IFLY 747-400 V2 Released and available on flight1

[CoolP 283]

Would it be possible that you had defined fixed 2000ft steps in the FMC? Also, I think I get what you are trying to say with "FL420 'doesn't exist" but it would help the readers if you cited a source or reference doc. :smile: Context.

 

Technically, FL420 exists of course. You even flew right there, so you actually used it. ^_^

 

Edited. Hirdy had it first.

 

Apart from that, how's the memory impact of the plane when compared to other heavies?

[Pe11e 812]

@FScamp

 

Hey mate, you are not helpful at all. (giggling in the shadow)

 

Some people considers fine fps at 15-20. For me anything lower than 30fps is critical and alarming. I only measure fps hit with a percentage, means I have 62fps wih default c272 sitting on aerosoft eddm with traffic, and in PMDG NGX around 33, which is somewhere close to 50%.

 

Just wanted to point that out, how I would measure fps hit. Didn't wanted to be rude or offensive, far from it mate. Only my hair is raising on "fps is fine", lol.

 

Cheers

[DavidP 1,408]

It doesn't exist in terms of being a "Standard" hemispheric level, but there may be occasions where one could request "Non-Standard" FL420. It happens at lower levels, so to say it doesn't exist is a little misleading.

[Hirdy2013 104]

Someone asked about performance.

 

I'm finding it to be on par with the pmdg t7 which for me is always around the 30fps mark.

 

Hirdy

[zmak 331]

Workload would be very high as a one pilot op. It has been mentioned to Bryan at fs2crew and he hasnt said no yet

[CoolP 283]

I guess that MCE will be available too, for the folks looking for a virtual FO/Crew.

 

Is there a SDK available already? This would enable a faster adaptation I think.

[FS Hub 132]

No nice videos from customers about this bird?  :rolleyes:

[Heffron 29]

Don't you mean fl420 is not available for allocation?

 

Of course fl420 exists.......

 

what are you getting at?

 

Hirdy

 

 

Would it be possible that you had defined fixed 2000ft steps in the FMC? Also, I think I get what you are trying to say with "FL420 'doesn't exist" but it would help the readers if you cited a source or reference doc. :smile: Context.

 

Technically, FL420 exists of course. You even flew right there, so you actually used it. ^_^

 

Edited. Hirdy had it first.

 

Apart from that, how's the memory impact of the plane when compared to other heavies?

 

The guy is right. FL420 does not exist. In RVSM airspace, that covers most parts of the globe, reaching from FL290 to FL410, Flight Levels are sperated by 2000ft for the same direction (Westbound Even, Eastbound Odd). Above RVSM it changes and for the same direction, separation becomes 4000ft. This means FL430, 470 and 510 for westbound, 410, 450 and 490 for eastbound. So technically FL420 does not exist.

[robertwolant 8]

It has been mentioned to Bryan at fs2crew and he hasnt said no yet

 

Though judging from his reply, there is nothing to be expected in the near future. :(

I admit I got spoilt with addons having FS2Crew and Virtual Avionics CDU support and currently fly nothing else.

[krazyk 157]

 

 

In RVSM airspace

 

Ah yes, that's true. I misunderstood his statement and was puzzled trying to figure out how a FL doesn't exist. Lol, my apologies.

[Hirdy2013 104]

Thanks for the info on flight levels.

 

In all honesty though, flight level 420 does exist. Just from a particular point of view lol.

 

All good.

 

Now back to checking this 744 out.

 

Hirdy

[CoolP 283]

In RVSM airspace

Thanks for delivering the context the original post was lacking. :smile: You saw me asking for exactly that.

 

We should really avoid establishing an elitist atmosphere (which, in a flight sm forum, is a funny/awkward thing for itself) by stating things without giving a reference. This nicely avoids falling into the trap of declaring certain flight levels as not existent, which, by definition, is wrong.

 

It follows that, if you command FL420, the plane will try to reach/hold it, by design. "Existence" might therefore be the wrong word, even in your post, since your aircraft might not only traverse through it at times but also stay there momentarily for various reasons. Hirdy worded it better for the folks having RVSM/ICAO regulations in mind.

 

Adding to that point, my post asked how the step climb size was defined by the user. If you enter '2000' and start out on even levels, you will eventually receive FL420 as target as soon as the VNAV calcs tag it as optimal.

 

I don't know how the user defined the steps, hence my question. We might be looking at a bug if e.g. 'ICAO' was set. I was looking for more info on that.

[krazyk 157]

I was not sure about picking this up as it lacked a freighter model and there seems to be no disclosure from the developers on if there will ever be freighter/8i/8f variants, though I hope there are, but I finally purchased it and I have mixed reviews.

 

Pros :

Well modeled VC with crisp textures and smooth animations of all the toggle/press/spring loaded switches and rotary knobs.

Several options in the built-in configurator to choose from (depening on the screen type, information displayed and in some cases how deep you want the simulation to be)

A working WX radar (exclusive to ASN)

Stable flight with accurate A/P command following in both LNAV and VNAV modes.

Semi-simulated maintenance disagnostic options available through the CDU.

3 engine variants (GE,RR and PW) all modeled quite well

2 flight deck resolutions to choose from (Normal or wide screen)

Intelligent external payload manager

 

 

Cons :

The sounds of different switches all seem to be the same.

The yoke has had a major mutation making it larger than the width of the pilot seat itself.

No dome lighting

Little to no wing flex at high angles of attack

A bit heavy on frames (heavier than the T7 for me)

Throttle movement is erratic with my Saitek X52 and for some reason the A/P won't override the physical movement of my throttle*

External model isn't quite something to write home about

Only 2 paints out the hangar (BA & VS)

 

*There is an option in the configurator to inhibit throttle movement when A/P is engaged but it didn't seem to do anything for me. I had to disable my X52 system in cruise just so it could follow the A/T and manage my speed.

 

These are only a few things that I've noticed having spent little time in it. I'm currently enroute to Bridgetown from Gatwick wearing VS colors and I hope to play around with it more in cruise as I have around 8h15m overall.

 

Just so you have a reference to look to regarding FPS, this is the system I am running FS on currently :

AMD Phenom II X4 965 @3.5GHz

ATI Radeon HD5750 1GB GPU

6GB DDR3 RAM

Windows 7 HP x64

Flight Simulator X w/Acceleration

 

I usually get around 20-25fps outside in the T7 at a well developed airport with ASN and 60% Ultimate Traffic 2, while in the VC I get around 15fps on average in the same conditions.

With the 747, I was getting 12-14fps in the VC while the exterior only managed to show me around 15fps sitting at an airport.

 

Though I hate to form a verdict on it just yet, I'd have to agree with a previous post that unless you really-really want a well simulated 747 in your simulator right now, I'd hold off and see what other companies have to offer, especially with the price tag of USD60 for one model.

 

If you're still on the fence about it (as you rightly should be since my post is by no means a detailed review), I'd say wait for an official review from a reputable source and then make your decision.

[Piotr007 163]

I tested the ifly 747:

 

-Lighting without dome is somewhat darkish. (-)

-autopilot disengage warning is ennoying, warning will not subseed until ap disengage lever is pulled by mouse or clicked on control column. (-)

-Weather radar is nice and terrain display also (++)

-somehow LAND3 won't activate when doing an ILS APP. Guess I have to read some stuff through. Land 2 is activating instead.

-I noticed a few moments when not touching the throttles from idle position the airplane starts to speed up by itself anyhow. That is incorrect obviously.(-)

-Panel state which I saved caused problem on startup for a new flight, fuel switches couldn't be moved and when turning on engine with CTRL-E, the display showed  that the engine were off nontheless. (-)

-Very nice virtual cockpit graphics compared to PMDG 747 whci seems very outdated.(+)

-FMC is working very well.(+)

-Some wing flex is noticeable at the tip of the wings. However, advanced flexing as in the pmdg 747 is not present.(+/-)

-No LIVERIES!!!!!!!!!! A big (--------------)

 

Conclusion:

 

-There will be some service packs needed to make this product "flawless". It is already nice as it is, but certainly the price is a bit too high for my taste.

-Overall it is a nice airplane, and fills pretty much in the quality standards of Ifly.

-Please, add a livery pack on Flight1! The customers want some liveries when a product is released, it enriches the product!

[robertwolant 8]

Thanks a lot for your reviews, gentlemen.

Keen as I was on buying it, I am holding on.

 

The price tag does look very high for what it seems to offer - one (pax) model and almost no liveries on release.

I also don't like current Flight1 staff's policy 'not to inform customers about what to expect from the product'.

And the reported flaws do not make it easier.

 

One question, Karan, if you don't mind:

 

No dome lighting

 

Do you actually mean dome or flood lights?

Judging by the screenshots I saw it misses the typical 744 orangeish flood loghts.