RJ Professional

@gazdav787 exactly. thanks so much for the help

I suspect that they aren't factoring in the thermodynamic limits of the engines, which when applied will lead to a limitation on T FLEX. There are further limitations that must be applied too. I made a small app for calculating T FLEX based on the numbers from SimBrief, and even that results in sketchy take-offs now and then so there's more to it than that. There is at least 1 bug in the TRP N1 calculation, which is that it uses indicated altitude instead of pressure altitude, which will result in different N1 REF values than the N1 values that all performance data tables are based on. This could result in better and also worse take-off performance (I sent a ticket about this but nothing's happened yet). If the QNH is low, the pressure altitude is higher and usually means a higher N1 REF is required. Let's assume bleeds and eng ant-ice off, OAT 15 and the airport elevation is 0 ft. Assuming we've set the correct QNH, that would yield an N1 REF of 94.2 in the JF RJ since it uses the indicated altitude, which would be around 0 under those conditions. The pressure altitude would only be 0 at QNH 1013. But if the QNH is 978, the pressure altitude is around 1000 ft. If we enter the N1 REF tables with 1000 ft instead of 0 ft, we get an N1 REF of 95.5. Because the performance tables assume that an N1 REF of 95.5 is used under these conditions, SimBrief would calculate a higher MTOW than the JF RJ can actually manage since it will produce less thrust than IRL for those conditions. On short runways, you may want to reduce the calculated max temperature by 10 degrees or something like that to give you greater margins and consider using N1 REF instead of N1 REDU or N1 FLEX. I would've made a proper TKOF/LDG performance calculator long ago (completely free of charge), but no one is willing to give me the data I need, so sadly that will never happen.

Hi Mark I found out what the issue was, APU was not running as you mentioned above, Thanks for resolving it. Regards Joe

We would like to add it to all of our MSFS 2024 airlines at some point, but it's not something we would be able to share a timeframe for at the moment. Mark - Just Flight

Appreciate it, thank you.

another feature I'd really like is for the Flight data computers (FMS) to be capable of displaying their outputs. So those of us with external hardware FMS's could use a program like spad.next to display on our hardware. Input is working, not output though.

The 146 and RJ both simulate cabin temperature based on the selected air source and temperature selections, and take into account factors such as if the aircraft is in direct sunlight, or if one or more exterior doors are open. We did make some minor improvements to the Air Conditioning logic with the 146 v2.4 update that will be brought across to the RJ in the next update, but that's primarily related to the DUCT TEMP / CABIN TEMP relationship and rate of change. Mark - Just Flight

I don't recall seeing any other reports of this, so could I kindly ask you to raise a ticket with Just Flight support via the following link: https://www.justflight.com/support In the ticket, if you could provide details such as the simulator you're using (including which sim update), and if you have any steps to reproduce this behaviour (including screenshots/video if possible), then our support team will be in the best position to attempt to reproduce this and offer further assistance. Mark - Just Flight

There haven't been any changes to the IRS alignment or FMS logic recently (other than the addition of Simbrief Import in the v1.4 update). However, any feedback that gets sent to us always gets logged on our internal trackers, and we do consider everything each time an update is planned. The exact scope of each update is typically based on the availability of our development teams at the time of the update, so it's tricky to give timeframes for if/when certain bug fixes/features may be included in an update. Mark - Just Flight

We are aware of some scenarios where changing the simulator time (or using active pause) can cause the timers in the RJ code to go out of sync with the timers in MSFS 2024. We are investigating this, and we aim to have a fix implemented in an upcoming update to the RJ. In the meantime, we would recommend minimising any time changes or active pause usage when using the RJ in MSFS 2024. Mark - Just Flight

Maybe it's possible to tie the engine sounds to the values the PED uses instead of the engine simulation variables or calculate separate values specifically for the sounds. That way, you can do whatever you want underneath the hood while fixing the engine sounds. The best of both worlds.

Yes, my experience with both is that they have the same systems depth. The RJ may have EFIS, but don't let that fool you as there's no VNAV, only advisory VNAV (just like the real aircraft). The RJ is much more hands-on than for example the 737NG. Unlike the 146 it has autothrottle, but it won't select a thrust mode automatically like the 737NG would. The procedures are old school just like with the 146 (lenghty procedures with loads of system tests). So it's just a notch above a 146 with an EFIS retrofit. If you want a more hands-on airplane with EFIS that still has a decent autopilot, the RJ is an excellent choice. I prefer the RJ, but that's just my personal taste and not because the product is a better product than the 146.