For all those that speak german, it´s pretty interesting and a nice read: http://www.simflight.de/2011/10/17/review-ifly-versus-pmdg/comment-page-1/#comment-2802

Semi pidgin engleesh google translation, minus images. DELETED DUE TO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.... You cannot simply copy, translate and paste content from another site. We do not allow it to be done to AVSIM and we don't allow it to be done to others. Please re-read our Terms of Use. Only warning.

Edited October 17, 201114 yr by Tom Allensworth
COPYRIGHT VIOLATION AND AVSIM TERMS OF USE

Semi pidgin engleesh google translation, minus images.

Haha, I am not sure it makes the standard for pidgin engleesh !!!!!!!! Evidently online translators have a way to go yet . .. .. . G

Read the whole review (i´m german) Nice review, but i´ve heard other things in terms of Perofrmance??? I thought the NGX is better than the ifly ?

Well, I´ve read through the whole review (and yes, I´m german), so I´ll try to tell you briefly what their conclusion is: They say that both products are very good but the NGX has it´s own league. The NGX is sometimes a bit more frame eating than the iFly version but the NGX´s better systems will apologize for that. The point which made the biggest negative look on the NGX was its often CTD´s which don´t occur on every system, they´re mainly system based. All in all considered the iFly is a rock soild product for happy simmer who don´t care about 100% real systems behaviour (FCM sometimes somehow slugguish).And the NGX has set a new level for FSX addons and will be an great commercial success IF PMDG get´s the CTD´s nailed. The NGX is recommended for simmer who want it as real as it gets and have an potent system under their desk. If you don´t have this system, you´d better get the iFly. That´s it briefly.

Thanks Steffan, that makes much more sense !!!! Guess I am one of the lucky ones with no CTD's at all then.. .. G

Careful with online translators! I noticed that the translation of a sentence can quite often be the complete opposite of the original intention. While the context helps filtering out these inversions, one should always take these automated translations with a grain of salt.

That is otherwise considered NGX behaved very well.Why?:The comparison was made ​​prematurely.At the moment there is nothing like it in the market, considering the whole set.Again I say, going forward there is FSX, before and after the NGX.The alleged competitor how long this market?I know people who have major problems with the supposed competitor.I do not know how post-sales support of the bidder, have her contact with the product manufacturers, as we have here?The NGX is not a "devourer" of computer resources, only requires a stable machine. João Alfredo

Read the whole review (i´m german) Nice review, but i´ve heard other things in terms of Perofrmance??? I thought the NGX is better than the ifly ?

In my config NGX performs better than iFly, much much more smooth.By the way, nice review.

Captains, I'm one of the authors of the mentioned review on simFlight.de, and in the team we are looking forward to read about your opinions. But one thing must please be kept in mind: german is a quite difficult language, and an automated translation is about the worst thing you can do to this review. I can guarantee you to almost 100 % that the meaning of some statements will be changed by 180 degrees when doing this. Misunderstandings are a logic consequence, and this is the last thing we want. We've had a very unhappy situation some weeks ago, and this should not be repeated. Basically, superpilotv2 has brought it to a quite comprehensive conclusion. So much for now. And I will go flying the 737NG now. Guess which bird? Hint: it has four capital letters in the name ;-)) Greets and thanks PMDG Stefan Benzinger

german is a quite difficult languageStefan Benzinger

Da haste wohl Recht anyways, thank you very much Stephan (and the other two authors ) for this review, da hab ich schon lang drauf gewartet :D Ich liebe es, die Reviews von euch zu lesen regards,

While I appreciate the hard work that goes into writing such a lengthy piece, two comments about this review:When I read the article, it sounds like the majority or at least a large amount of users cannot complete a flight without CTDs because the product was rushed to market. I do not want to be drawn into a "was it rushed discussion" but is it really this bad? We all know about the Internet effect that few happy people post but in contrast many people with problems will write so the overall impression might be wrong. Of course I don't know myself, I am just curious on how your conclusion came about. Obviously the NGXs issues need to be fixed and you have to write about them, no doubt whatsoever. Secondly, I am amazed at the dismissal of details (if you can call it that) like for example the HGS. I am sorry, but a non-collimated HGS in the VC is simply useless eye-candy, head tracker or not (or as useful as a clock with an empty battery - it does tell the correct time twice a day like the HGS shows correct information in that one spot). In my opinion things like that should be stated clearly, and not in a sentence like "PMDGs HUD comes across as way more authentic. I have the feeling that I can really rely on the display..."

I read this Comaprison on the Internet over the weekend, and it was a HUMAN translation of the German,Much more readable. Sorry, do not recall the URL, but it should be easy enough to find, now you know it exists.

As it currently seems, PMDG has overshot the mark: The product has become too complex!

Sorry, and I'm not gonna comment further on it, but that's just downright ridiculous. I hope those who share my thoughts on this one will understand.

Yeah, the repetitive notion of "but do we really need that?" annoyed me as well. Of course we do, otherwise we wouldn't buy a complex simulation like that. The ultimate goal for a simulation is to be as complex as its real life counterpart. That means that there is no such thing as "too complex" in a high fidelity simulation. Only "not complex enough" which equals "nice, but inadequate".