I started using the iFly 737 today and have already encountered two additional issues related to pilot-defined/manual waypoints.

1. PB/PB waypoint created from a previously created PBD waypoint

This occurs in the following scenario:

After creating SOR01 as a PBD waypoint using the appropriate place/bearing/distance entry, I attempted to create another pilot-defined waypoint as a PB/PB (course intersection) using:

SOR01 120 / GIPOR 225

In other words, the second waypoint is defined by the intersection of the 120° bearing from SOR01 and the 225° bearing from GIPOR.

The FMC currently returns “INVALID ENTRY.”

This is incorrect. The Boeing 737 FMC logic allows PB/PB waypoints to be defined using existing fixes, and the previously created pilot-defined waypoint should be a valid reference point. The resulting waypoint should therefore be accepted and displayed as SOR02, following the normal Boeing naming convention for successive pilot-defined waypoints.

2. Scratchpad display of a previously created PBD waypoint

There is another related issue.

When SOR01 is selected into the scratchpad, instead of displaying the original waypoint definition, i.e. the PBD information:

SOR225/8.0

the FMC returns only:

SOR01

That is also incorrect.

The Boeing FMC allows the expanded definition of a created waypoint to be retrieved from the route/LEGS page. For a PBD waypoint, the underlying place/bearing/distance definition should be available rather than simply returning the abbreviated waypoint identifier.

These two issues appear to be related to how the FMC handles pilot-defined waypoint references and to the distinction between the displayed abbreviated identifier (SOR01) and the underlying waypoint definition (SOR225/8.0).

Perhaps a little more attention is needed during both programming and testing of the FMC waypoint logic. It is quite unpleasant to discover a different bug at almost every flight, particularly with fundamental FMC functions that are well established in the Boeing 737 implementation.

The expected Boeing behavior here is quite clear, so I hope these issues can be reviewed carefully and corrected.

Edited yesterday at 03:31 AM1 day by LRBS
pic

Yeah the iFly is too green on this aspect.

36 minutes ago, SN737 said:

Yeah the iFly is too green on this aspect.

Yep, unfortunately, they still have quite a few bugs despite all the claims. 😄 That said, despite my criticisms of PMDG, I have to admit that, overall, the PMDG 737 and 777 FMCs are much better in certain aspects of operation and workflow.

It's a game. I have flown it and for the most part everything works as expected.

I would call it an annoyance.

I can find minor problems like this with many, many paid add-ons.

14 minutes ago, tpete61 said:

It's a game. I have flown it and for the most part everything works as expected.

I would call it an annoyance.

I can find minor problems like this with many, many paid add-ons.

I understand the “it’s a game” argument, and I agree that no add-on is going to be completely free of bugs. However, I would respectfully disagree with calling this merely an “annoyance.”

Having been previously qualified on the real equipment, my expectations are naturally a little different. When an aircraft system is modeled incorrectly or a particular functionality simply isn’t there, I see that as a functional limitation or a bug, rather than just a minor annoyance—especially when we are talking about systems that should behave in a specific, predictable way.

Of course, the importance of an issue depends on what we know about the real aircraft and what we consider an accurate simulation. Some users may never notice or care about these things, while others will immediately recognize them.

And yes, you can certainly find minor problems in many paid add-ons. But that doesn't necessarily make the problem insignificant. Other “games” have implemented certain systems more accurately, while others haven't. For me, the question is less about whether it is technically a game and more about what level of simulation the developer is claiming to provide and what we should reasonably expect from it.

From my experience flying the real equipment, that's where I tend to have a somewhat different perspective.

I'm with you on that. There are many fields were compromises have to be made in fidelity. These are after all add-ons that you can buy for less than 100 dollars. It's not a multimillion dollar Level-D representation of the real thing.

But despite all that, one would hope that at least all functionality for flight planning the pilot is given in the real aircraft can also be found in an add-on like this.

Sadly that's rarely the case.

3 hours ago, LRBS said:

I understand the “it’s a game” argument, and I agree that no add-on is going to be completely free of bugs. However, I would respectfully disagree with calling this merely an “annoyance.”

Having been previously qualified on the real equipment, my expectations are naturally a little different. When an aircraft system is modeled incorrectly or a particular functionality simply isn’t there, I see that as a functional limitation or a bug, rather than just a minor annoyance—especially when we are talking about systems that should behave in a specific, predictable way.

Of course, the importance of an issue depends on what we know about the real aircraft and what we consider an accurate simulation. Some users may never notice or care about these things, while others will immediately recognize them.

And yes, you can certainly find minor problems in many paid add-ons. But that doesn't necessarily make the problem insignificant. Other “games” have implemented certain systems more accurately, while others haven't. For me, the question is less about whether it is technically a game and more about what level of simulation the developer is claiming to provide and what we should reasonably expect from it.

From my experience flying the real equipment, that's where I tend to have a somewhat different perspective.

Nice flex but it should be noted that there is another poster here who is currently a RL MAX pilot and his views of this sim (and the PMDG product) seem to be just a bit different than yours. I for one am very content with the MAX in it's current (V2) state. It's undoubtedly not "perfect" but for me, I find it to be incredibly rewarding, more so than the PMDG product (and this isn't a slag on PMDG, those guys also operate at a very high level).

43 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Nice flex but it should be noted that there is another poster here who is currently a RL MAX pilot and his views of this sim (and the PMDG product) seem to be just a bit different than yours. I for one am very content with the MAX in it's current (V2) state. It's undoubtedly not "perfect" but for me, I find it to be incredibly rewarding, more so than the PMDG product (and this isn't a slag on PMDG, those guys also operate at a very high level).

Of course. Everything I pointed out is pretty straightforward. Both products have their strengths and weaknesses, and this is simply one of the shortcomings/bugs I happened to run into. Believe me, there are plenty on both sides.

In this particular case, though, PMDG simply does it better—because it works the way it does in the real airplane. That's all I'm saying. Operationally, this specific behavior is not correct, regardless of how rewarding or enjoyable the overall product may be. We're talking about a system-specific issue, nothing more.

And I'm quite sure the “RL MAX pilot” would agree with my findings. I don't think his view would be any different when it comes to the actual operation of the FMC.

9 hours ago, LRBS said:

what level of simulation the developer is claiming to provide and what we should reasonably expect from it....

Should you not add "for the price" to that sentence? Its an addon for a game and it costs £60 and in no way is it ever going to perfectly mimic the plane you fly for work. Presumably there are multi million pound simulators you can play on if, for some reason, you wish never to have a break from real life.

10 hours ago, LRBS said:

In this particular case, though, PMDG simply does it better—because it works the way it does in the real airplane.

Are you saying PMDG implemented the FMC better or just this part that you noticed.

Just curious.

5 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Should you not add "for the price" to that sentence? Its an addon for a game and it costs £60 and in no way is it ever going to perfectly mimic the plane you fly for work. Presumably there are multi million pound simulators you can play on if, for some reason, you wish never to have a break from real life.

So here we go again. There are two specific FMC issues/bugs related to how the system functions, and instead of addressing the actual technical issue, you’re trying to turn the discussion into one about the price of the addon and the fact that it’s “just a game.”

That completely misses the point.

I’m not asking for perfection, nor am I suggesting that a £60 addon should somehow replace a multimillion-pound Level-D simulator. I’m simply pointing out specific behavior that is operationally incorrect and should be fixable. In fact, another developer has already implemented the same function correctly within the exact same simulator and technical constraints. That alone demonstrates that this is not an unreasonable expectation or some impossible demand for “real life” simulation.

Reporting bugs and explaining why they matter is exactly how products improve. If something doesn’t work correctly, the appropriate response is to discuss the issue and hopefully get it fixed—not dismiss it by changing the subject to the price, calling it “just a game,” or making assumptions about why someone cares about realism.

Frankly, I find this kind of response very disappointing. Disagree with the technical point if you wish, but diverting the discussion and making it personal adds nothing to the conversation. The issue is the issue: the FMC function is not behaving correctly, and I’m pointing it out in the hope that it gets fixed. That should be enough.

16 minutes ago, LRBS said:

So here we go again. There are two specific FMC issues/bugs related to how the system functions, and instead of addressing the actual technical issue, you’re trying to turn the discussion into one about the price of the addon and the fact that it’s “just a game.”

That completely misses the point.

I’m not asking for perfection, nor am I suggesting that a £60 addon should somehow replace a multimillion-pound Level-D simulator. I’m simply pointing out specific behavior that is operationally incorrect and should be fixable. In fact, another developer has already implemented the same function correctly within the exact same simulator and technical constraints. That alone demonstrates that this is not an unreasonable expectation or some impossible demand for “real life” simulation.

Reporting bugs and explaining why they matter is exactly how products improve. If something doesn’t work correctly, the appropriate response is to discuss the issue and hopefully get it fixed—not dismiss it by changing the subject to the price, calling it “just a game,” or making assumptions about why someone cares about realism.

Frankly, I find this kind of response very disappointing. Disagree with the technical point if you wish, but diverting the discussion and making it personal adds nothing to the conversation. The issue is the issue: the FMC function is not behaving correctly, and I’m pointing it out in the hope that it gets fixed. That should be enough.

I apologise if you took what I said to be a personal attack because that's not what i meant. I've said it before and will get flamed again but it baffles me why a real world pilot would want to come home from work and go back to work in the virtual world and expect it to be just like it was at work? Do dustbin men men come home and play rubbish collecting sims and then complain that the vehicle they drive is different? These planes are for simmers like me who have no intention of flying them for real but just want a near enough illusion of the real thing. Complexity is what I want and this delivers at a reasonable price. If you want absolute reality then fly your real plane and take a break when you are at home.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by jarmstro

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

I apologise if you took what I said to be a personal attack because that's not what i meant. I've said it before and will get flamed again but it baffles me why a real world pilot would want to come home from work and go back to work in the virtual world and expect it to be just like it was at work? Do dustbin men men come home and play rubbish collecting sims and then complain that the vehicle they drive is different? These planes are for simmers like me who have no intention of flying them for real but just want a near enough illusion of the real thing. Complexity is what I want and this delivers at a reasonable price. If you want absolute reality then fly your real plane and take a break when you are at home.

I think it is worth mentioning, as it may help clear up some of the muddy waters.

For me, and for many others, flying—or simming—is a hobby. It is something we enjoy, and that perspective helps put things into context and clarify our priorities.

As you’ve noticed, I’m certainly not the only person who flies for a living and genuinely enjoys this hobby. While some may perceive pointing out shortcomings as being overly “critical,” the purpose is simply to identify issues that could be improved. It is not an attack; it is intended to benefit everyone—the developer and the customer alike—by bringing the product as close as possible to the real thing and, ultimately, making it more enjoyable for everyone.

For some reason, however, some people take these comments out of context and turn them into unfortunate and unwarranted speculation, sometimes even making them personal. IMHO, we should keep the focus on what can actually be demonstrated, documented, and potentially fixed, regardless of what anyone may or may not know about the person making the observation.

At the end of the day, improving a product—whether we call it a “game” or a simulator—doesn’t hurt anyone. Quite the opposite: it makes the product better for all of us.

13 minutes ago, LRBS said:

I think it is worth mentioning, as it may help clear up some of the muddy waters.

For me, and for many others, flying—or simming—is a hobby. It is something we enjoy, and that perspective helps put things into context and clarify our priorities.

As you’ve noticed, I’m certainly not the only person who flies for a living and genuinely enjoys this hobby. While some may perceive pointing out shortcomings as being overly “critical,” the purpose is simply to identify issues that could be improved. It is not an attack; it is intended to benefit everyone—the developer and the customer alike—by bringing the product as close as possible to the real thing and, ultimately, making it more enjoyable for everyone.

For some reason, however, some people take these comments out of context and turn them into unfortunate and unwarranted speculation, sometimes even making them personal. IMHO, we should keep the focus on what can actually be demonstrated, documented, and potentially fixed, regardless of what anyone may or may not know about the person making the observation.

At the end of the day, improving a product—whether we call it a “game” or a simulator—doesn’t hurt anyone. Quite the opposite: it makes the product better for all of us.

Shortcomings? What like the lack of real world smells and forces on our bodies? And all the different sounds together with being able to feel everything? Its a game. Try Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 which is great fun and, I assure you that you will prefer it to griping about minor FMS inaccuracies which only the totally obsessed will notice.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by jarmstro

19 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Shortcomings? What like the lack of real world smells and forces on our bodies? And all the different sounds together with being able to feel everything? Its a game. Try Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 which is great fun and, I assure you that you will prefer it to griping about minor FMS inaccuracies which only the totally obsessed will notice.

I find your response quite frankly insulting, and it does nothing to address the actual point being discussed.

Calling someone “totally obsessed” because they notice and report an operational inaccuracy is not a rebuttal. It is a personal attack and an attempt to dismiss the discussion rather than engage with it. If you disagree with the technical point, then explain why it is correct—not why the person who noticed it is supposedly obsessed.

Nobody is claiming that a simulator can reproduce the smell of an aircraft, the physical forces on your body, turbulence through the seat, or every sound and sensation of real flight. That is an absurd comparison and completely beside the point. We are discussing the accuracy of the things the simulator is actually designed to simulate.

An FMS either behaves correctly according to the aircraft's operational logic, or it doesn't. The fact that you consider the discrepancy “minor” does not make it correct, and it certainly doesn't justify dismissing anyone who has enough experience to recognize it.

I've already explained that my criticism is not an attack on the developer or the product. Quite the opposite: identifying shortcomings is precisely how products improve. If everything is simply dismissed with “it's a game,” then there is no meaningful reason to discuss accuracy at all.

And suggesting that I go play Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 because I pointed out an FMS discrepancy is particularly telling. It avoids the technical issue completely and turns a product discussion into a personal judgment about me.

We are perfectly entitled to disagree about how important a particular issue is. What I will not accept is being labeled “obsessed” simply because I have higher expectations for operational accuracy and am willing to point out where something is wrong.

If you want to debate the actual FMS issue, I'm happy to do that. If the response is going to be personal insults and “it's just a game,” then there really isn't much of a technical discussion left. Enjoy your lovely day.