F28 Professional

Thanks. Could you please contact our support team so that they can go through some troubleshooting steps with you. https://support.justflight.com/support/home

I've had this happen before also

Excellent! Thanks a lot.

Hello @Mark :)

I already sent you an email to the address support gave me.

Thanks

We are planning an update to the F28 that will be in the same order of magnitude as our recent 146 version 2 update that will bring the 146s feature set across to the F28, including the UNS-1 FMS, as well as a few extra features. We aren't able to give an exact timeframe for when this will be released, but we'll keep everyone posted on our social media platforms.

The 1000C/3000C is something we have always wanted to develop, but haven't been able to due to a lack of reference material. In the time since the F28's release, we have been able to source some limited reference material, so we can now judge the amount of work required. There is quite a significant amount of work required for the 1000C/3000C versus the passenger variants, for instance, it would require changes to the cockpit configuration, a brand new cabin with a cargo door, an updated flight model and additional sounds. It's not something we can commit to at this time, but if it's something we are able to develop in the future then it'll likely come in the form of an expansion to the F28.

Mark - Just Flight

@AlexEtz the tool tip is way too ugly and it affects not just one switch (which I could tolerate), but all of them. A 'decent' solution would be to add a page to EFB, but that would of course be a very big "sim-ism" + anyway not "user-friendly", so I will hope for some sort of an FMC integration :)

Hey @Mark , I didn't had this issue since a long time... maybe last MSFS updates fix it. I will report it back if I see any fluctuations again.

Hey, I made an other occurrence with this display issue. This time the weather even made the aircraft go a little bit bellow the glide and you can see that the display is showing the opposite.

It really seems to be a very random issue... sometimes it occurs, sometimes not.

https://youtu.be/NxoX7zCqwIY?si=KI1YY0LaQ_H4VgT0

weather in LFQQ that day: LFQQ 191030Z AUTO 28015KT 9999 SCT019/// BKN025/// OVC038/// ///CB 11/08 Q1013 TEMPO 32015G25KT 3000 SHRA BKN012 BKN020TCU

@Mark Thanks for the clarification! Just bought, finally i can enjoy some Fokker flights! Just want to spend a minute to say that i have already the 146 Pro and the Avro Vulcan and i can definitely affirm that JustFlight is easily one of the best developer out there for msfs. Great quality addons and awesome attention to details. Good job guys!

@Mark I did what you said, renamed the community folder and then it worked. I thought that this was strange, since the only things I have in my community folder are (payware) scenery and aircrafts, the same ones that I had on my old PC in fact. Nothing that should interfere with the f28...

So I decided to do another reinstallation, removing the program using the Windows tool. But since I renamed the community folder it didn't uninstall it at all, so I ran the installer on top of the installed one already. All of the sudden it worked! Not sure how, but I have done 2 test flights now without any issues at all.

@AlexEtz Thanks for reporting this. I've logged this on our internal bugs tracker to investigate further.

Mark - Just Flight

@AlexEtz Thank you for the kind words. The F28 Professional was an enjoyable one for us to develop with it being so different to anything else, so we're glad to see our passion for it is reflected in the product. We'll pass on your words to the rest of the development team.

We'll be turning our attention to the F28 again soon to give it a similar treatment to that of the recent 146 Professional Version 2 update. There are some new features coming to the F28 that we haven't announced yet, so there's lots to look forward too!

Mark - Just Flight

@GroverJ41 Thanks for the clarification! The RMI turned into quite a headache during development and we had so little reference material regarding what each switch position stood for. Our coders must have found some reference material in the end to simulate the current logic.

With regards to the purple bug on the HSI, it will point directly to the active Navaid. So if you have a VOR tuned into the VHF NAV radios they will indicate the direction of the VOR. If you have a flight plan entered into the GPS, they will indicate the direction of the next waypoint.

Mark - Just Flight

Thank you.

Thanks for the reply, very nice to hear, it's cool to re-discover an aircraft with new way to use it.

By the way the INS unit on the pedestal is a Litton LTN-51, could be useful in places with low VOR/ADF coverage, remote island hopping, VIP/GOV, etc...

alt text

Maybe that could be considered after the release of the A300B4, even if it's a different unit

@pm_pilot The F70 and F100 are still a little way from release so we haven't yet finalised the pricing models for them, but we'll be sure to let everyone know the pricing and if any discounts are available once the pricing has been finalised.

Mark - Just Flight

@Microlight Hey Thanks for your update. I respectfully disagree regarding the load station amount. Even a simplified model of the 10 load stations would be better than the current implementation. The aircraft weight and balance documents allow for zone loading with the included change in moment as seen in figure 7 in the analysis? Would 10 loading stations exceed the technical capabilities of calculating the CG location for the simulation?

Additionally the aircraft is fully certificated to fly at the boundaries of the CG envelope as a normal operation with no additional procedures or consideration. For example in the CRJ-200 the aircraft is routinely operated at the maximum fwd cg, this is primarily a consequence of someone at bombardier thinking it was a good idea to certify the baggage hold to 3500lbs which necessitating taking the CL600 airframe and adding fuselage plugs in-front of the wing. Sometimes the aircraft was only within FWD cg limit because through the application of ballast in the aft cargo bin, sometimes in excess of 1000lbs.

So I disagree that a) just because the operation is close to the limit that it isn't realistic and b) that the current system is the best possible system because otherwise you would need to account for every seat, that is a straw man fallacy. Is there a fundamental technical limitation the CG cannot be made accurate to align with the weight and balance of the aircraft?

Thanks,
Crash

Edit: Additionally simply saying, "no we aren't planning on taking the time to update the code base" is also a justifiable reason. Cost benefit analysis are a driving force in decision making and planning.