@bspline Assuming we're talking about the new updated manuals, I added this question to the FAQ: "Will Real Taxiways signs models/textures interfere with other addons? There are several other addons that attempt to improve the appearance only of taxiways signs. Real Taxiways is not compatible with these addons, because it requires its own custom taxiway sign textures to create all the enhanced features listed in this manual." For an expanded answer, Real Taxiways has always required those custom textures to work, since it adds many new types of taxiway signage. In the original 2020 versions, you had make sure these textures were installed separately, while it's done as part of the same package in 2024 (and now also 2020). As long as Real Taxiways has priority over these other packages, its signs will display correctly. However, you can still use any other airport enhancement addons with Real Taxiways, as they will still enhance other aspects of the scenery, just not the taxiway sign textures. I hope that makes sense. I'm happy to help you figure out any compatibility questions you might have.

I'm mainly looking forward to the 2020 update, as I haven't moved over to 2024 for any 'formal' flying. I think the 2020 update has been baked and out of the oven a while but is held up by the turbulent 2024 situation. Main areas I'm excited about: Headphone simulation Rain sounds Better click-spots for cowl flaps (hopefully) and maybe the wing anti-ice switch (fiddly to flick it down) Fuel levels saving correctly (not sure if that fix is in), maybe a few other persistency elements Some other stuff I likely read about and have since forgotten! The update might also see me switch to 2024 at last, since the Duke is the main aircraft I'm flying these days (I tend to spend months with one aircraft at a time, as if I own it).

@Black-Square I bet dealing with the simulator is rather frustrating, particularly given all the hard work and attention to detail you put into your aircraft. I’ve just moved into 2024 from 2020. I liked 2020 as a sim but always found that night time was very very dark, it that representative in my opinion. Your aeroplanes are fantastic and I can’t wait to see what’s up next.

The RJ100 QT should use the same weights as the RJ100 listed in the RJ Professional Operations Manual. We'll look into clarifying this in a future manual update. Mark - Just Flight

I switched to mobiflight and they work now as described by @Avionic so it's definitely an AAO thing on my end.. I'll probably switch completely to mobiflight as the UI and formatting seems a bit friendlier. Thanks for the help, can't wait to enjoy all the physical interaction now!

@Voice-of-Reason I purchased Rex Atmos previously and have not received discount email?

Lots of users complaining about parking brake issues in MS 2024 with different planes. Turns out that SU3 in many cases has caused additional controller bindings to be added, so look out for those.

@Black-Square said in Love the sound, but need headphones shortcut!: @Orlaam I agree that all aircraft I have experienced feel noticeably worse in 2024. I find them much less satisfying to fly in my pursuits as a real pilot. I have been hesitant to make adjustments, because there were no advertised differences to existing flight models in 2024, and I think the difference might lie only in control input responsiveness. I have decreased the sensitivities of my controls substantially compared to 2020, and that has helped. Although I don't like making changes at the last moment, I may find the safest variable to tweak on my 2024 updates in an attempt to alleviate this. I actually think the 2024 flight model is more enjoyable than 2020 overall. I am not a real pilot, but when I watch videos of landings, the 7-10 knot winds aren't blowing planes all over the place and pushing them off the runway, which is how I feel 2020 and previous versions of MSFS do. The iFly 737 MAX is great in both 2020 and 2024, but when you touchdown in 2024, the MAX doesn't try and run off the runway. The controller input for crosswind input is less extreme, thus to me it's better. The Starship handles great in both sims as well. The differences between aircraft can be very vast though, and I assume it's how they tweaked the FDE. It seems one can overcome the minutia of oddities in MSFS if done right. The Starship certainly seems to overcome some problems MSFS inherently has, albeit accounting for the drag of the props or canard wing.

Okay I use SI instead of the ingame ATC, so no problem. Good to know, didn’t saw that option in the EFB

@Orlaam That is one of the reasons I prefer HTML/JS to WASM for my purposes. It's relatively hard to cause performance problems with JS, at least without knowing what probably caused it. It's almost impossible to cause a CTD, unless the issue lies within the simulator itself, and not your code (I have encountered about a dozen of those in MSFS over the years).

No luck, unfortunately, but the help is appreciated. Hopefully Asobo will see the light, soon. Thanks!

My comment above was intended for informational purposes regarding the reason why that logic exists in the product. For product support, creating a ticket with Just Flight Support will always be the best option: https://www.justflight.com/support Mark - Just Flight

@dadgametime Hi Brian. Can you send me over a link to your livery via DM so I can take a look for you?

Thank you! I think I must have been over complicating things and using increase/decrease as the operation, and trying every which way...

@Delta558 No worries, have fun! I investigated it a bit further in the meantime. The trim tab seems to have a lot more impact on the overall lift coefficient than the elevator itself - which is odd to me. I tried to map my joystick to the trim axis and the trim to the elevator axis and that actually gave me realistic control over it in slow flight (looks very funny to steer that thing but only the trim tab moves). Can you try landing that thing without trimming it, because that seems to be the core of my problem - i.e. without trim, no slow flight possible because elevator alone cannot create enough lift with that low power setting.

I stick to medium, personally. "Realistic" is absolutely insane and exaggerates way too much, especially on approaches with light or calm winds. Medium is still a bit heavy but it's more manageable without wrestling with the yoke and pedals. I would speculate that "realistic" works better with heavies but I don't fly many airliners in sim. I've noticed less an effect with the greater inertia in similar conditions, so I picked the middle ground, if even medium feels a bit too strong.

We haven't looked into the nav light behaviour post SU3, so I can't say for certain yet if there are any blockers that would prevent us from developing a workaround. It's something we'll properly look into when we come to developing the next update to the RJ. Mark - Just Flight

Right! Got it sorted. 4 for the 'On' + Repeat when held. Starter has a little dig but I'll live with that. Can't do a mag check though but I'll live with that as well. Thanks again for replying, I appreciate it. No need to look for another twin now.

You may find it more useful to use the CDU tuning by clicking NAV, COM, or ATC on the left side of the CDU keypad. No decimals required, and even if you don't have the RTU's in 3-digit mode it works great. Neat thing about the NAV tuning is that you can enter the 3-letter identifier and it'll auto-tune the frequency, clutch in a "slam dunk" situation when you're scrambling single-pilot to prep when ATC is running at a high tempo.

For the most part, the RJ should use standard control assignments for any controls that are common between aircraft (Parking brake, flaps, lights, etc.). We do, however, use some non-standard control assignments for controls that are specific to the RJ. Those are listed at the very end of the RJ Operations Manual: https://support.justflight.com/en/support/solutions/articles/17000142841-rj-professional-msfs-manuals Mark - Just Flight