Yeah, same issue here. Before the update I had it working perfectly with the switch releasing without delay.

Second this. I use MobiFlight free version also. Once you get to grips with it you can do so much. I would recommend checking out the SDK with regards to RPN also so when you look at other peoples examples it makes a bit more sense. REVERSE POLISH NOTATION

@SadBucket GNSS SID/STAR's as you mention are generally procedures ending with the name RNAV. And although the whole RNAV/RNP nomenclature is extremely murky, it generally entails performance-based navigation and always have an accompanying RNP. All these require the procedure to line-selectable from your equipment and can't be flown. Since conventional terminal procedures are also flown using conventional radio receivers there is no restriction placed on these non-RNP procedures. I guess one of the main reasons of this requirement is also to guarantee altitude restrictions and constraints. Since there is a process by which these procedures are checked and validated, you can guarantee every pilot has these constraints, whereas building it manually leaves a lot of ambiguity. That's just what I think. Not sure.

[image: fd5e28e1-bbe3-41dc-8ec3-d13718b98cf7.png] EDIT: Went through and made sure to delete any cached files and then did another full reinstall and that sorted the issue. Lights now illuminate the ground properly. Unfortunately, a reinstall did not work. It's weird how the lights illuminate the airframe but no interaction with the ground at all. I'll have to go through my community folder and see what I can find.

The inverted signs are just a byproduct of every aircraft having different nomenclature for what the ammeters are actually sensing, and whether we call that positive or negative. I suppose I've just left the nomenclature the same in my tablet for all my aircraft. As for your second observation, I'm not sure I see anything wrong here. It looks like the cockpit instrumentation is reading about 13A, accounting for parallax. I would expect a higher charging rate just after engine start at high RPM, but only if you had most of the aircraft systems turned off. If you have everything up and running like in this screenshot, the power has to come from somewhere, so there will not be as much excess power to charge the battery.

I think the way around this is to use custom install location with teh installer, which seems to default to a short folder structure of c:\justflight\product (paraphrasing). It also then creates a shortcut in your correct packages folder so this will just work, but I delete that shortcut and manually copy the folder from the c:\justflightfolder into my community folder because I dont want it to live on my C: drive.

Well if it was restricted it didn't seem to be affecting performance. I'll have to recheck

I expect Just Flight to develop the Hawker Siddeley Trident series for MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024, not JustTrains, okay?

@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

@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

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

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.

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.