@MountainMen1167 Hello again. Apologies for the further delay. It was Thanksgiving weekend in the United States when most of us are traveling to visit family. No, there is no tire pressure simulation, nor is it advertised. Icing visuals are present on all my aircraft (though there are limitations with the simulator's rendering engine), and stall-spin behavior uses the most up-to-date parameters and CFD physics available in MSFS 2020 and 2024. Nothing has changed in those respects between v1.0 and v1.1. Back to your previous message: I really do appreciate your feedback. Like I said, it gives me a comprehensive roadmap of features I can improve with the engine simulation. To the best of my knowledge, we've ever banned anyone from this forum who wasn't clearly a spam bot, and it certainly wouldn't be at my behest. I think everyone deserves a voice, and I would never want one of my users to be turned away for their critiques. This the best possible way for me to know where to focus my efforts. I hope you didn't think my response was curt or I took too much offense either. Your Reddit post said, "custom systems, as well as custom engine simulation, but I find no evidence of these items", implying that I had neither custom systems, nor custom engine simulation features of any kind. I'm sure you can imagine how I would not enjoy reading this inaccurate claim when I have spent years developing all the custom features in my aircraft. For the engine simulation specifically, I am required to use the default engine simulation, at least to some extent, unless I inject all my physics from outside the simulation (as discussed in my previous message). Without completely decoupling my aircraft from the simulator and using it only for visuals, most custom features will always be a layer between the user and default simulation. Even the features you mention in your original post, like gravity effects, would realistically not entail simulating the effect of gravity on the fuel in each line, but an approximation used to mimic the behavior, fed back into the simulator's engine simulation. As for the price, we think that it fairly represents the quality of the simulation and the effort required to create it, but I understand that is also in the eye of the beholder. When compared to other offerings, I let my users decide which features they are interested in (electrical, environmental, failures, tablet, pressurization, hot-swapping panel, turbochargers, multiple variants, aftermarket turboprop modifications). I'm sorry that you are not satisfied with my engine simulation, but I have done my best to ensure that the community is able to review my features and manuals before making their choice, including from independent reviewers. If you are looking for a refund, we can discuss that with Just Flight. I'm not familiar with all their refund policies, but I'm sure someone here can explain them. We want happy users, and if you are not happy with the experience my aircraft offer, then that might be the best solution we can offer.

I was kind of shocked as well that they didn't have them.

@FrecciaKing Just to be clear, it's not in "reverse" with the power lever at idle. It's at ground idle. In flight, the power lever will be locked out of the beta range unless you have the "unrestricted beta range" option enabled on the tablet's options page. There are three ranges: The normal (flight) range down to "flight idle". The beta (ground) range down to "ground idle". The reverse range. I don't have any specific FSUIPC scripts to achieve what you're looking for (everyone wants something slightly different), but I know there are a lot of FSUIPC scripting experts on the forum. Hopefully one of them will see this post and provide the help where I lack expertise!

Thanks, Mark. I suspected MSFS was the culprit given the LOD issues people have been having since launch, but it's nice to have a firm answer.

@KAPA-Flyer I also have no engine sounds with the TBM 850 in MSFS24 on Xbox. Waiting for the update to the 24 version to fix this.

Smooth cruising at FL390 [image: bf5e13c8-98d1-4ee4-8daa-603573a56853.png]

Yeah but it’s nice aircraft anyway.

My bad. I just double checked and I was in SU4. Sorry for the confusion.

The answer is you have to install the FS20 version which does have the Documents folder. Luckily I still had FS20 installed. The Just Flight FS24 installer needs repackaging to include the manuals.

Yes, the idea is cool, I would also like a plane, and even with a g1000. But while I'm enjoying the A36TC, I've already conquered 3 continents.

The older GPWS sounds were used on the real RJ back in the day, but they changed at some point. I'm not sure why but if I had to speculate, I would guess that maybe the older sounds were associated with GPWS and the newer sounds with EGPWS? The JF RJ doesn't have a terrain display so maybe you simulated an RJ that had GPWS rather than EGPWS?

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.

Thanks, @Mark. I looked and it's not there either under MD8x and DC9x. I've never heard them at specific airports, but I've heard them while flying. I'll try to pay attention the next time I fly.

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.