F28 Professional

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.

@michaelth The "Fuel Flow KG/HR" text was based on our reference aircraft, and as the text is part of the texture (as opposed to it being a text decal) it wouldn't be possible to swap that via an option on the EFB.

We can look into the possibility of having the units on the display toggle between KG and LBS via an option on the EFB, but this may be confusing if the displays are all indicating LBS and the text indicates KGs.

We've logged this on our internal bugs/feature request tracker for us to take a look into for the next update to the F28.

Mark - Just Flight

Thank you for letting us know. We have logged this on our internal bugs tracker and we will investigate.

Mark - Just Flight

@flyforever The 'TOGGLE GPWS' control assignment can be used to silence the U/C horn silencer.

Mark - Just Flight

Thanks for looking into it!
No worries about the timing, it's not exactly game breaking, just a little bit odd.

Control lock disengaged?

I personally would fully support removing the GPS from the aircraft with the introduction of the UNS. It would be more accurate to the time period when F28s were most in use and it would maintain the use of modern procedures and waypoints for those that want to do it that way.

The "right" answer seems to be to go the route that some other developers have been going and coding a fully custom autopilot vs relying on the default MSFS one, but I can empathize with a desire to not spend development money on that at this juncture. Everything I've heard about the default MSFS autopilot sounds like it's just hot garbage.

Awesome, thanks for the info and for checking. I love this plane!

Thank you for reporting these. I have logged these on our internal bug tracker and we will aim to get these fixed in the next update to the F28 Professional.

Mark - Just Flight

im glad to see this question being asked here. I for one am 100% behind this endeavour, I LOVE the F28 (flying it right now) and would LOVE to fly shared cockpit with others!

I know I would be trying to get other pilots to fly it with me

Yes, Asobo/Microsoft are aware of this issue and there have been a quite a few threads about it posted on the official MSFS forums:

Unfortunatly, unless the volume of the morse codes gets increased in the core simulator, we'll be unable to make it any louder.

Mark - Just Flight

There a few differnt types of state saving in our aircraft.

Firstly we have "State Saving" which is an option that can be toggled on or off on the EFB. With this option enabled, the aircraft will save the state that it is in at the end of a flight and it will load back in with that state the next time you load into the aircraft. This means that all the switch positions, fuel levels, etc should be in the exact same positions as they were left in at the end of the previous flight.

Then we have "Aircraft States" which allow you to load the aircraft in one of the three states: Cold & Dark (aircraft fully shut down), Turnaround (aircraft at a gate with GPU connected and supplying electrical power), and Ready For Takeoff (aircraft configured in a takeoff state).

We do have a dedicated EFB manual available to download via the following link if you would like to read more about state saving or any of the other functions on the EFB: https://downloads.justflight.com/products/JFF003039/F28_Professional_MSFS_Manuals.zip

Hope that helps.

Mark - Just Flight

@Derek said in Is there any update on the Fokker coming to Xbox?:

The 'situation' such as it is, can be likened to that of Norma Desmond. It's the pictures that got small....
As products have got more detailed they have shown up the shortcomings of the X-Box S. Some titles will run fine on that platform - some won't. We have been working on various builds of the F28 (and some other titles) to try and optimise them to run on what is, essentially, a reasonably adequate gaming PC from 2020. Sadly, as with any PC that is showing its age, all the dialogue in the world is no substitute for more RAM or a better graphics card - or a game that doesn't stretch the machine's resources.
Hopefully, the next round of builds will provide something that will be ready for its close-up.

The forced parity policy for the Series S is awful, especially as you say, as add-ons get more complex and the console generation moves on, more and more developers are being outright hamstrung by needing to force parity between the two consoles per policy. Being unable to exclude or downgrade feature wise when it comes to the series S is becoming a rather large problem even outside of the FS ecosystem.

Thanks for a bit more insight into some of the current issues. Hopefully this doesn't mean the finally showing is significantly paired back compared to the PC version to even make sure it runs decently on the Series S, but beggers can't be choosers and many of us will take it anyway we can get it understanding any type of downgrade will only be because that's was the only way we will ever going to see it on our platform at all.

I sure do wish Microsoft allowed for Series X release add-ons only.

@AlexEtz Thank you for supplying that. We'll take a look into this and see if there's anything we can do to improve it.

Mark - Just Flight