<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[No failures? A more simplistic simulation?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Hi guys!</p>
<p dir="auto">So far I got the impression that the Fokkers are a more simplistic simulation than the 146/RJ. For example, the fokkers (As far as I can see) dont have any kind of failures implemented.</p>
<p dir="auto">Im wrong? Justflight was moving into deeper and deeper simulations. The fokkers seem like a step back from that. Im wrong?</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.justflight.com/topic/10894/no-failures-a-more-simplistic-simulation</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 07:38:32 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://community.justflight.com/topic/10894.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:12:28 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to No failures? A more simplistic simulation? on Tue, 07 Jul 2026 05:34:08 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I agree with you, even though they've left it as an incognito, failures and more complex simulations were a thing I was waiting as day 1 features.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.justflight.com/post/51957</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.justflight.com/post/51957</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[pedropolak]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 05:34:08 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>