Mikkel

Hello, I was wondering if the Challenger 650 has similar performance issues with AMD GPUs (latest drivers) as does any SASL-based plugins? I really would like to buy the Challenger, but since I switched from a GTX 1080ti to an AMD RX7900 XT I cannot say the plugin system in X-Plane (11 as well as 12) has been good to me. Vanilla X-Plane runs really well but plugin based aircraft (e.g. ZIBO, Flight Factor 757, Rotatsim MD11, Aerobask Phenom 300) takes 38 % of the fps by completely bottlenecking the CPU (an i5 12600k). Never happen with the old GPU. So if there are any AMD GPU users, could you perhaps report on how your system performs with the Challenger?

Yes the nose dropped quite significantly. The numbers in the data seems odd, though. The lift is on quite a high scale. Attached is a new dataset where I try (with questionable success) to keep the pitch (not AOA) steady. It is recorded with more datapoints to give a more precise analysis. The clock is too many for me to look into it. Will do tomorrow. Oh what the heck: Attached a coulple of extracts from the data. I am curious about the required amount of elevator input to keep the pitch. flight_data_w_AOA.csv

Yes, with ?excessive? back-pressure on the yoke I can also make a good landing. The above was done with N1 at ~51 % all the way to the ground (hence you see the hump in the charts), no thrust reduction, no elevator input to ease the landing etc. As such the pilot interaction is removed and what you see is the pure output of the equations from the simulator. As an added info (will add it to the original post): Gross weight: 45 tons.

Hi Morten, Jan and all you other great developers of the B737, I have followed the ground effect discussion for years and remember the extensive work Morten put into it years ago. I also noticed your recent comments on the ground effect and that you believe it is within the ballpark. Not being a pilot I have no right to say what is right or wrong but within the last 50 feets, keeping a steady descent rate and speed, the descent rate increases rapidly and there is very little elevator authority within the last 100 feet before touch down. I have attached the data-file as a CSV (european separators). Also I have attached a chart with the last 300 feet plotting lift and drag over ft (agl). I have no knowledge of aerodynamics but a loss of lift in the range of 60.000 lb below 100 ft (agl) seems extreme, doesn't it? Had I cut the throttle I would have thought it natural but with a constant N1 of ~51 % I would have guessed it would drop a lot smoother before hitting the ground. The gross weight at landing was 45 tons and I was aiming at a vref+5kts of 132 KIAS. This is with IXEG B733 v1.21 and X-Plane 11.20b2. Best regards, Mikkel flight_data.csv

Hi Skymaxx, Out of curiousity, I wonder how Skymaxx and RWC represents overcast layers from metars? I very briefly tried loading the sim at an airport where the NOAA plug-in reported OVC but what I saw was some broken layer and no the overcast layer set in Skymaxx (and no, it isn't set to dense or sparse particles :-)). If I get the time I will take some screenshots. Best regards; Mikkel

Hi all, I may have missed it in the manual somewhere but how do I for instance do the fire alarm test where you hold down the test button followed by pressing the master alarm and warning to cancel the alarm ringing? Best regards, Mikkel

Nice of IXEG to respond to an unsatisfied and not entirely constructive user. Good service for an absolutely brilliant product. I remember PMDG had problems as well with their NG. Given the complexity of the product and the variety of the end users' systems I cannot imagine even the thread owner of this thread to have produced a perfectly reliable product under such conditions. Chill out. Look out the window or do other things that makes you more happy .

I should add that his is if I set the transition level during cruise. Haven't tested it if I set it prior to take-off.

Hi IXEG team, Every time, when I set the transition level in the descend forecast page the profile becomes off-set by several thousand feet. Anyone else experiencing this problem? Version 1.0.2 Best regards, Mikkel

Hi Cameron, Thank you very much indeed! Good to be back in the world of X-Plane (and X-Aviation). Best regards, Mikkel

Dear X-Aviation, Could I please ask you to re-activate my download for the CRJ-200 (order number 4718)? I sent you a request some weeks ago but it must have been lost in all the busy work with IXEG, Real Weather Connector, Skymaxx 3.1 etc. all of which have left an empty Space in my pocket . Anyway, I just sent you another request via the contact form as well as this post hear - redundancy can be a good thing :). Also, I am unsure whether XP9 customers will have to buy a new copy of the aircraft to get to version 10? I purchased mine years ago before XP10 launched and have been away for years. Recent trends at X-Aviation got me back :). So could you please help me out? Best regards, Mikkel Gylling Hangaard

Is it only me that find it a little odd, that house facades are illuminated as much as they are? Makes it all a bit more illuminated than I find realistic... Anyway, it looks cool!

As far as I know it is a fact that the engine model in X-Plane is somewhat mediocre (I have no idea about FSX). I believe a few years ago Morten from the XPFW-group elaborated on this - and although I don't know I'm quite sure the engine performance on the IXEG B733 will be tweaked by a plug-in. But inducing from that statement, that the whole simulation is flawed is of course incorrect.

:-[ Okay, I'm officially stupid Thank you very much

Here is my system (CPU clock is 3.4 ghz so disregard it is saying 800mhz:

Okay, I'll try and give some more info on what I've tried: 1) Uninstall the CRJ200 2) Complete new XP9 install 3) Installed CRJ200 (no other addons) 4) Updated my gfx-drivers (AMD Catalyst 11.5) Results: In this picture you can see my light settings: Here you see the lighting on the overhead panel: These are my XP rendering settings:

Hello, Problem: I cannot get either text nor flood light to turn on for the overhead panel. It stays dark. This hasn't been the case in the beginning (bought the acft after v.1.1 was released). If you need any further info (I guess you do), let me know what and I'll give it to you. Thx Mikkel

Flight vs. XP10: That is speculative Regarding system complexity in very complex aircraft like the MD11 (for instance), we still haven't seen anything at that level. I'm sure it will come, and we don't know enough about IXEG to comment on whether they'll reach that level or not, but they will likely close the gap significantly. The CRJ200 is most likely to evolve further and become even closer to reality than at its current state. So very exciting for X-Planers! The graphics on the PMDG J41 (isn't that the name?) is very nice, but as far as I can tell not nicer than Javier et.al's CRJ200. Both are master-pieces if you ask me. In general I think X-Plane developers in this forum and a few others at the org beat PMDG and other FSX-developers quite a bit on art-quality. That's my black and white input on a topic that is quite a bit grey

I see. The quality of the CRJ indeed seems bullet-proof. Thanks for the reply

Hello Javier, Haven't yet bought the plane (waiting for v1.1) but I do have a question: The spool-up time for the APU and engine seem rather short - they go from 0 rpm to idle very fast. I noticed this in your great video tutorial. Is the real APU and real engines that fast to start?

Just to reiterate the answer to Nova's question on turn radius at high speed: Philipp said: "Thanks for the effort. But 330 at FL110 is clearly to fast. DPNY is right on this. However, you are right that the turn anticipation of the FMS should be longer at higher speeds. This is an FMS issue, not an A/P issue. I added this to my list of confirmed bugs. " Conclusion: Even if speed is above normal cruise at a given altitude, the FMS must predict an earlier turn. It is being worked on, as far as I understand Philipps reply.

Kamil: Couldn't agree more.

I agree. One gets fed up with people continuously asking when an aircraft is released. At the same time it would be clever of developers not to say anything about release before they are certain the project is at a state where a public release is apropriate. In the mean time I'm more than happy with status-updates on new details added etc. I think Morten and his team is doing great in regard to their B737-project.

Interesting video. I noticed the pilots don't flare (or is the VSI just too slow?)... is this standard procedure?

Reading the entire review I'd say it is overall rather fair and informative. Personally the price-point and the "troublesome" reasons for accepting a free copy for reviewing are quite overdone but maybe I have different standards. Again personally: perhaps a more appreciative yet critical and constructive attitude wouldn't be out of the way. A discipline I overall think they managed ok in the review. Best regards Mikkel EDIT: Btw, it looks like a great acft. As others have pointed out it will be a killer addon with a custom FMC (either via vasfmc or your own)!