Today i had a 1.0.3.1 update for the Ifly 737MAX8 over the Ifly Manager..

cheers 😉

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by pmplayer

V 1.0.3.1 

1. Resolved the following SDK issues; KEY_COMMAND_FMS_WXR_ALT KEY_COMMAND_FMS_WXR_GAIN KEY_COMMAND_AUTOMATICFLIGHT_VS_SET

2. Wing Anti-Ice switch won’t active on 1st click.

3. Unknown compiler issue causing “Y” conflict.

IMPORTANT: We advise everyone without version 1.3.0 installed to install version 1.0.3.1 using the iFly Manager. The Manager will offer an upgrade to version 1.0.3.1 to users who already have version 1.0.3 installed. This package contains a plugin which checks as "clean" with an online Kaspersky scan. FYI, we contacted Kaspersky and asked that they whitelist the plugin. They responded saying, "Sorry, it was a false detection. It will be fixed".

On 3/18/2025 at 1:12 PM, Bigmack said:

Very stable in 2020. I wonder if they get the same results in 2024, Oh wait they won't release a 2024 version yet. When they do , do you think it will be released in a perfect package?

Maybe this question is already asked in their Discord. Take a look there. I don't own FS2024 yet, so I cannot say...

On 3/18/2025 at 10:06 PM, Stearmandriver said:

What do you mean?  It's a list of open items / tickets that have been addressed in the update. I made several of those reports myself.   What would you expect from a changelog, other than a list of areas that have been changed? 

I agree with GregP. It is a very weird changelog. A changelog should be much more structured. Make clear what was broken and how it works/looks in fixed state. E.g. this one:

"Flight path symbol – in flight, this is depicted as a gull wing symbol in our aircraft. While that may be an option, I’ve never seen any video or images from any aircraft using the HGS 4000 with any other symbol. On the ground during rollout or for a low-vis takeoff, the ground roll reference symbol has straight “wings”, but in flight, it immediately becomes the gull wing symbol."

A lot of words leaving completely unanswered what was considered as wrong, how it correctly should be and how it is after the fix. It's just word salad showing even some insecurity how the real one works. It for sure does not just "log, what was changed".

To buy or not to buy? Easy one! If they beat PMDG with 2024 compatibility I’ll buy it. If they don’t, I won’t.

3 hours ago, jarmstro said:

To buy or not to buy? Easy one! If they beat PMDG with 2024 compatibility I’ll buy it. If they don’t, I won’t.

Well as I have both here’s what I can tell you as of today.  You can spawn in MSFS 2024 a PMDG aircraft on RWY and 95% of the time have a successful flight.  Spawn the iFly on same RWY and you will have black screens and or CTD.

-B

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by btacon

iFly Max is not compatible for MS2024 so delete it and forget about it for another year.

I would buy this plane, but they haven't implemented the possibility to import OFP into the EFB (which is very useful for VR flyers for briefings).

On 3/18/2025 at 10:58 AM, Cpt_Piett said:

The iFly MAX is certainly not broken - I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Judging by the praise given by @Stearmandriver (RW 737 pilot), I'm confident that the iFly is an excellent addon. 

I own quite a few payware airliners - the Fenix package, the PMDG 737-600 and -800, PMDG 777, iniBuilds A350 and A300, TFDi Design MD-11, JustFlight 146 and RJ - and I think the iFly is right up there at the top in terms of the overall quality. 

Yes, it was a bit rough around the edges upon release - but I still think it was in a better shape than the ini A350 at launch - if we're going to compare the two. 

I can concur with your statement Captain, The max is definitely not broken. I have been flying her a lot lately in MSFS 2020 and had zero issues, she hand flies very nicely and performance is good. I haven't flown my PMDG 737 since I have owned the Max. My three go to pay ware aircraft are now the Max 8, Fenix A320 & A350. I try to spend equal time in each as I really enjoy them all.

9 hours ago, fsiscool said:

I agree with GregP. It is a very weird changelog. A changelog should be much more structured. Make clear what was broken and how it works/looks in fixed state. E.g. this one:

"Flight path symbol – in flight, this is depicted as a gull wing symbol in our aircraft. While that may be an option, I’ve never seen any video or images from any aircraft using the HGS 4000 with any other symbol. On the ground during rollout or for a low-vis takeoff, the ground roll reference symbol has straight “wings”, but in flight, it immediately becomes the gull wing symbol."

A lot of words leaving completely unanswered what was considered as wrong, how it correctly should be and how it is after the fix. It's just word salad showing even some insecurity how the real one works. It for sure does not just "log, what was changed".

This is one of my write ups.  It's actually very specific; I suspect you don't understand what the flight path symbol on an HGS 4000 is if you don't understand the ticket.  That being the case, an item saying "flight path symbol corrected on HGS" probably wouldn't help you any.  😉. But for someone who does, this provides a bit of detail, context and background.

  There's certainly no "insecurity" as to how my work airplanes work, but you have to understand the number of options available on a 737 and the fact that pilots are not trained on any of that.  We're trained on OUR airplanes, configured as they are in our fleet, and that's it.  You can get 5 pilots from different airlines who all fly the same plane, and they'll argue vehemently over how certain items work, because they don't understand this.  So, it's good to have some acceptance that just because MY airplane doesn't work in a particular way, others might.  It's something that has to be taken into account before bugging something.  The other 73 dev has seen several problems over the years because of this, for instance. 

Including details is not "word salad"; everything written there is very specific - to the folks who know what to do with it.  

47 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

This is one of my write ups. 

Great, it is a nice writeup in a set context of a professional reporting a bug to another professional. But it is useless as a changelog. There is no information about what was wrong before the update. And there is no information, how the update addresses the shortcoming. In a changelog, often the first sentence would describe the issue, so "Flight path symbol – in flight, this is depicted as a gull wing symbol in our aircraft." means that the gull wing symbol was displayed before the update and that this would be wrong.

I am fully aware that many features exist in many variants. I have seen FCOM's from airlines, that described 3 or 4 subfleets of the same aircraft, all with different capabilites, different switches, different instruments. So I understand that the implementation for a sim ideally goes for the most widespread variant and that there can be a reasoning about which one that is. But that reasoning does not belong into the changelog. Here somebody wrote text for a changelog (which everbody expects to be written by the dev) who is citing images and videos but also admits that it could be different. That's what I meant with insecurity. The changelog should only list the conclusion to that.

How on earth did you conclude that the iFly team are insecure? Kind of clutching at straws. My experience with them has been anything but insecure. 

3 hours ago, fsiscool said:

Great, it is a nice writeup in a set context of a professional reporting a bug to another professional. But it is useless as a changelog. There is no information about what was wrong before the update. And there is no information, how the update addresses the shortcoming. In a changelog, often the first sentence would describe the issue, so "Flight path symbol – in flight, this is depicted as a gull wing symbol in our aircraft." means that the gull wing symbol was displayed before the update and that this would be wrong.

I am fully aware that many features exist in many variants. I have seen FCOM's from airlines, that described 3 or 4 subfleets of the same aircraft, all with different capabilites, different switches, different instruments. So I understand that the implementation for a sim ideally goes for the most widespread variant and that there can be a reasoning about which one that is. But that reasoning does not belong into the changelog. Here somebody wrote text for a changelog (which everbody expects to be written by the dev) who is citing images and videos but also admits that it could be different. That's what I meant with insecurity. The changelog should only list the conclusion to that.

I don't know, man.  As someone who understands the systems and the industry, this makes perfect sense to me and I, as a user, would prefer the extra detail.  Way I see it, if you don't understand it, then this item in a changelog wouldn't make sense to you (or presumably matter to you) anyway, so the point is moot.

But again, if we're to the level of quibbling about the verbiage of a changelog, then I'd say they're doing ok 😉.

18 hours ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

iFly Max is not compatible for MS2024 so delete it and forget about it for another year.

Oh, i think not a year but possible 3 to 4 month - maybe faster..

cheers 🙂

I really hope they do a MAX10 if and when it is signed off by the FAA