LRBS

On Boeing aircraft (including the 737), there is a deliberate elevator feel and control-force characteristic around rotation. As rotation begins, there can be a region where additional yoke movement produces relatively little change in pitch rate. It is designed to prevent over-rotation and tail strikes. During rotation and aft pressure is applied, there is a slight lag before the nose begins to rise, and once the nosewheel unloads, pitch rate develops progressively. Next, control forces increase smoothly with pitch attitude. We target the rotation rate: approximately 2–3° per second for an initial target pitch 15° nose-up. All this is stable and smooth, I would not call it dead band, perhaps elevator feel future. That issue was brought to their attention, but as usual, they completely ignored it, and here you have it.

Yes, Andrew, that's exactly what I'm seeing in MSFS 2024. I noticed it immediately compared to the previous version. I no longer have MSFS 2020 installed, so I can't compare directly, but something definitely changed, and in my opinion the earlier version had better flight dynamics. To be fair, the new 2024 FDE entries actually work very well in 2020, which suggests the issue can likely be addressed without too much difficulty. That said, in many respects there is still no real comparison with the competition, and it's clear the developers are actively looking for improvements and refinements.

Whatever you like the most, this is my honest view. iFly 737 MAX is much better than the PMDG in certain respects. However, in my opinion, the previous iFly 737 MAX version had better flight dynamics than Version 1.1.0.0. We'll see what the next update brings, but at the moment, a few refinements would certainly be welcome.

It's 2024. I thought it was 20 KTS; however, the issue I had was that after disconnecting, landing, the rudder was less effective than it was during t.o. roll. Anyhow, there is lots of positive work and effort on this release. Someone mentioned that the competition 737 flies much better. All I can say is, oh boy.

The earlier version felt smoother and slightly less twitchy in terms of flight control response. The difference is not dramatic, but it is noticeable. Since I am using the same hardware and control setup, I was expecting very similar handling characteristics. It is possible that some additional adjustments are needed on my end. During takeoff, control authority was good in gusty winds up to 22 knots, and the aircraft remained stable throughout the initial climb in turbulent conditions. At 1:25, I noticed some wing rocking. With only about a 2-knot wind variation, I would not normally expect that level of response. While entering a speed restriction of 200/4000A for the DPK hold, I copied it to the scratchpad and then attempted to copy the hold information, but it would not accept it. This may be an FMS limitation. However, when I entered 200/4000A at the first DPK waypoint at 2:14, the CRZ ALT automatically changed to 4,000 feet. This is the first time I have observed this behavior. It may be aircraft-specific, as I never encountered it in the 737-400. I also observed another instance of wing rocking between the user waypoint CRI01 and ZETAL, resulting in a less-than-smooth transition. The capture and transition onto the localizer were very good. On final approach, there were noticeable deviations above and below the glideslope, and on short final the aircraft was significantly above the GS. The autoland touchdown occurred well down the runway, close to the 2,800-foot marker. This may also be specific to this aircraft model, but after touchdown it did not properly follow the ROLLOUT mode. The autopilot had to be disconnected, which resulted in a lateral deviation that could not be corrected effectively in the 20-knot crosswind. Interestingly, this issue was not present during takeoff, where directional control was very good. Overall, some areas show improvement, while others may still require refinement.

Does anyone know how to get from REAL to save as default SMOOTH? Any other changes work, while this does not stay in memory after a reboot. Thanks.

You are 100% correct. In my previous version, when I uninstalled, it was not there. After reinstalling, I found that setting, and I have to say that it is quite a "positive" improvement! No complaints regarding that aspect.

100% correct. Some people are not familiar with what to expect to see, even though a wx report can show different scenarios. A perfect example is Touchdown Zone, Midpoint, or Rollout visibility. Forget about the window scenario. If STRATAWX MSFS24 implemented a visibility slider, they would be well ahead of the competition. My problem is that ASOBO in MSFS 2020/2024 failed to implement a slider for visibility values. They managed to address the turbulence reaction slider but missed this important feature, necessary for a simulator aiming for an "as real as it gets" scenario.

I'm curious myself. What can't be ignored is that the same cloud transitions and morphing are still visible, even with ActiveSky, and they stand out quite clearly. The difference is that both MSFS 2020/2024 and ActiveSky provide ways to manage the overall experience, including adjustments for turbulence intensity. At the moment, the turbulence effects in this software seem excessive and not particularly realistic. Even Asobo recognizes that users have different preferences and provides adjustment options. A simple turbulence slider from 0% to 100% would likely satisfy most users and make the cloud morphing much easier to accept while still allowing everyone to tailor the experience to their liking.

Thanks for the offer. I purchased the product from Simmarket, and my findings are based on hands-on experience rather than speculation.

If turbulence "has been a major focus," I would encourage adding a slider or another way to adjust its strength, as in MSFS or Active Sky. That will help a lot and also improve the product. Right now, it needs lots of love, the way it is.

From my perspective, based on my own experience using this product and what is demonstrated in the video, MSFS 2024 remains the superior solution when it comes to smooth weather transitions and minimizing cloud morphing. While MSFS 2024 certainly has its shortcomings, ActiveSky also provides numerous configuration options and workarounds that can effectively mitigate many of those limitations. In contrast, the claims made regarding smooth transitions in StartaWx are not supported by the footage presented. Visible cloud morphing and transition artifacts can be observed at several points throughout the video, including approximately 1:45, 3:18, 4:16, 4:55, 6:25, and 7:56. These examples clearly demonstrate that weather and cloud transitions remain noticeable rather than seamless. Additionally, the persistent and often exaggerated turbulence depicted throughout the presentation further detracts from the realism of the experience. Unfortunately, based on the solutions currently available and the various approaches attempted by third-party developers, I remain skeptical that a truly effective weather engine can be achieved under the present limitations. Unless Asobo provides broader access to the weather API and related atmospheric systems, developers will continue to face significant restrictions that prevent them from delivering a product capable of fully overcoming these shortcomings.

Speaking of the FAA, I believe the organization deserves closer scrutiny, and in some areas, significant changes may be warranted. As for this particular topic, there simply isn't enough time during Level D simulator training to cover it adequately. The training syllabus is already packed with critical maneuvers, procedures, and evaluations that must be completed within a limited timeframe. However, during Initial Operating Experience (IOE), the subject is typically addressed in greater detail, and practical demonstrations are conducted when appropriate. This approach is not unique; many regulatory authorities and aviation organizations, including the FAA, generally rely on a similar training philosophy by introducing certain concepts during line training rather than dedicating valuable simulator time to them.

100% Correct. Let's not forget other developers selling the same product over and over, ported from P3D to MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024, with known LNAV and APFD issues that still haven't been fixed after 4 years. We also paid for a complete product. I'm afraid that is quite all right.