Some results from experimenting at KSMO... The FMC won't allow you to have a single waypoint flight plan. It requires at least two waypoints. You cannot repeat the same waypoint twice in a row, but you can have a waypoint twice in a flight plan as long as there's a different waypoint in between. i.e. KSMO - SMO - KSMO. Starting the flight plan from a non-airport waypoint is permissible. i.e. SMO-KSMO or DARTS-KSMO. The second allowed me to load the RNAV 21 approach from DARTS iaf without duplicating the DARTS waypoint. Probably the better option if you know in advance which approach you want to load. However... The DIRECT page will allow you to select a close by airport even with an empty flight plan. Selecting KSMO from the DIRECT page generates a flight plan ----/KSMO, which then does allow you to load any approach without needing a "junk" starting waypoint. This might actually be my preferred way of doing it now.

Got it.. Thanks.

@MiRexer said in Small sound issue ...: Taxi a little slower and it'll go away - but I think Nick said something about adjusting that in the future. If you haven't tried it yet taxi the Baron and start your runup with the window open - it's GLORIOUS!! It happens at slow taxi an at T/O also ... which isnt corresponding with reality. But thanks for the hint with the open window ... glorious indeed !!

SU4 lighting fixes: https://support.justflight.com/support/solutions/articles/17000124987-146-professional-msfs-changelog

and it's look like speed is faster about 10kts, they changed something

@TJ-Turner Same here. No axis bound. Not a major deal but dafinitely a point on the checklist to remember before starting

This would suggest that MSFS 2024 is not able to detect an installation of the RJ, possibly caused by the RJ not being installed in the expected location. Could I kindly ask you to contact Just Flight Support via the following link, and one of our support team will be able to assist with troubleshooting this: https://www.justflight.com/support Mark - Just Flight

We have no plans to change the package names of any of our products. It is an SDK requirement to have the package names identical across MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024 products, and it is particularly important for in-game marketplace products to ensure that we can offer a free-of-charge upgrade path between 2020 and 2024 versions. If the package names were to differ between the simulators, then the marketplace would consider them as two separate, unrelated products and require a full price purchase in both simulators. Mark - Just Flight

@Black-Square - I'm working on a cockpit build of the Baron 58P - any chance I could get your MIP for that? Have a huge pile of switches and encoders here and a 3d printer on the way . . . . .

@Black-Square I would love the Turbine Duke with the G3X! Although in the real world it would have to be the G600TXi, the G3X is sufficient for the simulator

Thanks, can't blame a guy for hoping

Thank you. No, I had not thought to try that, and it does work in 2024. A very strange and unintuitive interface! Groetjes ! P.

Thanks as well - Still really looking forward to this one.

Seems to me that they haven't simulated the stability of most aircraft in sims yet. I'm the real world most turbulence disturbs the aircraft some but if you ride it out it'll self right. I don't think they've modeled that well yet. Until they do turning it up is going to be problematic. I agree that medium seems like off and realistic is too much.

I tried that but it didn't work. PA 38 has the same problem. For now I'll just use the airplane selector from the debug menu. It works fine.

@Martyn I tried that but no success. The PA 38 has the same problem.