Can someone tell me if all these iFly fps issues are related to both 2D and VC or just VC in FS9?

It's only the VC for me in FS9, 2D is fine

I think this is one of those "One size does not fit all" type problems. Some seem to be affected more than others. I think it's more noticeable with those with weaker systems then those with the latest 4.5 to 5Ghz (OC'd) I7's. They may actually have the problem, but unless they are a FPS watcher, it may not be that noticeable on their systems, where a loss in frames on a weaker system is very noticeable. Also since FS9 generally performs better in performance than FSX to begin with, their would be less people affected by it.

I can't get over the fact that the wings don't bend up slightly in flight like the real world model does. To see people praise the effort while it looks FS2000ish in flight escapes me. IFly flat out refuses to address this and has deleted all posts on the subject. I believe Level-D pioneered bending wings in flight for FS models and the rest is history. Remember how weird PMDG's original 737NG looked in the air compared to NG FS models now?

 

What ###### me off was when someone at iFly said the 744 wings don't bend in flight. That's just insulting as we all know that's not true. So the lack of the cargo, ER, and -800 models like what was released for the 737NG on day one I've passed. The external visual model isn't even right. PMDG nailed the 744 so I'll stick with that. If the iFly model gets fixed in the areas reported I'll take a second look but for now I'm not impressed (can't stand looking at it in the air). I love what they did with the 737NG and greatful for continued FS9 support I just hope the ultimately deliver fully on the 744 and maybe later move to another great airliner choice.

It would be great if the iFly 747 delivered in every aspect. I would rather they focus all attention on the cockpit, systems, FDE and how all this behaves compared to the real world 747. I enjoy the complex aircraft from a piloting perspective as Jon above and any minor external issues I will live with.

 

The 737 would be great if all doors didn't open at the one time and even better if it had some cool animated external components like the TDS 787. It doesn't but it feels like you are flying a real 737 and this is what is most important imo for this type of FS aircraft.  

Unusable on my monstrous PC. FPS issues, I thought I will  never have FPS issues with FS9, but 20FPS in VC is unacceptable, I only fly with 30FPS in FS9 with no problems with all other products, but not this one. I've got a refund 2 days later. To bad, this is a superb plane!

 

My system:

I7-4790K OC 4.6ghz

16gb ram 1866mhz

256gb Samsung SSD only for FSX and FS9

120gb SSD for windows

GTX 760 OC 4gb vram

Some of us aren't fussed on externals and prefer the simulation from the cockpit part, Dillon. And I've used the Level-D for years and never knew it had wing flex.

 

Nor do I care.

 

First off, I hear what your saying and we all have our pet peeves.  Seeing as this isn't Aerowinx 744 2D simulator, standard features need to be realized especially if the said company just produced the outstanding 737NG series.  I understand the point of saying 'I fly in the cockpit and not outside the plane' which is what most of us do.  Case in point I never bothered to fix my Active Camera 'Fly By' view which isn't working correctly for some reason since I moved to 7 years ago. I fly the plane from the inside the cockpit not watch it zoom past at 35,000ft over and over again, it somewhat works so who cares (but that's personal preference). If it was a broken feature in Active Camera someone reported do I disregard it when another users brings it up because I don't use it, NO...   As in in cockpit flier I shut off my default contrails in the sim as I use 'Contrails Pro' of which it's affect looks like crap up close on the aircraft I'm flying yet looks fantastic from inside the cockpit looking out at other aircraft in the air.  The point with this is I'm all about the 'in-cockpit' experience.  That being said you can't have a 744 with flat wings in flight which I know is understood or we would have had an iFly 737NG with the same issue (case in point iFly makes bad VC night lighting across the board in both add-ons).  If the 737NG with smaller wings was done correctly why would this be acceptable on the 744 where the wings are more noticeable?  It would be like having flat airborne wings on a 777 or 787 virtually and accepting it.  You can make the case it's not real but I say why bother then if your not going to do your best?  Why have innovation since the days of Level-D's 767 and PMDG's 744 only to settle and go back to the way things were in FS2k2 or FS2000 for that matter?  People do this and I never understand (well maybe their just glad it's for FS9).  Outside of the external model being wrong there's other issues people are reporting that makes this a show stopper (at least for me).  Performance issues, night lighting, lack of other models, etc.  I guess if you wanted you could also make a point about the lackluster night VC lighting being reported by saying, 'Heck, I never use the VC at night as I use the 2D panel for my night flying'.  That's not solving anything and dismissing a legitimate issue that should be addressed if said developer is in the game of designing add-ons and charging for them.  If we were talking freeware here I could see the point but a higher standard is expected if your charging money.  Just because a person's personal preference is 2D (or whatever it may be) doesn't dismiss glaring features omitted that are standard these days.  So in the end I for one will pass.  I have iFly's 737 which is outstanding and PMDG's outstanding rendition for the 744 (which still can be had in box form from Aerosoft and SimMarket).  I'm very appreciative of this company coming in and doing something on this level for FS9 when PMDG abandoned the whole platform prematurely after they released the MD11.  That being said I don't know what happened with the iFly 744.  It seems it has great features in many areas and just falls flat in others.  Yes you can live with the issues and play like they don't exist or hold iFly accountable to fix them (at the same time embracing the fact they made this for FS9). There's nothing wrong with expecting the same all around quality they gave us with the 737NG.  If this was PSS I'd take what I could get if I just wanted said aircraft but iFly is much better than this and they've shown us amazing quality in the past (again VC lighting not being their strong point).  If all I see wrong with this model sight on scene is the wings in flight, that along with a performance fix means this is another great effort.  

 

 

Well I just watch two videos of a 747-400 taking off and I could barely notice the wings lifting. I had trouble to see when it was lifting. Pretty insignificant in my eyes.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov8aRx7DctE

Well I just watch two videos of a 747-400 taking off and I could barely notice the wings lifting. I had trouble to see when it was lifting. Pretty insignificant in my eyes.

 

 

 

This is silly to have to show the obvious:

 

 

 

 

 

If you've never noticed the 744 wings raise with lift when in the air versus how they settle on the ground I fault myself for not explaining this correctly.  I must be doing something wrong...   :blink:

 

In the first video after the plane lands is how the wings sit on the iFly model even in flight.  It's totally wrong.

If you think it about it guys, its actually a stupid thing to get into a prolonged argument about. Dillon wants his wingflex, and that's important to him, and Jon_aus doesn't care about it. And that's how it is. It's really as simple as that!

I'm not saying its not wrong, just that as you see it's an ingsificant movement that means nothing to me.

 

 

Jon just to let you know not trying to come off mean towards you it's more so iFly or some developers in general that frustrate me.  They get right at 90% and leave out something that is an obvious sore spot and just let it hang there.  Examples would be:

 

1. iFly for the longest did not want to allow the speed brake handle to be used in the VC.  To use it you have to access a 2D pop-up to adjust it on decent.  They finally relented and added the feature (thanks to user input). It was confusing as to why this would be an issue in the first place

 

2. PSS's 777 VC model had the sun visor permanently down.  Again why??? Come to find out the designer of the VC wanted to leave his mark and this was his creative license.  He did the same thing in the Quality Wings 757 albeit back behind the pilot

 

3. A few developers decided a pop-up FMC was better than a functional one in the VC (this may be a generational issue here but I needed something to offset just visual issues for examples)

 

4. PMDG 737's unrealistically large forward VC cockpit windows to accommodate the HUD feature they included that most airlines don't even use

 

Some of these things make no since and is a frustration as it's not taking the hobby forward just nagging issues that shouldn't be there in the first place especially if other developers got it right (excluding PMDG who did a good job with the hud but at what cost).  These are not features like PSS introduced with fuel loading from an option on the LCD menu in the VC or Level-D's revolutionary approach to cockpit sounds, FSUIPC, PMDG's hardcore approach to aircraft design, Carenado's HD modeling, Feelthere's self lighting VC LCD screes which are great for dusk/dawn flight, weather radar, terrain radar, etc.  The issues I have a problem with are ridicules little issues that shouldn't even be there unless your looking at an incomplete beta model.  So I apologize if I came across harsh but reading someone say, "it's fine I just don't look at it anyway" does not help in the effort in getting minor nagging issues like this fixed by the developer.  Simulation wouldn't be where it is today if everyone just settled especially for things like what I outlined.  Once pointed out the developer has a choice to fix it or we have the choice not to buy depending on how much of an eye sore or problematic the feature is.  Saying something at least fleshes that out then we all make our own choice from there.  Understand it's not all about visual issues with me (wish I had more avionic examples off the top of my head) it's about any issue that may just be an over site that the developer missed. I've seen over the years with user input little issues were indeed addressed because someone said something.  You have a time frame though after release to say something because once a developer moves on it's a wrap. 

Corrections from above:

 

2. Posky's freeware 777's VC is what I meant here.

 

Another item is PSS 'I believe' actually were the first one's to develop the self illuminating LCD screes which can be seen in their 777's VC not Feelthere as I mentioned above.  This feature helps greatly at dawn/dusk when the dome light would be the only option to read the screens before the sun came up enough (more a problem at dawn versus dusk flight).  Besides being a needed effect it actually looks cool as they look as good as the real one's in a simi-darkened cockpit.  

 

 

Another item is PSS 'I believe' actually were the first one's to develop the self illuminating LCD screes which can be seen in their 777's VC not Feelthere as I mentioned above

 

I don't know about Feelthere's 777 but their Airbus series had this by pointing to the display and using the Mouse wheel to control brightness. Not realistic, but effective!!

PSS 777 had the potential to be great. Too bad they never managed to get the FDE right.

I don't know about Feelthere's 777 but their Airbus series had this by pointing to the display and using the Mouse wheel to control brightness. Not realistic, but effective!!

 

Didn't know this...  :blink: