@Mark I'm personally not all concerned with different passenger configurations from cabin / visual perspective. I just want to be able to add a ZFW in simbrief for example that exceeds the default 100pax weight in the fokker f100 without breaking the aircraft loading logic, and for the fokker f70 (since many carriers used 80 seat configs in their F70 for example). Let me know if that makes sense

@SinkRate I didn't mean to step on your toes. I don't know if there is any easy way for you to merge or take over my server... lmk as I'm hardly qualified to manage one

@venemair I experienced a combination of the poor ATS response, but more notably the crosswind issue just before landing using historic weather (Active Sky) on approach to 28L at EIDW. On first attempt I went around as was certainly not a stable approach. On 2nd attempt exactly the same issue, but carried on to land (not pretty) as was out of time for the evening! Because I was using ActiveSky for the weather injection I don't think this can be the system clock issue, but might be a corrupt weather file? As regards the ATS, I had this disengaged for the final approach, but find I keep fighting it as it turns itself on to protect speed. TBF, I think I was in the amber, but how do you tell the computer that it's within parameters for the approach? The correct flap setting was set with an approach speed of 141Kts which I was maintaining, so not really sure what I'm getting wrong if anything... I have done some good landings in the Fokker 100 (in fact some my best), but it does seem very inconsistent.

So, in FSUIPC I have the condition levers set in Axis as "Send to FS Preset". And the preset being "BS Starship Condition Lever 1 (2) Axis". No ranges or anything. Just like that. In the profile, they show up as: x=xU,256,F,PBS_Starship_Condition Lever 1 Axis,0,0,0,(star character)-1 -{ TO SIM: Preset Control }- x=xZ,256,F,PBS_Starship_Condition Lever 2 Axis,0,0,0,(star character)-1 -{ TO SIM: Preset Control }- Where the "x" will be different in your case. I also type (star character) instead of the actual character as the forum interprets it as Italic. But yes, I mean the Shift-8 sign to invert the movement.

All the time. No issues at all. Only „issue“ is that BATC thinks you are a Dornier flying boat during clearance.

@intjmastermind It would not even the legal to key in the procedure yourself in the real world. FAA and EASA rules explicitly state that you have to get them whole from a database. But I agree with you. Such an option would be great. Imagine starship would still be supported. It won’t be a far fetched idea that the avionics would have been upgraded accordingly. I don’t need full VNAV guidance. Just the procedures. And at least a GTN 650.

@Deadeye313 I looked at the SIDS and STARS extensively for the starship. Both FAA and EASA do require the procedure to be able to load from a database. Neither the KNS nor the starship can do that. I am debating if you can user program a procedure in starship yourself, as a stored flightplan, to be loaded. But that is different story.

Thank you for the feedback. I've just had a read of the FCOMs, and it does look like the speed brake lever should return to the IN position during automatic retraction. I have logged this on our internal tracker for our development team to look into further. Mark - Just Flight

For any AFCAS/ATS related feedback, could I kindly ask you to raise a support ticket with Just Flight Support at the following link: https://www.justflight.com/support The F70 & F100 Professional are complex products, so in order to give our support team the best chance at offering speedy assistance, and for any potential bugs to get properly logged and addressed, could you please include any screenshots/videos of the behaviour with your ticket, as well as attaching the log file generated by the product. Instructions for locating the log file can be found here: https://support.justflight.com/en/support/solutions/articles/17000152594-where-to-find-the-log-file-s- Mark - Just Flight

May be of interest... https://community.justflight.com/topic/11221/question-about-upcoming-updates Cheers James

@Black-Square Thank you for fixing it, I really appreciate your constant support to the community. I also highly respect you for having to deal with all of us xD Have a good day!

@Black-Square Hi Nick, looking forward to the upgrades....I see echo19 has created a soundpack for theTBM850....Will any of this batch of upgrades include an official BlackSquare TBM850 soundpack update? Cheers James

If the FAs/Cabin Crew are standing up and doing a safety demo then technically the cabin is not secure until they are also all sat down and fastened with their seatbelts. The cabin security is not only for passengers but for cabin crew as well. The airline operator I work for would usually have the "Cabin is secure for take off" somewhere between us shutting the door after final passenger count and taxi and arrival at the hold point for take off. We are permitted to pushback, engine start and taxi all the way to the hold point but cannot take off. This is an option for you in case you don't want to be late. I think there is an ARM DOORS function on the EFB to do it earlier as well

@Flocat89 said in Is it maybe possible that the startup procedure is incorrect?: maybe it will take a while I'll probably be sending the new version to Just Flight later today.

Surely some self control is all that's needed there! Perhaps what would be nice is something like the old fsx a2a aircraft where on the pop up/tablet etc you can choose to inspect the aircraft which when lists the damage/wear and tear.

So, also those won't probably cause the issue.

pfft... the tach hours are on... the tach. obviously.

I've figured out where things went wrong. I used the Contrail store to check the version installed, and that indicated wrong. So now I have the latest version installed. I checked the changelogs of the last 2 versions, and indeed all these issues I have were actually incorrect and fixed in those later versions which I did not have. So when I reinstalled suddenly the plane behaved differently than I remembered, simply because I had an outdated version before I was used to. Mods feel free to remove or close this topic if necessary.

Disclaimer, not a dev, info might be gappy or misremembered: FS9, FSX, and MSFS have for ever and always had essentially no way to realistically implement proper turboprop simulation due to core sim limitations, which I'm sure you might know. In recent years BS and a few other developers have managed to squeeze somewhat realistic behaviour out of the platform despite its faults, but still it's only ever been possible to properly recreate turboprop physics by running the addon's physics outside the sim which is rare (Majestic is the only one I know to have done it). Nick is a magician, but even so there's only so much that can be done in recreating a turboprop within MSFS, at least up until now. SU6 included a lot of turbine simulation improvements in its change log, hopefully this will translate to an easier life for devs and a more faithful recreation for us consumers. It's all hope for now though, I haven't seen any devs comment on it yet and it wouldn't be very surprising to find out that the changes hasn't helped all that much, but my fingers are very much crossed! Edit: Again, with no specific knowledge, it's also possible that the SU6 improvements could be great for a ground-up project, but require a complete rework of existing products. Just speculation.

@Black-Square Thanks for help, your code works well, but I'll use it as a temporary solution. Is there any chance that you could output these needle variables to some simvars in a future update?