Claudius_

I’ve decided to stop flying this marvelous SP1 738 MAX, maybe we’ll get a decent service pack in two or three years (my 738m had problems in SU5.1 too). In the meantime, there are plenty of other airliners to satisfy our masochistic instincts (but I like this new SU6 beta).

Very good performance here: less RAM and VRAM misuse, virtually I don't see differences between quality, TAA and DLAA settings. But on the ILS landings I don't see, or I don't understand, the supposed improvements landing with TFDI MD11 or the Fenix A320. PS: we have lights in the airports, finally!

Reinstalled as per my earlier post, but no luck, the B38m still freezes MSFS24 every time. I've parked this disaster for good.

It’s exactly what happened here, so I decided to visit the iFly Discord to look for a solution. Reinstalling the B38M was one of the approaches I tried. The MSFS2024 freezing issue appears to be caused by the iFly plugin, which starts correctly via the exe.xml instruction but then suddenly disappears (crashes?), leaving MSFS2024 frozen. I followed the developers’ instructions to reinstall the B38M, but before doing that, I also decided to reinstall MSFS2024 itself, since Asobo sometimes adds to the chaos. After a clean reinstall of MSFS2024 with an empty Community folder, I reinstalled the B38M. I tried starting with the basic pre-SP1 version as per the developers’ guidance, and then updated to the hotfix 2 version—but nothing worked. The infamous iFly plugin kept crashing and freezing MSFS2024. Through the iFly Manager settings, I tried removing the plugin from the exe.xml and adding it back by pressing the "Add to EXE.XML" button again, but that didn’t help either. The only way I could get this troublesome B38M to work was by removing the iFly plugin from the exe.xml and launching it manually. That did the trick—the aircraft now works as expected. Regarding the heavy RAM and VRAM usage, I noticed that my preferred Ryanair and Buzz liveries are in 8K resolution, and I couldn’t find any 4K alternatives, unlike with other aircraft like the Fenix A320. So I installed a German TUI livery that isn’t 8K (about 32MB download vs. over 100MB for Ryanair), and RAM and VRAM usage dropped to more reasonable levels. While there’s no rocket science involved in getting this B38M to work (though I did lose about four hours of my time), it seems the developers are currently in a state of panic, stuck in a tunnel vision where they keep advising users to reinstall the product over and over. That approach isn’t necessarily wrong, but I found another way to make the B38M work again—though I haven’t started it up yet this morning, so fingers crossed. P.S. Not to mention the infinite "rotating wheel" bug when try to start flying.

Although it’s heavy on both RAM and VRAM, FPS isn’t the issue here. However, it’s been crashing MSFS24 ever since the last update. Stop flying this mess.

Compared to this real life video, I feel BATC as BelowATC.

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.