Claudius_

No, the DC-6 is not working well with the Garmin, I'm using it for vor to vor navigation. Back to the topic: my A380 isn't performing well today—I can't enter the performance data into the MCDU. It was working perfectly yesterday before the latest update, and I really enjoyed hand-flying it.

I don't justify personal attacks like "your opinion stinks".

You right, but it deserves some respect it is not only a free addon, it's a quality free addon, I liked their A320 neo and FSLTL. Now I'm curious to test the A380, although is not my favourite airplane.

I genuinely appreciate the acknowledgment of my contributions, both past and present. That said, I think you are incorrectly attributing emotional escalation to my feedback. The real issue is the widespread developer practice of deflecting criticism: PMDG, BATC, Fenix and iFly are particularly guilty of this (though Fenix has gotten much better). They routinely fall back on vague generalizations like 'most users are happy,' dismiss issues with 'we can't reproduce it,' or hide behind 'we've tested it with RL pilots' to avoid taking valid concerns seriously.

It appears that your goal once again is to build a supportive BATC community, but with the underlying aim of making money, rather than improving your software. And yes, I’m well aware that whether to trust you is entirely up to me, thank you for that reminder.

Sometimes the developers conduct surveys to show that the majority of their customers are enjoying the software. But the real goal should be to improve the product, not to reassure us that most users are satisfied with their work. I don't like BATC at all. To me, it feels like nothing more than an automated voice droning obvious instructions in your ear. It seems that many people don't actually like study-level airplanes, and I suspect that's why most respondents consider BATC to be decent software. In my opinion, these surveys are sometimes used as a marketing tool rather than a genuine effort to make the software better. I honestly don't think BATC has much room for improvement anymore. Even after two years of "early access," it still feels like a glorified automated phone voice giving generic instructions. PMDG docet. The only reason I still use it is to populate my otherwise empty airports with static aircraft.

Yes, I know how to use a trim, and the Ifly B38m requires a lot of trim, more than a Spitfire sometimes. 😁

They said the same thing on Discord, but after the patch, the brightness seems a bit lower. I tried another ILS autoland and it worked fine, but I’m not a fan of the flight model, it feels inconsistent. Sometimes the yoke is very heavy, and other times it feels completely weightless. I’ve heard that over 70 real-life pilots took part in the closed beta, though.

I find BATC quite disappointing. It lacks situational awareness—it cannot track your position or actions effectively—and essentially functions as little more than an automated voice system. On top of that, it is excessively heavy on RAM usage.

5080/16GB @4K here, almost all ultra settings and ray tracing on, still playable. Rebar off.

I'm not satisfied of this "new" B38m post patch, it's heavy on resources, but most important I don't like the flight model, I find that now the PMDG 738 is better than this one in this aspect. The devs asked me a video to show the banking problem, but you can easily verify it if you are a good sim pilot. Also, the ILS autoland "fail operational" seems to be a "passive operational". The external lights are too heavy, but this is a FS24 porting problem, but they were heavy in FS20 too, we'll wait for another year or two and the problem will be fixed. At the moment the Ifly B38m is letting me down.

Of course yes, you’re mistakenly confusing a porting issue in FS24 with a problem related to LED or incandescent light lamps. As I mentioned in my previous message, the developers are aware of the issue.

I got some replies from their Discord: they know the esaggerated lights problem, it's a port consequence from FS20 to FS24, it will be fixed when a native version of the B38m will be available. Regarding the bounces banking problem they are asking me a video, but this can easily verified testing their airplane and comparing it with other airplanes. Fenix had this problem too and they fixed it. Regarding the ILS fail operational problem, they are aware.

You are mistakenly assuming that I don’t know the difference between LED and incandescent lights.

I like to fly at night, but I find that the landing, taxi, strobe, and beacon lights are way too exaggerated. The landing and taxi lights in particular are creating a sort of white haze in front of the windscreen, without clouds in the sky. When closing in on the runway for landing, the glare is a bit less bothersome, but it's still totally unrealistic. Also, seeing the strobe lights flashing intensely on my sides from the cockpit makes the flight experience feel completely unrealistic. The same goes for the beacon light, but that is only visible from the external view or if you go into the cabin. I selected "fail operational," and the airplane approaches the runway correctly. However, after touchdown, it behaves like a "fail passive" autoland system because it is unable to keep the aircraft on the centerline, or the corrections it makes to stay on the centerline are too late. My best autoland experience so far has been with the MD-11. Banking autopilot problem: Something like a "bouncing" effect frequently occurs at the end of a bank. When flying manually, you have to be very careful with the yoke during banking, because an 80‑ton airplane should not bounce or stopping abruptly at the end of the bank. The Fenix A320 had this problem too, but the devs fixed it, fortunately.