2 hours ago, Matchstick said:

Aq

I would genuinely like you to demonstrate that.

I love looking around the internals of this kind of system to get an idea of how they work.

The NOTAMs that’s published discuss them somewhat in a digestible way but the detailed and dirty is all open source in place like here

Though I digress, I went on a tangent a bit too far as it is. 

On 7/12/2025 at 1:23 AM, UrgentSiesta said:

I'd argue the Citation Longitude and the more recent Black Square birds are in the same league.

IIRC, Nick the BS lead dev, directly compared the complexity of the BS Starship to the Hot Start 650. (not that his is "better", but is as complex and deep).

In re the Longitude, check out @MattNischan's 2 HOUR deep dive on the Longitude:

 

Matt - is there any similar info on all that you folks have done for the TBM...? or CJ4?

 

@Matchstick @Gazzareth

Not got the Starship, absolutely no interest in it although the Duke definitely heads in that sort of direction. As much as I enjoy the Longitude, it's doesn't feel anywhere near the level of the Challenger, not even close.

Are you making that argument as someone who has the Challenger? Or just seen a few videos.

There's a world of difference.

G

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by Gazzareth

On 7/10/2025 at 12:13 PM, Gazzareth said:

... also who has 4 hours to watch someone else fly? Normally when I try and watch I end up facepalming and giving up within the first few minutes.

 

Am in the beta on this one and highly recommend watching this particular video, if not studying it, while waiting for the release.  It will shorten your learning curve and accelerate your satisfaction.  As if M.0.92 needs acceleration...... 😜

 

I hope they publish a list of LVARS, P vars, etc.  I hate having to guess and try and try and try.  Takes too long.

1 hour ago, fppilot said:

Am in the beta on this one and highly recommend watching this particular video, if not studying it, while waiting for the release.  It will shorten your learning curve and accelerate your satisfaction.  As if M.0.92 needs acceleration...... 😜

 

I watch his videos anyway, tend to prefer RW content. Be interesting to see how much my use of the ESDG Citation X helps with this one.

 

G

1 hour ago, Gazzareth said:

As much as I enjoy the Longitude, it's doesn't feel anywhere near the level of the Challenger, not even close.

The Longitude does many of the things that the CL650 does, it just doesn't have study screens to show how the sausage is made.

For example, the hydraulics system uses a physics based flow system to model fluid moving throughout the system, including all the accumulators, through the PTCU, etc. Similarly it uses a flow based pneumatic simulation as well, with all the various valves and such. Even though it doesn't show a study screen for them, it also has simulations of heat flow through the fuel system, through the exchanger, the ACM, the cabin pressurization outflow and safety valves, cabin and cockpit heat movement, brake caliper temperature, all sorts of stuff.

It doesn't have a fully custom turbine simulation (although it does have a fully custom and very complex FADEC for the engines) and it doesn't actually model a true ARINC bus (as pilots can't see it and there are faster/less overhead-prone ways to move data around), but it is hugely deep overall. It also doesn't really do failures specifically, although you can put the system in abnormal states through cockpit interaction and get nearly every CAS the real plane has.

As of right now it's the closest thing to the CL650 that exists in MSFS, but of course folks are pushing the boundaries every day and we love to see it. Despite folks saying so, there really is no difference in ceiling whether you develop in XPlane or MSFS. In fact you can happily ignore the sim entirely and implement more or less whatever crazy flying thing you want, since, like A2A you can just set your own plane position and accelerations based on whatever you like. You can completely ignore the sim systems and make your own versions of a jet engine, a hydraulic system, what have you.

Just like XPlane, if you want to strip everything away and just drive the sim like a scenery/world engine with your plane all off on its own simulated universe, like the CL650 does, you can do that in MSFS. The sandbox doesn't mean you have to only use sim systems, just as many planes in MSFS already don't, such as the Longitude.

19 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

As of right now it's the closest thing to the CL650 that exists in MSFS, but of course folks are pushing the boundaries every day and we love to see it. Despite folks saying so, there really is no difference in ceiling whether you develop in XPlane or MSFS. In fact you can happily ignore the sim entirely and implement more or less whatever crazy flying thing you want, since, like A2A you can just set your own plane position and accelerations based on whatever you like. You can completely ignore the sim systems and make your own versions of a jet engine, a hydraulic system, what have you.

Just like XPlane, if you want to strip everything away and just drive the sim like a scenery/world engine with your plane all off on its own simulated universe, like the CL650 does, you can do that in MSFS. The sandbox doesn't mean you have to only use sim systems, just as many planes in MSFS already don't, such as the Longitude.

Thank you @MattNischan! This puts to rest the debate about "limitations" of MSFS versus XP!  

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Thank you @MattNischan! This puts to rest the debate about "limitations" of MSFS versus XP!  

Matts insights are always good.

I'll keep active on this one but the HJET is my daily barn- burner.

dd

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by Sky_Pilot071

4 hours ago, Gazzareth said:

Not got the Starship, absolutely no interest in it although the Duke definitely heads in that sort of direction. As much as I enjoy the Longitude, it's doesn't feel anywhere near the level of the Challenger, not even close.

Are you making that argument as someone who has the Challenger? Or just seen a few videos.

There's a world of difference.

G

No, not really a world of difference. Because I can read and pay attention to things other than marketing. 

the real difference is that I can objectively accept that there are other devs in other sims who are playing in the same league as Hot Start  

this isn’t a Zero Sum game. The more guys we have out there like Hot Start, Black Square, Zibo, FbW, Toliss, WT, et al, the better for all of us. 

and I couldn’t be happier when the bar gets raised, no matter in which sim the add-on flies, or how much the addon costs. 
 

glad a couple devs have weighed in here to ‘splain you properly. 👍

2 hours ago, MattNischan said:

In fact you can happily ignore the sim entirely and implement more or less whatever crazy flying thing you want, since, like A2A you can just set your own plane position and accelerations based on whatever you like.

 

Off topic, but that's exactly what I do. My "aircraft" is Aerowinx PSX, which is a standalone simulator that handles aircraft systems, flight physics, atmospheric physics, and all the rest of the things that are involved with simulating flight. PSX then essentially drives a camera around the MSFS 2024 world, which provides everything that is visible outside the cockpit: clouds, runways, other traffic, streams, pebbles, etc.

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by prolixindec

After this it has to be a Cessna 441 Conquest II.

dd

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by Sky_Pilot071

4 hours ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

I hope they publish a list of LVARS, P vars, etc.  I hate having to guess and try and try and try.  Takes too long.

Fully on board Gregg.  So far for me it has been all mouse.

31 minutes ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

but the HJET is my daily barn- burner

Mine as well.

57 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

glad a couple devs have weighed in here to ‘splain you properly.

I just want to be super clear here because my intention was not to be a part of any kind of internet slap down, but instead just describe that CL650-like stuff does go on in add-ons you can buy right now, in MSFS, moreso probably than folks realize, and that the "sandbox" so to speak is not really a significant limitation.

I will also be clear that the CL650 is absolutely the most detailed addon that exists and there's good reason it costs $120-ish, and I don't expect it would suddenly be only $60 if it was being sold in MSFS, despite the larger market.

Both of these things can be true and still both of these categories of aircraft can also both be fantastic, and classified as "very very detailed".

32 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

I just want to be super clear here because my intention was not to be a part of any kind of internet slap down, but instead just describe that CL650-like stuff does go on in add-ons you can buy right now, in MSFS, moreso probably than folks realize, and that the "sandbox" so to speak is not really a significant limitation.

I will also be clear that the CL650 is absolutely the most detailed addon that exists and there's good reason it costs $120-ish, and I don't expect it would suddenly be only $60 if it was being sold in MSFS, despite the larger market.

Both of these things can be true and still both of these categories of aircraft can also both be fantastic, and classified as "very very detailed".

If I can offer an observation. I think the perception of CL650 as the most advanced simulation isn't just the systems themselves, but user experience.
First off, that's not to take anything away from the complexity under the hood, it really is incredibly complex.

But I think what most people react to isn't necessarily systems depth itself but just how transformative it is to the experience of using X-Plane. The whole FBO thing, walk around feature and being able to navigate the cabin. The phone system where you can request services, the boarding stuff. The systems viz stuff, gps connectivity, etc. It takes the base experience of using the sim and makes it something else entirely.

Longitude is also incredibly complex and actually a real favourite of mine at the moment. But the experience it presents at first is that of a default aircraft. The complexity comes as a surprise as you explore it further and start looking at the systems pages. If it came with a Black Square-like tablet that highlighted all the systems depth underneath it would probably be less under appreciated. 

But my point isn't that the Longitude should be having these extra features, I think it's great as it is. I think it's more that as addons get more complex it's just as important to figure out how to present that complexity to people rather than just letting it speak for itself behind the scenes. Starship is a great example in the way it leans into the walkaround mode, or the way the FS500 managed boarding. 

And when we talk about sandbox, reading between the lines, is more about the ability to transform the experience to such a degree like the CL-650 does. But of course I'd argue MSFS is getting there through other features / third party bits, but available to all addons.