Counterpoint: the 737 series, unlike the 777 or 787, is not typically landed with AT engaged. So for purposes of simming, it’s very helpful to match the position of your physical throttles with the position commanded by the AT up until the point you disconnect it. On PMDG products (both 777 and 737NG lines), there is a simulation option you can set through the FMC to not only NOT override the AT, but to also show the position of your physical throttle on the N1 guages so you can basically match the AT setting before toggling off AT for manual thrust control for landing. Neither of these options are available on the iFly, though at least disabling AT override should be coming soon.
1 Like
With all the hype of the storm here in Ireland yesterday, I went and bought it (even though I said I would wait until after FS24).
Anyway, here was my first ever landing at DUB after a short flight from SNN. METAR was 22032G45KT
3 Likes
Real Life procedures doent matter´for this problem. In real life you have no jitter. My tipp is helping for people who wanne fly with autothrottle engaged for 99% time of the flight. If one want to disengage before landing, he can easily do so and match the throttle before or after diconnecting. this is the way I do it too. At this point the advice for pulling IDLE after touchdown is mood fo course, but I assume that everyone would figure this.
If one doesnt follow my tipp at all, also fine with me.
Cheers
1 Like
See, you’re glossing over a real issue: during that matching process, because the iFly does not currently ignore throttle control input on AT, the first movement of your throttle even before your AT disconnect will override the N1 setting. The engines will then either spin up/down as you move your throttle to match the AT-commanded N1. The plane has an unrelated bug shared by many MSFS planes in that the N1 response to throttle commands is far too fast. So just a second or two of N1 override before you get power levels matched can very much affect your speed/pitch, depending on winds, the specific approach you’re flying and how early you disconnect AT. For best results, I’ve taken to being VERY quick with throttle matching and then letting things settle for a second or two before disconnecting AT.
It’s not a HUGE problem if you know to anticipate and adjust for it, but it is definitely not insignificant, especially if you’re unaware and wondering why your N1 levels seem wrong, or don’t know why they’re going all over the place when you disconnect AT for a manual landing.
I am not glossing over anything. I dont crerated this problem. I dont say, that this isgood. I dont say, that they shouldnt change it. I know that other devs got it better.
I just offered a workaround solution for now.
I dont understand what you trying to point out here.
Cheers
1 Like
WIP changelog from their discord:
Fix List for Next Build
The following items (some listed as bugs) are intended to be in the next release candidate, however this list may change due to technical issues encountered during upcoming testing.
- PFD barber pole wrong texture
- MSFS mouse interaction style, some switches are not normal
- VSD drawing terrain out of bounds
- Corrected some colors of PFD/ND
- Added inhibit of joystick/yoke and throttles
- ND & MFD pages swap delay is not simulated, APU/GRD PWR gen TO ENG gen stutter is not simulated
- The FEEL DIFF PRESS Light On Too Long
- Oxygen test color invalid. It’s Grey. Should be yellow
- When the start switch is put to GRD it takes about 2 to 3 seconds for the start valve open alert to illuminate but it comes on instantly in iFly
- High Speed Tape on PFD - Incorrect small dots, real ones are bigger .
- Reworked Inhibit Joystick/Yoke and Inhibit Throttle functional logic.
- Stall stick shaker has no animation
- LNAV Overshoot
- Engine spool rate adjusted. (within < 3% to real engine) Thank you Tim Long.
- Setting total PAX in EFB may cause some PAX values to exceed the maximum value
- Adjusted PAX station positions for enhanced CG% accuracy.
- Plugin tool adds the function of specifying MSFS installed package path
- Plugin close/exit and minimize to systray logic adjusted. New pop-up message added on closing.
- Corrected the flap limit text error on the landing gear panel,
- Corrected the cabin window visor texture error,
- Corrected the cockpit eyebrow window texture error,
- Corrected some cockpit wall texture errors,
- Corrected the door indicator panel light text error,
- Corrected the fuel panel light text error
- Optimized the model and texture effect of the MCP digital window
- Optimized the Overhead Panel textures,
- Optimized the texture effect of the external emergency evacuation lighting
- iFly Manager has a “Close Plugin” option if it did not gracefully shut down on its own.
- iFly Manager - changed the “Manage Order” button to “Manage Product”
- iFly Manager - other fixes to help during peak traffic periods.
- iFly Manager – no longer opens iFly Plugin after install (to avoid confusion and to get folkso used to using it as designed).
- iFly Plugin – No longer minimizes to tray instead of closing.
The next build will initially be going to beta testing to make sure there are no regressions. Once the development team gives the OK, it will be released via the iFly Manager. Keep in mind that the product is still pre-release software.
4 Likes
That’s a nice list of issues.
While I know that optimization will take a while, I was hoping an option to turn off the cabin might be possible.
1 Like
I’d vote for that too. I couldn’t care less about a cabin and it eats the precious resources.
The cabin may end up becoming a far more important feature of 2024.
If we are going to be able to do walk around checks then presumably we are also going to be entering & exiting the aircraft.
1 Like
Having had some reservations early on, I’m really starting to enjoy this plane. I’ve just had some fun playing around with holds and approaches. I messed up and left the speed set to 185 on approach, did a go around, which all worked nicely, manually vectored myself back for a proper landing. I haven’t had a repeat of what I thought were early issues with VNAV. It’s working really well. I haven’t changed anything though.
Anyway, this gets my vote!
Did you test the Technical Alpha? We can be pretty certain you won’t have to go “walking” through the cabin to get to the L1 or L2 door to exit an airliner. You’ll almost certainly just click a hot spot to exit or enter a plane, just like you did in the 3 test aircraft. It won’t be a seamless walking transition from “inside” to “ouseide. Further, that will only be possible for planes created with or updated to use the new FS2024 SDK features.
Anyway, that said I have never felt the need or desire to remove the cabin entirely from an aircraft but I do wish the devs had taken the money spent to model window shades, fancy lights and cabin bins, and spent a few dozen more development hours fixing some of the stuff coming in the next patch a few weeks ago before public release. Having a study level lav is not a high priority for most of us, I’d wager.
Probably those who model the lavatories and overhead bins are not the same people who code the aircraft systems. I understand that there are people spending some time walking around the aircraft (or even simulating the walkaround inspection) and inside the cabin and I know that it should be a new standard but I just wish it was optional for us who only jump straight into the cockpit and that’s it. I’ve walked the iFly Max cabin once but just that I was curious about the claim that it’s probably the best modelled cabin in the sim. And yes, it probably is.
1 Like
Will be a shame and missed opportunity if so.
Yeah, of course. I 100% get that. What I question is the decision to over-staff the modelers and animators for purely cosmetic cabin features, rather than use those same funds or resources to instead pay for additional systems and flight modeling people.
And look, I get the juggling involved - I’ve done my share of staff-juggling myself in my day jobs over the years. It’s a tough balancing act. And as my Tennessee granny used to say, “If wishes were wings, pigs would fly.”
Anyway, the patch notes look good and those points about controller inhibits for AP and AT will cure a LOT of peoples’ main issues with the plane right now, especially combined with changes to the engine spool rate.
2 Likes
Sorry to hijack this thread but iFly is an unknown quantity for me. How is PMDG’s upcoming version likely to compare? Are PMDG even expected to release, given there are now already two versions on the market (one of which is free)?
Hi JakTrax, I must admit that I have a hard time understanding your question…
I believe he is wondering what incentive PMDG will have to release their version if there is already iFly’s 737Max and the free one in FS2024. He is also wondering how iFly’s version will compare with the free version.
I think iFly’s version will be a lot better than the default 20204 version.
2 Likes
iFly has been around for awhile in P3D. You can get plenty of info about the product in prior posts.
As for PMDG’s version, we have no idea except that the project is on hold indefinitely. PMDG have a new “enterprise” client (think “Big Business”) that is evidently 737-related and requires PMDG to firewall or isolate that team from the team working on consumer simulation products.
Reading between the lines, I sort of suspect PMDG has moved their MAX simulation people over to do contract work for an airline customer or perhaps Boeing itself to help work on sims for the new MAX planes not yet certificated (such as MAX7 and 10). But that is just a guess really. The bottom line is, PMDG’s MAX is not something we should expect any time soon, if at all.
2 Likes
What’s not to understand? 
I understand now, JakTrax was asking about PMDG Max. I got confused that he means the PMDG 737NG update that is due to release this week… I agree with @TBizzleII and @DrVenkman3876, iFly’s Max will be probably superior to Asobo’s free version in MSFS2024 (of course that’s only a speculation based on their MSFS2020 base aircraft fidelity) and I think PMDG Max will never happen.