Starship

@Black-Square Thanks so much for the detailed response! I will definitely check out fiddling with some simulator settings. Its very odd how some people have this and some people don't. I also have two monitors. It's weird because I have tried changing every setting on my computer, with no luck. I'll let you know if I find a fix.

@Black-Square Hi Nick! It's really great when developers listen to their customers. It shows how committed they are to improving their systems and making the simulation even more immersive. I'm an Xbox Series X user, and as you know, things are very limited here. The option to import the flight plan directly from Simbrief is very welcome, although I still prefer manually entering everything into the CDU. What I would really like — and I know this isn't the topic of discussion — is to be able to view Navgraph charts on the tablet and to track the aircraft on their map (Simlink feature). I have no idea how complex or easy that would be to implement, but it would certainly be very useful. I miss having that feature to see airport ground positions, follow taxi routes, and so on. It would be exactly what Just Flight already does on their tablet. I hope that one day this comes to the Starship and the other BS aircraft that use the same tablet. Alan / From Brazil

I've had this tab open for weeks, just meaning to congratulate you on your Starship operation experience, and thank you for sharing the story with me. These are exactly the experiences I design my aircraft for, and I think there are none better than Starship among my fleet. Thanks again, and thank you for enjoying my aircraft the way they were designed to be

Awesome explanation!!

I Used The Pro series of Bonanza, Baron and Caravan and the Analog King Air for the tests. In those tests I used The GTN750 with the KX-155 as well. I also used the GNS430 with the Bonanza. I did not use the GNS430 for the Starship earlier BUT after your post here i just tried to switch over to having the FMS1 by the 430. The flights with the 430 were all OK. So to be clear: There is nothing wrong with how the STARSHIP works, It was me expecting a function it probably should not even have. And it flies so nice & really can keep one busy if one wants! Thanks for taking time Nick. Dave.

@Black-Square Ya know Nick, that unreleased update with the interactable control surfaces sounds like a perfect time to add the cockpit window sun shields and "brakes off" sign in the window we chatted about ages ago Also, taking delivery of our IRL Commander in the next 4-6 weeks. I sent a justflight message with my email ages ago, but haven't heard from you. If you want to connect on Commander stuff, feel free to reach out!

@Black-Square Yes, the protection activated even with both items in failure. Regarding the injectors, wouldn't it be better to treat this as a general failure rather than a clog? In the engine animation on the tablet, you can notice the absence of fuel injection (it looks like a small droplet). And finally, in the case of the R ENG DRIVEN FUEL PUMP, the logic is just reversed for it to be activated on the correct engine.

Thanks i hear it now. I wasn't slow enough.

Marty and I have this sorted out. The uppercase characters from the Star Trek BT font are acceptable for the registration number.

@Black-Square It would indeed be a huge amount of work, but it doesn't interfere with the simulation in any way. For me, the Starship is the best aircraft in the simulator that I've ever been able to purchase and study. I hope you'll continue to support it by implementing improvements and fixing bugs over time. Thank you!

@ErnieBall Glad to hear you're enjoying it! It's a very special aircraft for me too. I'm always here if you have any more questions!

I have the same question myself. In the flight_model.cfg file this damaging speed 190 is under the "flaps" section, which makes sense since the max flaps extended speed is 180. Should this really apply to the landing gear as well?

Re: the original post (VOR tracking goes from NAV to ROL spontaneously), I created a bug in the FS2024 Official forum. Feel free to add to that discussion. One important piece of info is that it seems only to happen when one is using an external control mapper like Spad.Next or FSUIPC. https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/bug-multiple-planes-change-from-nav-to-rol-hdg-mode-when-tracking-vor/762974

@alanfernandes said in Bug? Fuel Burn.: Although fuel flows by gravity from the forward to the aft compartment within the main system during refueling, there is no gravity transfer between the auxiliary and main tanks. In flight, this transfer relies exclusively on jet pumps operated by engine motive flow, which renders the fuel in the auxiliary tanks unusable should the pump system fail. I recall discussing this in one of my videos. Here is what I said in the manual: "Most of the fuel in the aft tanks will transfer to the main tanks by gravity, and the rest can be transferred by the aft tank transfer jet pumps. Should the aft tank transfer jet pumps fail, the total usable fuel may be reduced." Here is what the Flight Safety manual says: "Although a small amount of fuel may gravity-feed from the aft tank without the motive-flow system, the pilot should consider all fuel in the aft tank as unusable and plan the flight accordingly." Without looking right now (sorry, I'm leaving to record sound from the Twin Commanders in a few hours), I recall that I assumed this statement was made out of abundance of caution, and implemented the system such that it would slowly equalize to a certain point, so long as the jet pumps had not failed (emulating a blockage). Given the arrangement of the jet pumps and their no-moving-part nature, I assumed that there would be flow through them, so long as the pressure on the auxiliary tank side is high enough.

that looks like a perfect inclusion, thanks for the link!

@C-FJDH said in 13,450lbs - Significance on CG display?: Interesting! But it leads to a question on the implementation of the marker in the tablet. As I read it, the full aft limit is available at all weights. The forward limit is what changes at higher weights. 307 inches aft of datum (farther forward) at lighter weights, but the forward limits is pushed rearward 3 inches for weights above 13,450. I think the marker in the tablet should be near the forward CG limit, not the rear. Old thread, but since Nick may have missed this, I wanted to comment that it appears you're correct. This image is from section 6-27 of the flight manual. The forward CG limit evenly moves rearward after 13,450 lbs. Tablet mistake, indeed. [image: 29297225-5e96-40bc-94e0-76f772417adf.png]