22 minutes ago, btacon said:

So why come here at all?  Just to brag about self-perceived intellectual prowess?  

This has nothing to do with intellectual prowess. It's more laziness on the other side. It takes 5 minutes to click through the EFB and look at everything. Much faster than asking a question on a forum and waiting hours for someone to have the right answer.

 

About 80% of all questions on forums go back to people not doing their homework first. RTFM was valid 20 years ago and it still is.

Edited June 13, 2025Jun 13 by Farlis

22 minutes ago, Farlis said:

RTFM was valid 20 years ago and it still is.

Ok

1 hour ago, Noel said:

much worse than Fenix' 320 which easily maintains 65fps at KDEN in this gate. 

For me, on my system, the Fenix and Ifly both give the same results, within a couple FPS no matter if I have fraemgen on or not, at various airports. But then you have a much faster CPU, so not the same thing.. just a data point. 

Just wanted to say thank you to @Stearmandriver for all of your real world insights into flying the MAX!

47 minutes ago, JonathanC said:

For me, on my system, the Fenix and Ifly both give the same results, within a couple FPS no matter if I have fraemgen on or not, at various airports. But then you have a much faster CPU, so not the same thing.. just a data point. 

It's main-thread limited for sure as I have serious GPU and CPU headroom.  As all other planes work well here I'll assume it has little to do w/ my system and all to do with optimizations in the current experimental version of I-Fly MAX.  I'll just have to restrict use to low end airports until they improve on this.  Actually, this part is very disappointing to me.  PMDG's in 2020 was in a class by itself for best performance:complexity ratio.  

28 minutes ago, Noel said:

It's main-thread limited for sure as I have serious GPU and CPU headroom.  As all other planes work well here I'll assume it has little to do w/ my system and all to do with optimizations in the current experimental version of I-Fly MAX.  I'll just have to restrict use to low end airports until they improve on this.  Actually, this part is very disappointing to me.  PMDG's in 2020 was in a class by itself for best performance:complexity ratio.  

iFly MAX in MSFS2020 is performing on par or better than the PMDG´s here so will see how it goes in MS24 but sounds a little worried.

Michael Moe

35 minutes ago, Michael Moe said:

iFly MAX in MSFS2020 is performing on par or better than the PMDG´s here so will see how it goes in MS24 but sounds a little worried.

Michael Moe

I'm too new to know much but just was at a gate at KRNO, a modest airport, and performance looked very good.  Not that I could figure out how to get the PAX/Cargo/Fuel automatically brought in good lord! Its EFB will take some time to get used to so far not liking it compared to FBW's, Fenix's, and the super simple PMDG.

Bought it. Love it. PMDG are now irrelevant to me. It's the final 2024 omission sorted. Better Simbrief integration would be  my one request. (And a fictional Ryanair livery. Well they have got 230 on order.)

15 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Bought it. Love it. PMDG are now irrelevant to me. It's the final 2024 omission sorted. Better Simbrief integration would be  my one request. (And a fictional Ryanair livery. Well they have got 230 on order.)

https://flightsim.to/file/82893/ryanair-package-1-w-cabin-ifly-b737-8-max-v2

Is it possible to pull in weights from SimBrief or other?  It appears you have to input all PAX, CARGO and FUEL manually.  I looked for videos and the two I saw proceeded to input everything manually.  Tell me that's not true!

31 minutes ago, Noel said:

Not that I could figure out how to get the PAX/Cargo/Fuel automatically brought in good lord

You can't.

It's not time consuming at all, it's just 3 numbers.

Edited June 13, 2025Jun 13 by Tuskin38

6 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Let's say your climb schedule is 280kts to .78 mach.  As you climb, the IAS of any given mach number is decreasing with altitude (mostly due to temperature decrease).  So you're in a fairly stable climb at, say, 280kts at around 1,000fpm (in your example).   When you intercept .78 mach, the airplane has to pitch up and climb more steeply to hold .78, because you're still climbing which means the IAS correlating to .78m is continuing to decrease.  So now, all of a sudden you're no longer in a stable climb at 280kts, you're in a steeper climb - you're trading IAS for a steeper climb rate.  

 

I'm not satisfied with your explanation because I think that you are not assuming the lack of power of the engines at higher altitudes, the mach number you are talking about is varying with the altitude: more altitude, more higher the mach number because the air density, temperature, etc. But this has nothing to do with the vertical speed, where you can see a very strange climbing jump where the engines are struggling to push the mass of a full loaded airplane when closing to the max planned altitude. Secondly, but not least important, this Ifly 737 is just the only one sim airplane behaving in this way, maybe the other devs are all wildly wrong on this aspect?

12 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

You can't.

It's not time consuming at all, it's just 3 numbers.

Thanks

Bought it after allways PMDG

Really like it!

A few notes:

Catching the glidescope at ENTC was a drama

The glidescope was allready active before it was visible on the PFD? And then it pitched up dramatically trying to catch the glidescope still a few dots above? How can there be GS in green on the PFD while the glidescope is not captured?

Really strange behaviour when finally catching the Glidescope the plane was going up and down and in overspeed. Had to land manually.

Is this BETA behaviour? Anybody else has this?

Will test again tomorrow

Edited June 13, 2025Jun 13 by rob0203

I'm still newish to 2024 and only have flown the Duke, CRJ, fenix, A300, MD-88.  In my first test this one had some performance issues vs the rest.  But one flight isn't a fair test either. More tests to follow.