Challenger 650 coming !!!

[jcomm 5,939]

Another one worth watching:

 

[Gordon Hutchison 76]

I've been watching all the preview streams of the CL 650 and my jaw has been on the floor for the majority of it!

Truly a new standard has been set in desktop flight simulator aircraft simulation, and to be honest its no surprise that it was HotStart who acheived it.

Sadly, I won't be a customer as I have an extensive G1000 home cockpit build which limits me to aircraft with that avionics package (of course the TBM 900 is my favourite) but I wish the devs every success with this release, I hope your bank accounts are bursting at the seams with sales revenue!!

Edited January 8, 2022 by Gordon Hutchison

[Matchstick 1,886]

It appears this plane has the same problems with badly flickering avionics screens on AMD cards with Vulkan enabled as other Hot Start/X-aviation planes.

Pity, but I guess it makes it easier to resist.

[Dirk98 354]

Jeez, the framing of the windshield is so wrongly modeled. I don't get it why it is such a problem for 3D modelers to make the correct geometry of the windshield? And they (Hot Start) are not alone, I can name a few other developers who also made the windshield in their aircraft so distorted. Windshield is what you look at 50% of the flight time and that is why its wrong geometry can be so annoying. See yourself if you think I'm nitpicking (link below). Just an observation: interesting, is it too late to make additional edits to this part of 3D in their aircraft? Or is it a missed opportunity to do it right for this product already? Shame I wish I could buy a business jet of this depth and complexity.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Dirk98

[GoranM 3,772]

 

45 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Jeez, the framing of the windshield is so wrongly modeled.

No, it isn't.  It's out by 0.5cm on each side, (I have measurements taken by a 650 pilot, who helped us over the last 2 years) and I plan on shipping it in a future update.

45 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

I don't get it why it is such a problem for 3D modelers to make the correct geometry of the windshield?

It isn't.  As a matter of fact, it's fixed already.  It just wasn't a measurement I had at hand when I made it, so I used the diagrams from the AMM, which are rarely accurate.  The 650 pilot we had helping us came on board AFTER I made the exterior, and it wasn't something I thought to consult with him over.

45 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

And they (Hot Start) are not alone, I can name a few other developers who also made the windshield in their aircraft so distorted.

So distorted?  Bit of an exaggeration considering it's out by a total of 1cm.

45 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

See yourself if you think I'm nitpicking

I don't think you're nitpicking.  But I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

45 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

is it too late to make additional edits to this part of 3D in their aircraft? Or is it a missed opportunity to do it right for this product already?

See above.  It's already fixed and will ship with the next update.

45 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Shame I wish I could buy a business jet of this depth and complexity.

The centre pillar being out by 1cm in width, is the deal breaker for you?  

Totally up to you.

Edited January 8, 2022 by GoranM

[Dirk98 354]

23 minutes ago, GoranM said:

The centre pillar being out by 1cm in width, is the deal breaker for you?  

Totally up to you.

Agreed! Totally my impression and opinion:

PS: Believe me I'm not so happy to post this, purtroppo. I just thought if those irregularities that you mentioned could be corrected? 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Dirk98

[GoranM 3,772]

12 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Believe me I'm not so happy to post this, purtroppo. I just thought if those irregularities that you mentioned could be corrected? 

My issue isn't with people finding problems.  My issue is at your gross exaggeration of the centre pillar width.  It's 1cm total (0.5cm either side) too narrow.  That's less than a fingernail on each side.  But sure, anything can be corrected.  

Edited January 8, 2022 by GoranM

[Greazer 1,326]

30 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Totally my impression and opinion

Yep its way too thin. They need to fix that. And for $114.95 I would expect some working windshield effects 😁

[GoranM 3,772]

2 minutes ago, Greazer said:

Yep its way too thin. They need to fix that. And for $114.95 I would expect some working windshield effects 😁

Such as?  There are no wipers on the 650.

And it's not way too thin.  Please read my post again.

[Dirk98 354]

51 minutes ago, GoranM said:

My issue isn't with people finding problems.  My issue is at your gross exaggeration of the centre pillar width.  It's 1cm total (0.5cm either side) too narrow.  That's less than a fingernail on each side.  But sure, anything can be corrected.  

Oh yeah, we all have our own issues. If they can fix the windshield to LOOK and feel right then whatever +10 cm or -10cm up down, left right - they should know better and that would be great.

Thanks.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Dirk98

[Greazer 1,326]

27 minutes ago, GoranM said:

And it's not way too thin.  Please read my post again.

I would trust my eyes over your words.

[Dirk98 354]

2 minutes ago, Greazer said:

I would trust my eyes over your words.

See, that's what I'm trying to convey to the developers.

And I never trust an artist when he goes defending listing here's only -0.1mm and there's only +0.5mm etc.. 

[Cameron XA 272]

1 hour ago, Dirk98 said:

See, that's what I'm trying to convey to the developers.

And I never trust an artist when he goes defending listing here's only -0.1mm and there's only +0.5mm etc.. 

We have the unique opportunity to have access to the aircraft these days pretty much free reign. Goran is defending it because we were able to get in there with tape measures to settle that debate.

Perhaps the sim FOV distorts what you're seeing, but the actual model from a scale of measurement point of view is as accurate as Goran indicated. It was brought up in a stream recently, so we went and had the measurements double checked.

[mtaxp 666]

1 hour ago, Greazer said:

I would trust my eyes over your words.

Actually, not a good idea, unless you are in VR.

Perspective changes a lot depending on your FOV and camera settings.

So you should trust the actual dimensions.

Edited January 8, 2022 by mtaxp

[Dirk98 354]

5 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Actually, not a good idea, unless you are in VR.

Perspective changes a lot depending on your FOV and camera settings.

So you should trust the actual dimensions.

Not a good idea, unless there are more users flying X-Plane in VR.

PS: it's their payware plane so they can do whatever they want with it to their hearts delight. This is getting absurd I can see and trust my eyes. I would never argue about their FM, work of the systems etc. as I'm not a specialist. But I can see and compare obvious visual shortcomings in their VC modelling.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Dirk98