Graeme_77

Thanks, will check this shortly - even if it means I have to land at Leeds Bradford again ;-)

This can be caused by triggering the go-around mode of the FO using the TOGA buttons. Known issue logged as 2515

This is a known issue, logged as 2429

This is a known issue and logged as 2290.

APU panel at about 5 minutes

No problem at all. I do understand the complexity - the Challenger is a very rare sim aircraft that does almost everything like the real thing. The resources the development team have had are exceptional. Newbie questions are totally fine, and that's exactly the point in the forum. Any frustration from forum participants is usually down to when posters phrase questions that read like "Boeing does X so Hot Start Challenger is wrong." It's a different sort of system, but one by one we'll make sure the sim community are confident ProLine 21 Advanced pilots ;-) Not being able to do an idle descent is unusual coming from an airliner background, but when you understand the system is designed to be just as useful without autothrust, and the descent angle mode is probably more pilot-friendly anyway it starts to make a lot of sense.

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.

Can you provide a screenshot of the PFD when on the takeoff roll please?

This is an adjusted crosspost from the Hot Start Discord, but I think it's relevant to this thread. Every wing ever made will flex. A PA28 has wingflex. A Lockheed Starfighter has wingflex. The Challenger has a very stiff wing, and as such you won’t see significant movement in flight. There are no engines out there on the wing, so the bending loads at the root are minimal. Aircraft like the 737 and 747 carry the engines out on the wing, so on the ground the gear supports the engine and the wing will bend down with the engine and fuel weight. In flight, the wing carries the weight of the engine and fuel, and so will flex upwards. The Challenger only carries the fuel in the wing, and it's only just over 2000KG with full tanks, so the difference in flight and on the ground is minimal. Without the engine out there as a mass damper the wing flex is also smaller in magnitude and potentially higher in frequency, essentially it will flex less and stop flexing sooner. In X-Plane the turbulence simulation feels pretty poor IMHO. Low intensity chop, where the flight path doesn’t change and it feels more like driving slowly over a cobbled or washboard road is most likely to show the wing moving, but X-Plane does a pretty poor job at replicating that - XP11 lacks subtlety in most parts of the weather simulation. There’s also the fact that real wings show smooth deformation / bending (one single continuous curve) but XP can’t do that sort of smooth body animation, so it’s necessary to chop the wing up into sections and have angles between them. This can then cause other issues with the wing like flap positioning etc. As such, wingflex in XP is a compromise - it will never look perfect. Goran has been clear that Wingflex is coming to the Challenger, and the devs may have some magic up their sleeves to make the subtle movements happen. However judging by other addons, large movements of the wing (like a 787 or 737NG) in XP turb are what some sim pilots want to see when they ask for “wingflex”. The Challenger will not have this, as the real thing does not. I think it’s important to set expectations correctly for the community.

The simulated 650 FMS is fully capable of offset, and can micro-SLOP.

@kecm80It's just an airplane - it flies on pitch/power like everything else. That chart is only giving you some approximate pitch/power datums to help you fly the aircraft. You can descend using VFLC if you want - that will give you an idle descent and will obey the constraints, but managing the profile will be your responsibility.

It shouldn't clear out the waypoint. Make sure you delete the entry after the "HOLD AT" line, and not the one before. If this doesn't work, FMS screenshots before and after please, with a description of the flight plan and the exact steps you are using. TVM.

I've submitted a feature request for the FO audio volume to be controlled via the audio control panel INT volume control when wearing the headset. No promises, but the developers will see the request.

It doesn't really show that though. As an example, if you rotate the main gear into the ground a lot of the cabin G "feel" is coming from the wings right down to the point of contact, so the HLIS won't show a high value, even though it would feel nasty to the passengers. In the opposite sense, holding off then "rolling it on" by reducing the pitch attitude slightly will read higher on the HLIS (as the gear is taking more of the load) but would feel better for the passengers. In short - HLIS is a maintenance tool - not a landing rate / feel monitor.

Not possible on the real thing. Check the included Operations Reference manual for some useful tables, or try SimBrief with the Step Climbs option enabled.

The system will automatically select the best source of position information. Have a look at the POS SUMMARY MFD DATA page, then the FMC Position study window to help understand how it's all working.

N2 sync is there to force the ATS system to synchronize the engine core speeds, and not the fan (N1) speeds as it does normally. There isn't a practical use for this in normal operation, but if you select it and walk to the rear cabin you'll hear the distinctive sound of the fans being out of sync with each other. You need to be in autopilot ALT hold, with a mach indication on the PFD tape rather than speed and the aircraft on the bug target mach.

Now don't ever press that button, or you'll end up ruining your landings! ;-)

Thanks. As you've noticed X-Plane isn't actually crashing so there's no useful information in the log file. We really need to eliminate as many other plugins as possible to try and isolate where the issue is. Rather than simply flying offline, can you temporarily remove all the plugins you have in the X-Plane \ Resources \ Plugins directory (move them to plugins-off). Basically, if the Challenger is responsible we need to give it the best chance possible to crash X-Plane cleanly and produce a log, which means getting as close to a "vanilla" X-Plane installation as you can manage.

This is an odd one to investigate. The fact it seems to have occurred after an update is troubling, but with these Vulkan device loss issues there is very little troubleshooting possible. The best plan at the moment is to get the Challenger 650 back to a clean configuration and take it from there. In the X-Plane directory, there's a subdirectory called "Output" with another subdirectory "CL650". This is where all the CL650 configuration is stored. The easiest way to clear it is simply close X-Plane, rename the CL650 directory to something else, "CL650_backup" for example, then start the sim and you should effectively have a new install. I understand the issue appears to have been caused by a version change, but it's difficult to diagnose old versions so best to make sure you download the latest installer from the X-Aviation website so you've got the latest installation with no saved information. Please report back if this gets you up and running. Thanks.

Thread marked as closed as issue should be corrected from release v1.1r1 (January 22, 2022) onwards. Will leave thread open for a few days to allow @TMV45to confirm this is no longer a problem.

Report 2475. Needs user feedback. @Brown787This appears to be caused by the windows audio configuration. Please check your audio settings and assign a default communications device. Also worth resetting the main audio default device. (Yes, windows audio is still split between the old and new control panel layouts, and it's confusing!) Please report your results in this thread so we can close the issue or investigate further. TVM.

Report 2474 A frustrating situation. Feedback from the developer: This doesn't appear to be our fault, even though we tripped an internal assertion. The original assertion was: ...650[dr.c:137]: assertion "!__builtin_choose_exp... This basically means there's a NAN value being attempted to be written by our code. Tracing back through the math that produces this, the only way I can get this to trigger is if somebody wrote an infinity (div-by-zero) into one of these X-Plane datarefs: mach number, alpha angle or beta angle. Looking just 1 line above this assertion failure, I can see: E/FMOD: ... FMOD error 29 - Value passed in was a NaN, Inf or denormalized float. So something was scribbling bad information into datarefs. This most likely originated in a div-by-zero inside of X-Plane itself, as none of the datarefs are writable by plugins. I've added additional hardening against reading/writing infinities to datarefs, but all that will do this is crash sooner if X-Plane's physics fails like this. The only proper fix this is to find the flaw in X-Plane itself. Thread closed. Please submit any new crashes with a full log.txt file as a new thread to allow tracking. Thanks for your co-operation.

Report 2479 Crash appears to be in the NVidia display driver, triggered by X-Plane rather than the Challenger 650. Thread closed. Please submit any new crashes with a full log.txt file as a new thread to allow tracking. Thanks for your co-operation.

Logged initially as 2489. Identified as duplicate of issue 2327. Issue remains open. No action from OP required.