42 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

I don't understand your point, your image is showing clearly the difference from the RL the IFly B38m, maybe you find it in 20 sec but I think you have to observe your Ifly B38 more carefully.

Anyway, I got good replies from the Ifly support, and I attach the screenshot of their opinion on this. Confirmed that this is a low priority issue, I think it's important because Ifly made an excellent 3D cockpit model, but the external outline, especially in the cockpit area should be treated more carefully. At this moment I'm observing the wipers position too, and it seems there is a bit of difference with the RL model.

Other than the presence of the eyebrow windows, I honestly don't see a difference between the real airplane and the iFly?  That same half-moon flattened area is clearly present in both shots. Or are you looking at something else?

6 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Other than the presence of the eyebrow windows, I honestly don't see a difference between the real airplane and the iFly?  That same half-moon flattened area is clearly present in both shots. Or are you looking at something else?

it's just the half moon flattened area.

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

Why break something so you can pretend to fix it?  

Well yes we have which is my point. We've already established that no Max in a flight sim has accurate handling like the real thing and therefore no software to correct said handling yet alone single or double sensor options (double is standard now of course). So the sim differences between the NG series and Max are (correct me if I'm actually wrong) cosmetic ONLY. Such as a different cockpit and some panel differences (that may or not behave as in IRL).

Having established this reduced level of realism why are we now even discussing differences like window layout minutiae?

I'm guessing the only way to create a realistic max is to first design a realistic NG then install bigger engines, longer gear and an MCAS that will actually NEED to 'tweak' the handling under certain conditions.

6 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

 

Having established this reduced level of realism why are we now even discussing differences like window layout minutiae?

 

It's because there are low, medium, high priorities, it is not so difficult to understand, and you are free to fully dedicate your time to the higher priorities. I'm new to the Ifly airplanes and I'm happy to see their attention to the details, I like details, I'm obsessed with details.

Edited March 22, 20251 yr by Claudius_

2 hours ago, Claudius_ said:

I like details, I'm obsessed with details

I get all that. Just to be clear...you are obsessed with only GRAPHICAL details not SYSTEM/FLIGHT MODEL details?

Because details are well details lol!

2 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

I get all that. Just to be clear...you are obsessed with only GRAPHICAL details not SYSTEM/FLIGHT MODEL details?

Because details are well details lol!

Absolutely not, I'm not a Carenado aficionado.

9 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

Well yes we have which is my point. We've already established that no Max in a flight sim has accurate handling like the real thing and therefore no software to correct said handling yet alone single or double sensor options (double is standard now of course). So the sim differences between the NG series and Max are (correct me if I'm actually wrong) cosmetic ONLY. Such as a different cockpit and some panel differences (that may or not behave as in IRL).

Having established this reduced level of realism why are we now even discussing differences like window layout minutiae?

I'm guessing the only way to create a realistic max is to first design a realistic NG then install bigger engines, longer gear and an MCAS that will actually NEED to 'tweak' the handling under certain conditions.

No, you've got several things wrong here. 

1.  In the first place, you're very focused on MCAS, which leads me to believe you don't  quite understand it.  It's a basically inconsequential system that almost every line pilot in the world will never see operate, their entire career. It's just one channel of the speed trim system.  MCAS can only ever activate a single time, as part of aerodynamic stall recovery.  MCAS will never operate at all on a flight that doesn't experience a stall event - which, obviously, is almost all flights.  People seem to have this idea that MCAS is a system that's required to counter some sort of inherent instability of the aircraft; this isn't true at all.  The plane flies perfectly fine without MCAS; at any point in the envelope except a literal full stall recovery, you'd never miss it if it wasn't working because it doesn't do anything anyway.  (The plane is also fully recoverable from a stall without MCAS, btw... It was only added to make control feel during stall recovery more resemble an NG.)

2.  As a broader issue, it seems you're misunderstanding all of the speed trim system and what it does.  The edge case aerodynamic conditions that make speed trim useful in reality at low gross weight, aft CG, and high power settings DO NOT EXIST in MSFS or any other desktop sim.  Thus, there's nothing for the system to correct for.  Thus, making the system do something requires artificially breaking trim state so there's something to adjust.  Except (on the PMDG as our example) this really just destabilizes the flight model, and gives a sim pilot an erroneous sense of what it feels like to fly these airplanes.  

Sure, the biggest differences between the NG and the Max are cosmetic.  That's true in reality also.  There's no chance Boeing would have received single-type certification with earlier 737s if that weren't the case.  That's the point that drove the entire Max development - it HAD to be the case.

As for your last paragraph, you're drastically oversimplifying the case.  The only way to create a perfectly realistic ANYTHING in a simulator is to first have a perfect representation of the entirety of aerodynamics - edge case and otherwise.  Every desktop flight simulator ever created is a $100 video game; obviously, they do not do this.  So equally obviously, no airplane within them is going to be a perfect representation.  (As further examples, you'll note that mach trim and the yaw damp do nothing in the simulated NG either).

If you want the 737 that flies "most like" a 737 in MSFS, that is definitely the iFly right now.  Is that saying it feels identical to flying a 737?  Of course not, but it definitely gives you more of an idea.  

But yeah, MCAS isn't even relevant to the discussion, unless you like doing aerobatics in your airliners 😉.

I really don't understand how and why this would affect your daily flight operations? Personally I haven't noticed anything unusual on the exterior model, Maybe the shots that were taken by OP were from different angles which are affected by external variables such as light/shadows. Etc.  

13 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

MCAS, which leads me to believe you don't  quite understand it.  It's a basically inconsequential system

Thanks for the post, always interesting to read! 

It's true that like the vast majority of actual 737 pilots I've never experienced MCAS in action. I have read most official documents on the system though , from FAA to Boeing supplements to NTSB reports, which probably puts me as more informed than many pilots before the revisions were enforced. 

There is only one reason I place importance on the system in the sim, even if it is just a watered down semi cosmetic system that gives you uncommanded trim (no pilot would ever expect it to activate yes?). 

If Boeing had not added the system to the original max they would never have been allowed to fast track certification, it would have required a new type designation and mandatory training for every line pilot World wide. That to me says it was doing something quite definitely consequential. Consequential enough to end 2 flights prematurely. Consequential enough that even after the above events it was not removed completely but just modified and also have its inclusion in the plane manuals mandated. 

Yes I know it's just a 100 buck game but there are definitely pilots who like to practice system failures in cheap sims that they'd never be unlucky enough to experience irl. As well as investigators. Plus aviation nerds like myself who have a complusion to fiddle with every knob and switch in the cockpit at some point. 

I mean what is the point of the stab trim cutoff switches/levers if they don't actually cut anything off?

I didn't know about the yaw damper being inactive btw. That would explain my confusion as to why turning it off or forgetting to turn it on made no noticeable difference to rudder control at all. 

Hmmm. There was a big discussion in the FSW learjet 35a forums about that issue. Maybe that plane DOES simulate it? 

6 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

That to me says it was doing something quite definitely consequential. Consequential enough to end 2 flights prematurely. Consequential enough that even after the above events it was not removed completely but just modified and also have its inclusion in the plane manuals mandated. 

The original version of MCAS ended 2 flight prematurely mainly because it had the authority to keep applying the nose down trim inputs multiple times.
The first implementation of MCAS did not have enough layers of redundancy, probably to avoid having to reveal the existence of the system altogether which would have required training otherwise.

The revised MCAS system, as it exists today, will only activate once when exceeding a threshold angle of attack value. This threshold AoA value will never be reached in normal operation of the aircraft.
The difference course NG to MAX includes exercises in a levelD sim to demo the MCAS and to differentiate it from the speed trim inputs.
Crews need to work hard and really get outside their normal flight envelope to get MCAS to activate at all...

As @Stearmandriver said above, the MAX recovers from high AoA events perfectly fine without MCAS.
The sole reason for its existence is to have a similar feel in the controls as the NG in the high AoA flight regime to keep the common type-rating.

I'm afraid this is an example of over-regulation that required the implementation of a system we could have perfectly done without.
This combined with cost concerns by the airlines (training) and promises by the manufacturer resulted in the tragic events you mentioned.

Edited March 23, 20251 yr by Sylle
Spelling

13 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

that gives you uncommanded trim (no pilot would ever expect it to activate yes?).

I would hope every pilot would expect it to activate as designed - once per every high AoA event, at a threshold value that one would certainly hope pilots were recognizing said high AoA event by that point.  I mean, you're very near or already into stick shaker at that point. 

@Sylle's explanation is right on.  The only thing I can add is, interestingly, the FAA has said they would probably have certified the Max with no MCAS at all, by simply capturing the different flight control feel during stall recovery in differences training.  Boeing just ASSUMED they wouldn't approve it like that, and further downplayed the existence (as originally designed but as no longer exists) of a system that had more authority than it should have.  There were serious human factors design flaws that went unexposed because of this downplaying.

But it's all a moot point now.  MCAS, as it exists today, really almost might as well not even be there.  It certainly cannot activate erroneously or in a fashion that could cause any problems.

As far as yaw damp etc: yes, my understanding is that the sim does not model compressibility effects or all stability modes correctly, and so things like mach tuck or dutch roll on a swept wing don't exist.  So, things like mach trim or yaw damp are just cosmetic.  

Similarly, the center of pressure shift on engine nacelles and other surfaces that are typically not lifting bodies doesn't exist, so MCAS - and really, all of the speed trim system - wouldn't do anything in the sim either. 

I get a feeling that at least some folks who get hung up on MCAS in the home sims really just want to be able to re-create the accidents (not saying that applies to you, but just speaking generally.). I wish they could understand that, even if all these edge-case aerodynamics did exist in MSFS, you could never re-create those accidents in a current Max.  Which only makes sense, right?  The airplane wouldn't be flying if there were any possible way something like that could happen again.

Edited March 23, 20251 yr by Stearmandriver

3 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

every pilot would expect it to activate as designed -

I mean they wouldn't EXPECT it to activate as for it to do so would mean they'd done something wrong so the plane would correct it. Which would surely surprise them? Of course they'd expect it as in the sense TRUST it to activate if things got out of hand. 

 

3 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

some folks who get hung up on MCAS in the home sims really just want to be able to re-create the accidents (not saying that applies to you

Thanks! I prefer to simulate and test in order to prevent future accidents not old ones. Not that I'd ever have a chance without a perfect sim which is not gonna happen 😎

I did recreate a crash once but just to shut up a 911 conspiracy theorist. 🙄