13 hours ago, Bigmack said:

Sir if you're having all these issues why not post your complaints on Flight 1 discord for help. why come on a public forum and blast your hate and accusations about the SP1 update being a joke. Are you looking for some kind of affirmation from people to start pilling on how you feel? I also ran into some issues, but I went to their support and they helped me through all my issues. I don't have to air my displeasure out on public forum to make myself feel better. One of the beta testers has been answering your concerns and trying to help you, but that's not what you want. you want everyone to know that SP1 is a joke because it's not working for you instead of accepting help. Enjoy your day.

A public forum is exactly the place to discuss the state of software, and facts don't care about your feelings. Pointing out documented bugs, a missing CPDLC, or a broken ACARS isn't "blasting hate"—it’s stating facts. If pointing out objective flaws that are literally listed in the official documentation hurts your feelings, maybe you shouldn't read public discussions. Have a great day too. PS. SP1 for MSFS 2024 not MSFS 2020! Kpw? Facio...

15 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

This has been discussed before, but SP1 was never going to be native 2024. They've been clear about that since the beginning. It was always going to be a compatibility build, which is why the majority of beta testing occurred in 2020. There is no broken promise regarding 2024, you got exactly what you were promised in that regard.

To my knowledge, the only thing that has changed was the plan to include CPDLC. That was reevaluated when it was realized that including this feature would significantly delay SP1 release, and there didn't seem to be a reason to delay getting the hundreds of other improvements out to people, for just one function many simmers wouldn't even use. CPDLC is still coming, just as a separate update.

The use of the term "rushed" makes me chuckle here.

Cutting key features like CPDLC to meet a deadline is the exact definition of "rushed," whether it makes you chuckle or not. Trying to justify an incomplete SP1 by claiming "many simmers wouldn't use it anyway" is just a poor excuse for a broken release. We paid for a complete product, not a stripped-down compatibility patch. PS. Co tam u Kirka? 😎

18 hours ago, MariuszKr said:

Good for you that you don't care about CPDLC and that the new EFB satisfies your needs. However, the fact that you don't use certain systems doesn't mean they shouldn't be fully implemented as promised. Personal satisfaction with basic features doesn't change the reality of what was cut from this update.

Exactly this. Having been in this hobby for over 30 years, I’ve seen how standards have evolved, and we shouldn't be moving backward. We paid for an advanced study-level airliner, not a basic mod where you can just shrug off missing core systems. When key features are cut to meet a deadline, it’s a rushed release, period. Glad to see someone else in this community who actually cares about precision and holding developers accountable.

@MariuszKr why are you quoting your own post and replying to it?

1 hour ago, MariuszKr said:

Cutting key features like CPDLC to meet a deadline is the exact definition of "rushed," whether it makes you chuckle or not. Trying to justify an incomplete SP1 by claiming "many simmers wouldn't use it anyway" is just a poor excuse for a broken release. We paid for a complete product, not a stripped-down compatibility patch. PS. Co tam u Kirka? 😎

As I recall, CPDLC was announced in August 2025 as one of the planned features for SP1. However, iFly never provided a firm release date specifically for CPDLC. When SP1 was eventually released on June 12, 2026, the feature was not included. iFly later explained that implementing CPDLC within the existing MSFS 2020/MSFS 2024 compatibility framework proved more challenging than anticipated, and that the feature would likely be deferred to the upcoming native MSFS 2024 version.

While I understand that some may be disappointed by this and may place a high level of importance on CPDLC (whether justified or not is a separate discussion), it is worth considering how frequently it is actually used in real-world airline operations.

For long-haul oceanic flights across the North Atlantic, Pacific, or polar regions, CPDLC can account for approximately 70–90% of routine ATC communications once the aircraft is established within CPDLC airspace.

On heavily Data Comm-enabled international routes, the percentage can also exceed 70%.

Conversely, on domestic operations in regions where Data Comm implementation remains limited, usage may be well below 20%.

During departure and arrival phases, CPDLC is generally used far less than many assume—often only 0–10% of ATC interactions—because voice communications remain faster and more practical in rapidly changing traffic environments.

For a typical Boeing 737 operation, CPDLC may only be utilized for 5–15 minutes during a two-hour flight, representing perhaps 10–20% of total ATC communications.

What I find interesting is that we have developers who, after many years, still have not corrected fundamental LNAV and AFDS functionality—systems that are used on virtually every flight and affect nearly 100% of normal operations. Yet, some are quick to label a product as inadequate because a feature with comparatively limited operational use has not yet been implemented.

Perhaps we simply have different priorities and different perspectives on what constitutes a critical feature.

@MariuszKr You seem to be overly upset over pretty much a non-issue. Cool your jets before your posts cause
more issues among other members!

38 minutes ago, charliearon said:

@MariuszKr You seem to be overly upset over pretty much a non-issue. Cool your jets before your posts cause
more issues among other members!

I am asking simple questions about facts, not emotions. I am asking about what was promised versus what was actually delivered. This SP1 is clearly a final update for MSFS 2020, while MSFS 2024 users are left with an 'Experimental' tag. How much longer is this 'Experimental' state going to last?

Suggesting that missing core features and an unfinished build are 'non-issues' is just pure denial. If pointing out documented limitations and missing systems like CPDLC causes 'issues' among members, then the problem lies with the product's transparency, not with the person asking legitimate questions. I’m here for engineering, not propaganda.

It is easy to label serious software flaws as 'non-issues' when you look at them from the perspective of a Chromebook user who avoids the complexities of modern simulators altogether. However, for those of us who actually fly these advanced setups and paid full price for a product, these are real, broken systems that deserve answers, not administrative silencing.

Anyway, I am done here. There is no point in repeating the same things over and over again when even the simplest, most direct questions are either too difficult to understand or simply too inconvenient for some of you. Safe flights.

With all his rambling he has one point:

They started to sell the IFLY for MS2024 a year ago and called it experimental back then, because it is basically still just a compatibility patch.

While it performs great it still begs the question why they haven't shifted their focus away from MS2020 for months now.

They work awfully slow.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by Farlis

45 minutes ago, MariuszKr said:

I am asking simple questions about facts, not emotions. I am asking about what was promised versus what was actually delivered. This SP1 is clearly a final update for MSFS 2020, while MSFS 2024 users are left with an 'Experimental' tag. How much longer is this 'Experimental' state going to last?

Suggesting that missing core features and an unfinished build are 'non-issues' is just pure denial. If pointing out documented limitations and missing systems like CPDLC causes 'issues' among members, then the problem lies with the product's transparency, not with the person asking legitimate questions. I’m here for engineering, not propaganda.

It is easy to label serious software flaws as 'non-issues' when you look at them from the perspective of a Chromebook user who avoids the complexities of modern simulators altogether. However, for those of us who actually fly these advanced setups and paid full price for a product, these are real, broken systems that deserve answers, not administrative silencing.

Anyway, I am done here. There is no point in repeating the same things over and over again when even the simplest, most direct questions are either too difficult to understand or simply too inconvenient for some of you. Safe flights.

You've got 12 overall posts and almost all of them are rants on iFly. I think that says all about your agenda

40 minutes ago, Farlis said:

They work awfully slow.

If you think they’re slow I guess you’ve never bought anything from FS Labs. 😉

28 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If you think they’re slow I guess you’ve never bought anything from FS Labs. 😉

100% Correct.

Let's not forget other developers selling the same product over and over, ported from P3D to MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024, with known LNAV and APFD issues that still haven't been fixed after 4 years. We also paid for a complete product. I'm afraid that is quite all right.

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by LRBS

The new EFB enhances a more realistic immersion, with real engine and interior sounds (announcements), paintwork and fuselage details, exterior lights, and weather radar working perfectly.
This bird is invigorating now. Excellent work, iFly team in my opinion.

44 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If you think they’re slow I guess you’ve never bought anything from FS Labs. 😉

Indeed I never have. 😆

30 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Indeed I never have. 😆

Whilst they produce first class products like Concorde the time we’ve had to wait was interminable. The P3D version is excellent but has some issues which need fixing. The last update was two and a half years ago. Last month I asked if there would be any further updates. All I required was a Yes / No response. No one at FSL has replied.

In another topic many people have asked when Concorde for MSFS will be available. Again, zero response. They’ve never formally announced they’re working on a MSFS version.

It takes minimal effort to answer simple questions.

53 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Let's not forget other developers selling the same product over and over, ported from P3D to MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024

One reason I’ve remained with P3Dv5. Having bought the PMDG737 twice I wasn’t about to buy it a third time.