Unfortunately, I am unable to reproduce this. I said to myself, "what?!" when I read your report, since I'm really not sure how that would be possible. If you really think you're seeing this, you can test whether it has anything to do with my code by removing a section of my XML (since I know you are well acquainted with modifying my aircraft). Look for the block of code commented Fuel Crossfeed Logic, and just remove it to test. That's the only place where the fuel level of the aircraft is modified after loading.

Agh, that section of code was just a mess, so I rewrote it. There was little code left from the Analog Caravan, but that was some of it. Should be all better now. Thanks.

In the 1997 revision of the Caravan I POH that I based my work on, I have the standard empty weight of Cargomasters S/N 208B0179-208B0381 and associated STC's at 4,040 lbs, including the cargopod. Of course, all aircraft have different equipment installed from the factory, and have many modifications over the years that impact empty weight, but perhaps this came from a confusion over the inclusion of the cargopod, which weighs around 150 lbs. Would you like me to adopt this new 4,040 lbs number? I will promise not to refer anyone who complains about the loss of 115 lbs useful load to you

This is something inherent to how I implement my turbine engine simulation on top of the native engine simulation. I've briefly entertained adding a compensation for time acceleration in my code, but I'm not actually sure it would behave the same on every computer, since I think it has more to do with the simulation polling rate than the time acceleration itself. In the meantime, this effect should not be limited only the fuel flow, but the entire engine simulation, so adjusting the power lever position at your desired time acceleration should yield correct performance and fuel burn results.

Agreed, and not only for the Cargomaster. It would be nice if they'd fill with bags in the Passenger variant as well.

That one is on Asobo, but I appreciate the continued reports, and I've added them all to my ongoing list of fixes.

@scanham Sorry for letting some others respond to you before I stepped in. This sounded like the usual "have you checked the engine health" solution to me from your description. Are you still seeing the chip detect light? There are two ways for that light to illuminate: either the engine has failed, or the engine health is below 25%. If you have any way to observe these two variables (such as 3rd party hardware binding software like SPAD, please take a look at L:var_engineDamage and A:ENG FAILED:1. Repairing the engine via the tablet should take care of the first, and that should un-trigger the second, unless there is something at the simulator level which is triggering an engine failure.

@Black-Square I kind of expected that to be the case.

If a glas cockpit would be the only option I would pass on this one. Sorry no fan of glas cockpits.

@Voice-of-Reason I see. I thought there was also a native version planned for MSFS2024, which would have interactivity and additional animations. For example, in the native v.2024 versions, chooks themselves can be removed by clicking on them while outside the plane. The same applies to the "Remove before flight" button, as well as all red covers. I know that the current version is compatible and that is correct, although not all elements work correctly in MSFS2024 (example: tooltips). Thanks for reply.

Just did a quick test, with stress damage disabled you can "open" the door without crashing. By open i mean the door does barely open due to wind. Only a small gap will be visible. And of course the sound does change. I do not use OnAir but if it stress damage is not mandatory this is the solution.

Here's an example where tooltips appear at the top of the screen, even though they're related to something below. Not all switches have tooltips either. [image: FS2020-20260403-222721-CAS-100-100-R.jpg] (example is from VR view).

One of the most inviting views in the sim [image: 727f8029-985e-4c16-b387-4fa9ec21a16d.png]

@jmarkows Thanks.

@jmarkows Oh. I used the search in my PDF viewer and it didn't find that section! Weird. Thanks!

@mtmikepsl said in Fuel amount not correct: Looks like the fuel reads 2010 lbs of fuel max. Where are you seeing this number?