When turns amber

Thanks you all for your answers. So it is a mix of all you three! @jmarkows Yes, I forgot about the variables at the end of the great manual! so now I could set up my bravo as I wish! @Black-Square Yes, the process is similar to the Starship but the name of the variable in the starship contains the system number which make It easier even without the manual to find. Great airplane, great work ! @MiRexer Thanks for the clarification. with the variables in the manual I could solve it.

I suspect that they aren't factoring in the thermodynamic limits of the engines, which when applied will lead to a limitation on T FLEX. There are further limitations that must be applied too. I made a small app for calculating T FLEX based on the numbers from SimBrief, and even that results in sketchy take-offs now and then so there's more to it than that. There is at least 1 bug in the TRP N1 calculation, which is that it uses indicated altitude instead of pressure altitude, which will result in different N1 REF values than the N1 values that all performance data tables are based on. This could result in better and also worse take-off performance (I sent a ticket about this but nothing's happened yet). If the QNH is low, the pressure altitude is higher and usually means a higher N1 REF is required. Let's assume bleeds and eng ant-ice off, OAT 15 and the airport elevation is 0 ft. Assuming we've set the correct QNH, that would yield an N1 REF of 94.2 in the JF RJ since it uses the indicated altitude, which would be around 0 under those conditions. The pressure altitude would only be 0 at QNH 1013. But if the QNH is 978, the pressure altitude is around 1000 ft. If we enter the N1 REF tables with 1000 ft instead of 0 ft, we get an N1 REF of 95.5. Because the performance tables assume that an N1 REF of 95.5 is used under these conditions, SimBrief would calculate a higher MTOW than the JF RJ can actually manage since it will produce less thrust than IRL for those conditions. On short runways, you may want to reduce the calculated max temperature by 10 degrees or something like that to give you greater margins and consider using N1 REF instead of N1 REDU or N1 FLEX. I would've made a proper TKOF/LDG performance calculator long ago (completely free of charge), but no one is willing to give me the data I need, so sadly that will never happen.

@jmarkows It's set to my usual speaker system. Radio Comms are perfectly normal and at an acceptable level, but the identity can only be heard with engines/packs/APU off. Any other noise drowns them out.

I appreciate you having a look. Let me see about making a video. FYI, this is in relation to MSFS, not 2024.

@MiRexer It would.

Wow, that was unexpected. I deleted both the JF_146.ini file and the StateSave.ini file from the WASM folder. I ended up deleting both because I forgot to when I started MSFS after the SU4 drop today, and when I applied AC power to the aircraft every single bell, whistle, and alarm started screaming at me, the wipers freaking out, the whole airplane was possessed. Scared the hell out of me because of the sudden onslaught of alarms and flashing lights. Oh, and the EFB had disappeared. After deleting both and restarting the sim, I loaded in, set the EFB to LB, and just started up the APU and the FMS to see if there were any funky WASM errors happening. I hit End Flight shortly after getting her partially powered up, then loaded back in. To my surprise, she was quiet from the outside, but on entering the aircraft proper I was greeted to the same light state, the APU running, the master switches all on, and pretty much everything how I left it except the FMS/Radar was off and the handful of things covered by the livery options Mark mentioned above. It even kept the EFB set to LB this time. I was a doubter but so far so good for me.

[image: d688593e-dfe1-41a6-b46b-80ba8f6b9d42.png] Side note PSA: With HDR off and setting light shafts to off does "fix" the ridiculous landing light bloom in msfs2024. with the downside of never having light shafts... I guess you can turn it back on in bad weather...

Wondering about this as well. I've just started flying the Turbine Duke, and it's an awesome plane. But my fuel used the last flight was more than double what Simbrief predicted, so I'll be keeping a detailed fuel log the next couple of flights to find try and find the discrepency.

Whatever they do, on VATSIM the telemetry being sent when GSX is doing the push back shows the planes doing hilarious wheelies.

I've been having some pretty icy flights lately. Today out of curiosity I left the ice on the wings after the descent and approach (wasn't in the clouds long - just a normal approach) - normally I'd be at 20" and 2400 rpm at 100 knots on final with full flaps and gear down - on this flight I had to be at 30" to maintain that 100 knots. [image: 233d8190-d9b8-4a92-bdee-eb24c66566f9.jpg] This was a flight from KOMA to KMSP around 1500Z if you want to give that flight path a try - flew the whole thing at 5,000 feet.

Great ... I will ask for them, as soon as I am familiar with the Baron (will take quite a lot of time ...)

@Mark said in Elevator trim not working: I have just tested this and I am seeing the tail plan position indicator move between +5 and -3 by triggering the elevator trim assignments This is the expected behaviour. Regardless of flight model. The manual still states +3 and -5 degrees tail plane trim. The tail plane indicator should move even when trimmed on the ground because its offset is changed, no aerodynamic trimming with tabs. Me (today) and @jaspar11 (2 years ago) are getting only -0.5 degrees and 0.5 degrees movement on the indicator. That is half a mark. Barely visible even at full trim. How to check that trim is neutral befor take off, as the manual requires? We can't

Ah ok, so that's how it ended up in the manual. Thanks Mark.

@GeographicalInvert Thank you for the kind offer. Could I ask you to open a ticket with Just Flight Support via the following link and send any reference material you have to our support team? https://www.justflight.com/support That will be the best way for us to receive any reference material, and it'll then make its way back to the relevant development team. Mark - Just Flight

The direction of the rain on the cockpit windows is linked to airspeed. If you're sitting at a gate with a fairly strong headwind, it is possible that the airspeed may exceed the threshold for raindrops to change direction. Mark - Just Flight

The locked cockpit seats are intentional logic in the MSFS 2024 versions of the F28 to work around a simulator limitation. See point 5 in the following FAQ: https://support.justflight.com/en/support/solutions/articles/17000145497-f28-professional-msfs-2024-known-limitations Thanks for the feedback regarding noise reduction/headphone option. Although nothing is planned at the moment, we have added that to our internal feature request tracker for consideration in a future update. Mark - Just Flight