edu2703

Some are angry expecting a release date announcement on the stream and there wasn't one. And the Reddit post is just typical iniBuilds hatewagon. There was no WASM crash on the stream. The systems are made entirely by Synaptic btw.

I've heard from A220 pilots that its VNAV is poor and frequently struggles, especially with speed constraints and sluggish decent profiles due to the high idle thrust of PW engines and the aircraft's aerodynamic characteristics, which prevent it from losing much speed during descent. It seems this is being represented quite accurately on Synaptic A220.

According to Just Flight devs on MSFS forum, 1.2 update is scheduled for Thursday. The changelog is three A4 pages long, with a mixture of fixes, improvements and new features.

I decided to try flying the iFly 737 MAX on the SU6 beta from SXM. Three times I tried loading the aircraft from the gate and the simulator froze during loading. On the fourth try, I decided to load the aircraft from the runway. The aircraft loaded, but froze again soon after. This is strange, because I had done a test flight from a small airport and it loaded without problems. Now, when I tried to do a full flight, this problem appeared. I think it's safe to say that the iFly 737 MAX is not compatible with SU6 beta, although some manage to fly with the bugs. And judging by iFly's wording, limiting themselves to saying betas are not supported, don't expect a fix anytime soon.

I was specifically referring to the Ifly 737 MAX. Fenix is okay as far as I've seen.

Have you noticed that the sounds from the buttons, switches, GPWS, and other alerts are missing? I noticed it here, and others have mentioned it as well. It's not an immersion breaker, but I was worried there might be other issues besides the sounds.

I tested the Ifly 737 MAX on the SU6 beta. I didn't do a full flight, but it seems to be flying well. However, it has some bugs. One is that it can only be loaded by enabling the new option in assistance settings to disable pre-flight walkaround, otherwise it freezes after loading. Another is that some sounds are missing. Especially the sound of the buttons, switches, GPWS, and all alerts. Engine sounds are okay. Of all the aircraft I have and have tested, the Ifly 737 MAX was the only one where I found bugs at first glance.

This plane belongs to Air Litoral, a regional subsidiary of Air France at the time.

The Fokker 70 operated at London City Airport, but it wasn't a common sight there. I think only Tyrolean Airways and Air Litoral operated Fokker 70s at London City. KLM flew to Heathrow instead of London City on its flights to London with the Fokker 70.

I hope they've actually fixed the memory leak bug. I'm going to do a long haul this weekend to test it.

The time it takes until a CTD varies depending on the circumstances and PC specs. On the iFly Discord, someone reported a CTD after 2.5 hours of flight. Here, someone reported a CTD after 6 hours of flight. I believe that on average, between 4 and 5 hours of flight, you enter the danger zone for CTD with the iFly 737 MAX.

Last weekend, I decided to fly SEA-KEF with the 737 Max 8. In real life, this flight takes around 7 hours and 30 minutes, but in MSFS, I decided to do it with 2x time acceleration. On the first attempt, I had CTD approaching the coast of Iceland a few miles from TOD. Total flight time was around 4 hours and 30 minutes. On the second attempt, I had CTD more or less in the same place as the first, with a similar flight time. On the third attempt, I used 4x time acceleration and managed to complete the flight in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Seeing other comments, It seems that the iFly 737 Max is not capable of handling long flights in real-time. The iFly plugin must have some kind of memory leak that builds up during the flight, which may also explain the performance degradation in cruise that some are experiencing in addition to CTD's.

Until Asobo releases the weather API for add-on developers, any weather injector for MSFS is destined to be a mere clone of Active Sky and any other injector that already exists, even if it promises otherwise. My biggest complaint about Active Sky (and all weather injectors) is regarding the clouds. The clouds injected by AS are almost all flat, pancake-like clouds. They may even look realistic from the ground in some situations, but at cruising altitude, it's very disappointing to see a ring of flat clouds below you. The thick 3D cumulus clouds injected by the simulator's live weather may not be very realistic at times, but they definitely give the wow look I've never seen from AS-injected weather and stand out quite a bit in storms. Today, I definitely prefer using the sim live weather over any injector (I use Active Sky in passive mode for effects only) and I will continue to use it until the weather API is released or some developer, by some miracle, manages to bypass the main limitations on injected weather.

RTX 5070 Ryzen 5 5600 32GB RAM

CSS 737's performance is the worst I've ever seen from an aircraft in MSFS 2024 so far. I'm averaging 16 fps without frame gen. For comparison, the second most heavy aircraft in terms of performance that I have, the FBW A380, I get 28 fps. The bizarre thing is that the aircraft loads with fps in the 20-25 fps range, which would be minimally tolerable with frame gen, but when I enter the route in the FMC, the performance inexplicably drops to 16 fps. Other people report performance drops when activating LNAV. The worst part of the low performance is hearing from the developer there's no way to improve performance without rewriting the aircraft from scratch, which they don't intend to do. What I suspect is that the poor performance isn't due to the modeling or textures (which are subpar, to be honest, and shouldn't cause poor performance), but rather the module CSS uses to run systems outside the simulator, like the Fenix A320. I believe CSS's implementation is different from Fenix's, which would explain why the performance drops simply when using the aircraft's systems. 16 fps is unacceptable performance in any context. There are aircraft with textures a thousand times better and with much more complex systems where I can achieve more than double that performance. As if the poor performance wasn't enough, the aircraft has other fundamental problems: LNAV struggles to stay stable in a straight line, overshooting on every turn. VNAV can't hold altitude. Auto Throttle either works strangely or simply doesn't work at all. Other systems work in bizarre ways and the sounds are simply bad, even worse than default aircraft. I think the only positive is that CSS offers an opportunity to fly the aircraft for a month for $5 before committing to buying it. I did 3 flights and already uninstalled it. This aircraft is far from being of acceptable quality, both in terms of performance and systems.