edu2703

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.

I just completed my first flight. My thoughts: Pros: - Systems: Absolutely fantastic. I dare say this addon possibly has the most advanced systems of a commercial airliner in MSFS at the moment, with a level of realism above PMDG and Fenix. - Flight modeling: Also exceptional. You can notice the inertia and weight of the aircraft flying manually, being the total opposite of iniBuilds airliners that handle like a balloon. Fly-by-wire systems seem identical to the real aircraft, with all flight envelope protections working perfectly and accurately compared to a modern Airbus aircraft. What could be improved: - 3D Modeling and textures: Not great, not terrible. There are some inconsistencies regarding the animations of the slats and flaps. It's definitely not Fenix/iniBuilds level, but it's also nowhere near "FSX-level'' garbage like some "kids" are complaining about, because they think anything below Fenix quality is word not allowed. For the price it could be better, but it won't hurt your eyes, unless you're a rivet counter. Other things I noticed: Taxi cam: It's not a camera, but a low-resolution satellite image of your current location. Because of the low resolution, you can barely see the taxi lines. In other words, it's just a visual gimmick with zero utility. Performance is very good. I had no issues on my flight. Everything went smoothly without hiccups. I liked that, in addition to being compatible with sim rate up to 4x, it also has the option to jump to the next waypoint. I also found it very interesting that it has a built-in replay system, although I would prefer to use my external replay tools, which for some reason are not compatible with the A346, with the aircraft flying erratically on playback. Only the built-in replay works, but at least, it works very well.

I just finished my first flight on the A340 (LFPG-TNCM). The flight was surprisingly smooth. Performance is much better than the A350, almost identical to the iniBuilds A320/A321neo, which are light on fps on my PC. I also felt the aircraft has better physics and handling than the A350. Sometimes the A350 seems to fly like a balloon. On landing, for example, a slight flare just before touchdown, and the aircraft simply floats down the entire runway if you don't give nose-down input. I simply can't make a hard landing on the A350. This doesn't happen on the A340. My first landing was a bit hard. I thought it would behave like the A350, but the aircraft definitely feels heavy when handflying, which I believe is quite accurate to the real aircraft. I used sim rate 4x for much of the flight, and the aircraft performed much better than the A350. The A350, using sim rate 4x sometimes gets crazy mid-route, rolling violently from side to side until the A/P disconnects, especially when encountering turbulence. The A340, on the other hand, handled very well, even during some turbulence. The textures and modeling are well done. Sound could be better, but are acceptable. I liked the wingflex effect, and also having the option to select between EIS 1 and EIS 2 avionics. Overall, I'm quite satisfied. I'd say the iniBuilds A340 is better than the iniBuilds A350 based on what I saw. It shows that iniBuilds has learned from its mistakes with the A350, and I hope that what they improved on the A340 can be applied to the A350 in the future, especially the improved performance.

PMDG not working seems to happen with every first release of a SU beta.

Out of curiosity: Do FSLabs aircraft support sim rate acceleration like 4x or more?

Nope

Back in P3D, people were forced to buy a $140 bundle of 2-3 variants, when most of them were only going to fly one. Now that PMDG has given people the opportunity to buy each variant separately, people are still complaining, irrationally demanding that PMDG sell the bundle again for the price of one. Treating the 200ER as just a ''shortened 300ER'' is a simplistic and erroneous view. The 200ER has three engine variants, a smaller wing and a different landing gear system than the 300ER, which increases the complexity of making custom fuel calculations for each variant and also new aerodynamic calculations based on these differences. The difference between the 200ER and the 300ER is much greater than the difference between the A350-900 and the A350-1000 for example. The A350-1000 is just the stretched A350-900 with an extra pair of wheels on the landing gear and that's it.

Just did my first flight. Smooth, without any hiccups. The performance is incredible, even better than some default aircraft. Nothing to complain about at the moment. Regarding someone's comments about the textures not being nice, they seem good to me. Everyone has their own preferences and standards, but I spend 99,9% of my time in the simulator in the cockpit view. I usually only look at the wing on the landing replay, so I don't have much time to observe if each wire and hydraulic duct was modeled correctly. The cockpit textures are the ones that matter most to me and they are well done on the PMDG 777 in my opinion. Ultra-realistic textures and modeling are nice to have, but they usually come with a big performance hit (Looking at you, iniBuilds). PMDG 777 textures and modeling are good enough and performance is exemplary for other airline addon devs. The quality that PMDG delivers at launch is also exemplary, rather than adopting the ''release now, fix later'' mentality.