If I think the assigned FL is unrealistic (and on several flights it proved to be unattainable given the length of the flight), I edit the plan in simbrief and assign a lower altitude.

@Mark It does. Thank you for the reply! Absolutely love this plane!

@Derek said in Error while installing Commander 114: @Y82578 https://support.justflight.com/support/solutions/articles/17000153015-file-error-0x3-during-the-installation This solution worked for me. Thank you all for the support.

@Black-Square Thanks a lot, Nick! Initially, I only wanted to change the carpet, but then one thing led to another!

@djd565 1977 according to the manual. I'd absolutely love a 114B as well because a few of them fly near me.

Soooooo….. nothing yet ?

Done, Thanks

Did a quick flight around Duluth, MN to check out the harbor this morning The sounds of the engine and gear is just the best thing ever. Beautiful plane, amazing work Nick, I'm thrilled.

Thanks, I finally later found the solution by using simconnect flaps_incr but I have to add 16384 in the parameter field. I don't know why! [image: 4309032e-3be2-4e58-8706-d384da46b97a.png]

I know this is a REALLY old post, but with the success of the old and "new" aircraft from JF(146 and RJ along with the F28 and F70/100), I'm curious if you guys are still considering another old and "new" progression with the A300, doing the rest of the family once the A300-200 is done. I know ini already has their A300-600 and default A310, but they're really lacking in variants(at least for the A310 with only the pax 300 with GE engines), and they're a mile wide but an inch deep. I think you guys could do a stellar job with the A300-600 and A310s after seeing how well the RJ and F70/100 turned out, and I think the gap in the market to justify it is still there. I also am not a developer so I have no idea how accurate this is, but the relative commonality between the F70/100 systems(especially sharing the honeywell pegasus FMS) seems like something that could be leveraged to reduce development time and effort, but that's something for the real devs in the room to evaluate.

Thanks. Basically, yes, that's the same or very similar. In its simplest form, I save the control binding profile and livery for the Grand Duke, but upon next MSFS2024 startup, it's reverted and I have to select each of the profiles again (although from memory I think one of them is OK, but I can't be sure) - the livery certainly isn't and at least 2 of the 3 profile settings have to be re-selected. However, for the Stock Duke and Turbine Duke, the 3 x control binding profiles and the chosen livery remain in place from my previous 'save', even after shutdown and fresh re-start. It's only the Grand Duke that continues to fail in this regard.

@Black-Square Thank you - as long as it is not a PEBKAC then I'm all good!

Thanks for the explanation, that clears things up. The new state saving system sounds very promising, would be a huge improvement. Thanks again for the clarification and for putting the effort into improving this feature on this awesome airplane.

@OELVA Saucer of milk?