Stearmandriver

That's a good thought.

Can't say I've heard of this one. There are no rudder lockout options in the iFly settings, I don't think. Question: are you using the normal sim controls menu to assign controls, or are you using a third party utility like FSUIPC?

It blows my mind that there is still not an extremely high fidelity 175/195 in the sim; like, iFly / PMDG / Fenix level. The e jet family is, by a large margin, the most common entry level airline jet for new pilots - and is quite a capable aircraft. It would be an insta-purchase for every simmer who plans to become - or even dreams of becoming - an airline pilot. I mean, it would probably be one of the best selling sim aircraft of all time. I can't believe devs aren't tripping over each other to cater to this market. Instead, there's just one dev who's been poking at this project for years and still has it at the bare minimum level of basic functionality, nowhere near "high fidelity"? Crazy.

There are a million video capture programs... Streamlabs or Streamlabs OBS work fine, but whatever seems easiest.

The iFly has controller lockout settings in the My Plane app under Autopilot. Be sure they're turned on, or a signal spike from your controller could conflict with the autopilot. However, this would probably disengage the autopilot. If that's not happening then something else is probably at work. If you can post a video I'll take a look and see if everything looks set up correctly. This is the first report I've heard of this so it would seem to be something local to your system.

I'll buy anything A2A makes. Even if another dev makes the same plane, there's pretty much zero doubt in my mind that A2A's will be better.

A slider to define visibility - exact visibility that never varies, to the tenth of a mile if not actually RVR values - is the single most glaring omission from this software if they want to call it a simulator. All the other shortcomings added together, don't even equal how ridiculous it is to be unable to set a visibility value. They do not even seem to understand why this is.

Don't let this intimidate you. It's not really going to be a course of study, just something you have to do a couple times and then you'll have it. There are plenty of graduate-level tricks and techniques that can be applied to these FMCs, but they also absolutely aren't necessary to use the aircraft on a normal flight. Most real life new-hires on one of these airplanes don't know all that either; they tend to learn it over their first months on the line. When they first get released from training, they only know the very basic workflow too. Pretty much every add on airliner comes with a tutorial that walks you through a flight, to include the setup and use of the FMC. It's not programming, it's just a workflow. Do it a couple times and you'll have it wired. Honestly, it's more user-friendly than the Garmin devices. I don't speak Airbus, but all you need to know for pre-departure setup on a Boeing is "follow the six-right road". Do it once and that'll make sense 😉.

Probably, but that's also something that would be implicitly understood by everyone with knowledge of these aircraft and this industry. There are countless options for almost every facet of an aircraft and modeling all of them would be a literal impossibility. Of course any particular aspect of any particular add on is going to be the one the devs chose to model. As long as it's a realistic and common behavior, I don't guess we can fault them for that.

Just to close the loop on this, I did test it in the real aircraft tonight and verified that point one is valid, as I expected. I'm also not quite sure what the refueling points example had to do with it though. I ran this by two former military and current airline guys; one a former tanker driver and one a former fighter pilot who spent plenty of time hanging off tankers, and they weren't sure either. They actually both asked me the same question: "why wouldn't you just create two PBD or PB/PB waypoints off the same fix(es), instead of creating a second user waypoint off of a first one?" Nonetheless, this was a good find as it should work, so it'll be addressed. Keep em coming! 👍

Nah, this isn't related to behavior in 2024; it'll be identical in 2020. The team is aware, although it only seems to affect this particularly weird case of creating a PB/PB fix using another user waypoint as one of the references. In general user waypoints are handled correctly. No one is quite sure why you'd want to do this 😉, but nevertheless it should work and so it'll be fixed. Note that his second point was erroneous; the iFly behavior is actually correct.

Yep, just an option then. These aircraft are full of them. Just like the difference between geometric path descents on approach only, vs on arrival after the first "at" or "at or below" constraint - both implementations are correct, as in reality it is an option defined in the FMCS Perf Factors pages. So the iFly implementation turns out to be correct for point 2. I still suspect you are right about point 1, but I'll mess with that on the flight home tonight. 👍

For number one, an interesting find! I do agree that it should work like you say, although in all my years flying airliners, I have to say that I've never had occasion to create an offset waypoint from an offset waypoint, and I have trouble imagining a scenario where this would be useful. Nonetheless, you are correct about how the FMC would handle it, and I'll run that up to the team. For number two though, I'm afraid you're incorrect. As you can see in this video I took tonight in a Max 9, line selecting a PBD waypoint does indeed line select the name of the waypoint and not the underlying position information. All I can say is, maybe it's an option or maybe you're thinking of another airplane? Or, I also note that you mention the "Boeing FMC". I'm not sure if you meant that generically, as in "the FMC in the Boeing", or if you meant the literal "Boeing FMC", the new touchscreen FMC Boeing is now producing? We're switching to that one, but in my video you're seeing the good old GE FMC... The same one modeled in the iFly. As you can see, the iFly is correct on this point. Line Selecting a PBD Waypoint

I mean, it's a video game. It's hard to actually have problems lol. But he makes a great point, that part of what makes the classic jets interesting is a whole different level of systems babysitting being required. There's a reason an FE was a requirement. I would think that people interested in learning about the classics would appreciate this kind of info.

A door doesn't flop around, it's held closed by slipstream. Entirely common for doors to come unlatched in flight in older GA aircraft, it's a complete non-event. Hard to see what they'd consider worth modeling here... Unless the door does something entirely unrealistic, you'd never even know it happened.