Starship

I have told Just Flight's lead developer, and hopefully he will make the bug report with Asobo soon. Thanks again!

@Black-Square thanks. It's not that big a deal, I'm sure someone will publish hardcoded registration livery until they fix this. I just thought I was doing something wrong. MSFS 2024 is definitely still a WIP, but we're all in this for the long haul. As far as I'm concerned, this is the end game airplane, there is nothing else I'm nearly as interested in... unless you do a Velocity v2. I mean I don't know what else there is to do, I hope you do some other Rutan one or something weird/fast/quirky. PS. The textures on those cockpit instruments are so good. I'm looking at them in full sun with glare, at 4K HDR. Flawless. The aircraft is living and breathing.

The fuel and passenger payload should already be saved and restored. Originally, I recall payload setting to be broken in MSFS 2020, but I had the code in all of my aircraft to do it anyway. I believe I have seen it working recently, but I wouldn't swear to it.

@MatzeH84 I just wanted to let you know that, while it might seem that I am focusing my attention on the other thread about deleting waypoints, I believe the two issue are related, so I am not ignoring you!

This one took me a minute to look into. I thought I made a mistake, but the problem is that it's impossible to distinguish an entry of 1505 on the CDU between 150.5 kHz, and 1505.0 kHz without a decimal key. The description in the avionics manual is ambiguous, so I might have to ask one of the owners to test it for me. Ah, I suspect the checklist might not actually be your problem. If you are using external hardware, it's possible that it might be setting (or not setting) the "avionics master" event. I've tried overriding this in all my aircraft, but sometimes I still see it present itself due to the number of hardware/binding software combinations that there are in the wild. This old "radio master" binding still affects some of the radio navigation code in MSFS that hasn't changed since the 90's.

ohhhh, yeah! That's it! Thanks

No worries! No misunderstanding at all! I'm sure you understand that I walk a fine line between people who will be upset with me that I didn't add a feature, and others who will be upset because I did when it's not "realistic". Thank you for your kind words, and I hope you continue to enjoy!

I had an excellent tech instructor during a Beech course many years ago who was heavily involved in the systems engineering behind the Starship (basically adapting earlier 1900 systems and the unique conditioning system was his pervue). He later went on to working on the 1900D project which actually utilized a lot of the systems improvements from Starship. Anyways, he didn't have many particularly positive things to discuss in regards to Burt Rutan. Burt is a visionary and elegant designer of aircraft, and big pioneer of composites in aviation - but ultimately he wasn't a talented production engineer who stuck things out through to the actual production phase. It was explained to my that Burt basically abandoned the program after completion of the smaller scale prototype by Scaled Composites. When it came time to develop the tooling, processes, certification basis, and systems of a true - production quality aircraft - he had largely detached himself from Beech. That, and all the financial troubles and fallout from the Starship program that lead to the eventual purchase of Beech by Raytheon - had left Rutan's name a bit sour at Beechcraft. So anyways, I don't know if Rutan would ultimately be much of an interesting guest in regards to seeing what we enjoy as simmers and what Nick has so generously developed. Simply put, beyond the initial prototype, overall aerodynamics and design (which ultimately was still less efficient and more costly than a similar King Air 350) - Rutan himself was long removed from the Starship project at rollout.

Install_BKSQ_Starship_MSFS2024_0.1.0a.zip worked, thank you! Onwards and upwards!!

On sale now...

I wouldn't say "useless", but more "use at your own risk. I have made integration with any binding software that supports HTML events (probably any that support RPN) as easy as possible, and listed all events in my manual.

The original manuals are a great place to start for anything you might want more detail on than I supplied. Just do so knowing that you might be surprised once you get in the cockpit. I am always here, and even more happy than usual to answer your questions, given that they concern my favorite aircraft ever built

I had to think about the best answer to your question for a couple days, because, truth be told, I actually don't do much testing specifically for performance, but I am constantly thinking about it. I think the simplest answer is "that's the only way I know how to be". From optimizing the 3D model, to packing UV sheets, to programming, I work like I'm still living in the 2000's, when every line of code and every polygon counted. It actually makes me rather upset when I see the default MSFS 2024 aircraft, which waste polygons like graphics cards grow on trees. In some aircraft, over half the recommended polygon budget is wasted on literally inaccessible engine geometry. (In case you've ever wondered why MSFS 2024 runs so poorly) Even in MSFS 2020, there would be knobs in the cockpit with 10x more polygons than they needed. The same goes for textures and code. I am constantly looking for algorithms and shortcuts that I can use to speed up code execution. If I've done my job right, you shouldn't be able to notice. I saw some people who were shocked that my Starship avionics suite was "only" 30,000 lines of code, and my tablet interface is "only" 5,000". All I can say is that this wasn't by accident. I'm quite proud of my optimizations, but that's probably where I should leave it, in case anyone begs to differ. There is always more that can be done, but I try to strike a healthy balance. Excellent question!

From the training manual: "There is no published airspeed limit on the use of the windshield wipers. However, it is recommended that the windshield wipers not be operated above 130 KIAS. Attempting to use the windshield wipers above this speed usually proves ineffective."

I don't know anything about that particular addon (although I've always thought that something similar would be a great idea), but I suspect it would work perfectly with Starship. If the download contains BGL's, which are read into the simulator and usable with the default radios, then they should appear in Starship's database and maps. I'll look forward to finding out!

Well - I say it just insane to simulate something that even real pro multi million dollar simulators does bother to create, or even come to their mind. Absolutely no need to give priority to make it as realistic as possible, without ruin a real engine. Thank you for Omega nav system. I really missed it in flight sim. I hoped it was in Vulcan, but no cigar. I attended a short intro course back then when beauties used hot pants. Fun to finally learn how it works. 48 hours to go. I know the price will be right. The manual is worth it alone, and you get the Starship for free.

You are correct! In SYNC mode, the radar acts as a single transducer, controlled by either the left or the right CDU, and displayed on the pilot's ND, copilots ND, and MFD with all the same parameters and modes. In SPLIT mode, the radar acts as if it were two separate transducers, controlled separately by the left and right CDU's. This would allow the pilot and copilot to each control the radar as they see fit for the situation, but also to display a different radar depiction on the MFD from the pilot's ND. As you said, this might be most useful for keeping an eye on long range weather on the MFD while looking at nearby terrain on the ND, or a similar combination.

That's great to hear! It's one of those areas where Asobo had a good idea but didn't fully think it through during implementation. Like adding removable Pitot-Static and engine covers, but not providing a way to reapply them after a flight...I'm glad to see that you've implemented it in a way that solves this issue.