Hey Nick, same as the guy above me, I'm using the WT GNS 530/430 combo and I'm seeing the KAP140 baro setting having no effect and the main altimeter setting controlling the AP. Currently flying the Cargomaster in MSFS 2024, Caravan v1.1. Edit: removing the ping, as based on the comment re: WT update cycle I suspect you're aware of this. I thought it worked in the Analog Caravan in 2020 though? I was using WT avionics back then, as well.

@Galf Do you have v1.1 of the Caravan? There was an issue in v1.0 that prevented those items from saving, but only for the Cargomaster.

@ksmith Wonderful! Thanks for the feedback. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you guys!

@Black-Square Sorry about that one - for some reason I thought real taxiways changed the pavement markers too. Here's another one today: CYHZ Runway 32/14 - all of the signs say 23-05. Runway 23-05 is correctly marked. Let me know if you want me to continue to tag you on these - or just post and let you get to them when you can.

Yup, that works for the 650, but not for the 750 which was what was confusing me.

+1, sounds like a really cool improvement idea.

@RPGamerous I mean yeah, I agree, especially that it would technically be the only variant with an actual 3d cockpit differences. As I said, I don't believe it would ever take any priority over the steam gauge variants - but it would be definitely a super cool backlog item reserved for whenever Nick has time in between the major releases

If you actually have the Bonanza Professional (the newest version), there is a dedicated MSFS 2024 installer similar to how the TBM850 has one (and you should use it rather than copying the 2020 version over). If you actually have the Bonanza Overhaul, then no it doesn't work in 2024 without a lot of massaging and maybe not even then.

Ah ok... I tried CTRL C very quickly and could see the tablet trying to change the GPS, but it still ended up back at the default 650/750.

Interesting, it was happening repeatedly to me, and after several startup and shutdown cycles since I had done a few flights without going back to the menu. Notes I should have included in my first post: using the Cargomaster, MSFS 2024 SU4 release, and yes the tablet to manually trigger the failure. I had thought it would be in an area using common code across variants, but I did not actually test that. Is there anything I can do to help troubleshoot it? The first time I triggered the failure was actually the longest it took to happen; I had a few seconds to play with the throttle and see there was no engine response, and right around when I moved the emergency lever was when it died. I had thought I had done something wrong until I noticed both fuel tanks were at zero. Subsequent failures of the FCU produced quicker, but not quite immediate results. Sometimes it would instantly zero, on at least one occasion I saw the tanks empty in a few discrete steps.

@CousinHubert said in Lost SAVE button: Thanks to you all ... NB that if you ever need assistance or encounter problems with any product developed, published or sold by Just Flight or Just Trains, your best bet is always to contact Support. https://community.justflight.com/topic/2/product-support

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.

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.

@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?