Claudius_

Today I tested my first flight on version 1.1.37. I followed the flight plan and payload from SimBrief as usual, but the MD-11 started to raise its nose before VR without any input from my yoke. I'm disappointed, has anyone else had this "problem" with the new version?

Don't forget that the Fenix A320 is now more sensitive to passenger and fuel loads. If someone wants a feather-light A320 floating on the runway despite their poor stick management, they need to fly an empty airplane. Please try different loads and let me know if you find any differences.

I'm using the ILS autoland to learn how to land manually, it works well. Now the V3 A320 reacts to the wind, the reverse, the flaps and how you move your cloche, the payload, it's more complicated than before. I remember the infamous "floating landings" of the first versions, now it behaves realistic in my opinion. I think we have to retard but not with a mentally retarded way. Also, the takeoff is "heavier" than before.

An airplane should fly like an airplane, not like a pig or a butterfly. At this moment my favourite airplanes are the Fenix A320 and the TFDi MD-11. Waiting for Ifly and their B38m, the SP1 was absolutley unsatisfatying.

Great V3 update for me, I really like the new flight model: it feels more realistic when banking, with very good fly-by-wire handling and a very good sense of inertia. Just installed the latest hotfix and am heading out on another flight to test it.

Your concept of week is terrible

Today or tomorrow?

Is the V3 free?

Inibuild is famous for releasing incomplete bugged airplanes, although they are eye catching. I like the FBW A380 at the moment, it's fps heavy but it works well.

You have to look for transitions: SOSA5A sid has OKU9B transition. But there other sids that have OKUNO on the rw25

I've had a few complaints about BATC—it feels like a bit of a blind answering machine. But if I remember correctly, you were the one who jumped on me for saying it wasn't great. Karma's a funny thing, huh? 😁

I don't remember whether this bug dates back to previous releases, but MSFS 2024 frequently fails to shut down properly, and the process has to be killed via Task Manager.

From the official forum: It’s been reported in a dedicated thread on this forum as well as Working Title has acknowledged that they’re aware, so I expect it will be resolved in a future beta build. In the meantime I'm using the msfs flightplanner charts.

No more charts in the default EFB, anyone?

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.