX, will no longer illuminate the L to AUX button. Pressing the R to AUX button again will resume the L to AUX transfer and the button will illuminate ON again. Once you're done balancing the tank, make sure to deselect the previously selected L (R) to AUX button. The aircraft will now suspend fuel consumption from the two main tanks and pull from the AUX tank until depleted. *Edit* Thanks! @airforce2 As long as a main tank is below 93% full, the aux tank feeds the main tank to maintain the level at 93%. Once a main drops to 93%, the main quantity will remain constant and the aux level will drop. It will appear that the engines are burning from the aux tank, but in reality the engines are burning from the mains and that fuel is being simultaneously replaced in the main tank from the aux tank ejector xfer pumps. To observe what's happening in the sim. You can go to the Challenger 650 menu -> Study -> Engines -> Fuel System... Note: The plane will display an EICAS warning message: FUEL XFLOW SOV OPEN if either button is ON for more than 50 seconds and the tanks are balanced within 100 lbs.

This is great news..! The MU-2B was one of the "OG" complex aircraft for X-Plane (I believe it was X-Plane 8.X?) back in the day..and has held its own over the decade+ since release. It is one of my favorite X-Plane aircraft to fly..always feels dynamic and sporty on landing. And I loved the old school panel having flown similar panels over my years... Looking forward to the updated/all new release. (Another vote for GTN 750 integration when possible..!) From my PC Pilot review way back in February 2009..!! Wow...

IDX page and then HOLD

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.

This is something that was discussed during development and testing. The real world operator that has been assisting Hot Start has TCAS selected TA/RA before taxi, and this reflects my airline experience of operating in TA/RA mode during taxi without limitation. TCAS 7.1 hardware does not have any issues with this behaviour. As Pilsner mentioned, you can customise it yourself at will, but the SOPs supplied are in use on real aircraft operating globally. Please remember there is a whole wide world beyond FAA procedures ;-) As to why it exists in two places on the checklist, the original procedure allowed for ALT ON only, or if there is a specific airfield prohibition so the second item verifies. Airbus checklists do the same with Flaps on both after start and before takeoff, to accommodate taxi in contaminated conditions.

Acutally great if misuse failures could be implemented as opposed to random...

The difference in altimeters is expected, as the G1000 is based on the Air Data Computer (ADC) outputs, while the standby relies solely on the pitot-static system.