MariuszKr

I am asking simple questions about facts, not emotions. I am asking about what was promised versus what was actually delivered. This SP1 is clearly a final update for MSFS 2020, while MSFS 2024 users are left with an 'Experimental' tag. How much longer is this 'Experimental' state going to last? Suggesting that missing core features and an unfinished build are 'non-issues' is just pure denial. If pointing out documented limitations and missing systems like CPDLC causes 'issues' among members, then the problem lies with the product's transparency, not with the person asking legitimate questions. I’m here for engineering, not propaganda. It is easy to label serious software flaws as 'non-issues' when you look at them from the perspective of a Chromebook user who avoids the complexities of modern simulators altogether. However, for those of us who actually fly these advanced setups and paid full price for a product, these are real, broken systems that deserve answers, not administrative silencing. Anyway, I am done here. There is no point in repeating the same things over and over again when even the simplest, most direct questions are either too difficult to understand or simply too inconvenient for some of you. Safe flights.

Exactly this. Having been in this hobby for over 30 years, I’ve seen how standards have evolved, and we shouldn't be moving backward. We paid for an advanced study-level airliner, not a basic mod where you can just shrug off missing core systems. When key features are cut to meet a deadline, it’s a rushed release, period. Glad to see someone else in this community who actually cares about precision and holding developers accountable.

Cutting key features like CPDLC to meet a deadline is the exact definition of "rushed," whether it makes you chuckle or not. Trying to justify an incomplete SP1 by claiming "many simmers wouldn't use it anyway" is just a poor excuse for a broken release. We paid for a complete product, not a stripped-down compatibility patch. PS. Co tam u Kirka? 😎

A public forum is exactly the place to discuss the state of software, and facts don't care about your feelings. Pointing out documented bugs, a missing CPDLC, or a broken ACARS isn't "blasting hate"—it’s stating facts. If pointing out objective flaws that are literally listed in the official documentation hurts your feelings, maybe you shouldn't read public discussions. Have a great day too. PS. SP1 for MSFS 2024 not MSFS 2020! Kpw? Facio...

Good for you that you don't care about CPDLC and that the new EFB satisfies your needs. However, the fact that you don't use certain systems doesn't mean they shouldn't be fully implemented as promised. Personal satisfaction with basic features doesn't change the reality of what was cut from this update.

The point stands whether you semantics-check ACARS or not. My original post was about dropped promises like CPDLC and the fact that iFly literally labeled this MSFS 2024 build as 'Experimental'. If it was so 'polished' and took a 'looooong time', they wouldn't need to put an experimental warning on it. A couple of smooth flights on your end doesn't wipe out the cut features and official limitations.

Blaming a livery won't magically bring back missing features like CPDLC or fix documented bugs in this experimental build. Good for you that you are in 'GA mode' and don't care about missing airliner systems, but trying to gaslight others about a clearly rushed service pack is just pathetic.

An installation guide doesn't magically add missing features like CPDLC or fix officially documented experimental build issues. Glad you're happy with your 'fetures', but personal satisfaction doesn't change the reality of an incomplete service pack.

Installation settings won't magically code a missing CPDLC, fix a broken ACARS, or resolve known code inconsistencies in the experimental MSFS 2024 build. Good for you that it runs fine on your old 2080Ti, but white-knighting for a rushed SP1 and calling other community members 'cavemen' doesn't change the facts or the bugs mentioned in the documentation itself.

It feels like this SP1 (1.1.0.0) was rushed out out of pure spite just to quiet down the critics before the one-year anniversary. Dropping an incomplete update, cutting promised features like CPDLC, and keeping the MSFS 2024 version labeled as 'Experimental' is a joke. It’s a classic defensive move: 'You didn't want to wait, so here is a broken build, now deal with the performance drops, broken liveries, and bugs yourselves while we blame the platform.' Instead of taking responsibility for a year of delays, they delivered a headache. True propaganda over engineering.

Hi... But this is still fiction, not virtual reality. As someone wrote above: 'The nail in the coffin for PMDG,' etc. ... There is no SP1, so there is no nail. And soon it will be a year that we've been waiting for SP1... Maybe someday... who knows...

Hello everyone, This is my first post here on the AVSIM forums, although I have been a flight simulation enthusiast for over 30 years—dating back to the days of the Commodore 64 and Amiga. After three decades in this hobby, I decided to join the discussion today because I feel it's important to share my recent experience as a paying customer of Flight1/iFly. I am posting this here as a warning to the community and a call for transparency. As a simmer who supports developers by purchasing directly from their stores (bypassing marketplaces), I am appalled by the current state of iFly/Flight1 customer relations. Since June 2025, the iFly 737 MAX 8 for MSFS 2024 (v1.0.4.3) has received zero functional updates. We are talking about 270 days of "Experimental" status with no progress on the EFB, LNAV/VNAV, or basic SDK integration for the new simulator. When I attempted to ask about the promised SP1 on their official Discord today—even using a lighthearted, ironic tone for April 1st to highlight the absurdity of this 9-month wait—I was slapped with my third 7-day ban by moderator Kirk Heath. Here is the reality for anyone considering this $70 purchase: Stagnant Development: The "Experimental" tag is being used as a shield to justify a frozen build that hasn't changed since last summer. Hostile Moderation: Instead of providing a roadmap or a simple status update, Flight1 moderators choose to silence paying customers who dare to count the days since the last update. Direct Purchase Trap: While we avoid "predatory" marketplaces to support devs, we end up with no recourse when the developer goes radio silent and bans you from their communication channels for asking about the product you paid for. Is this the new standard for high-fidelity add-ons? Pay $70, wait 9 months, and get banned for asking "where is the update?" I urge Flight1 management to look into how their Discord is being moderated. Silencing the community won't make the SP1 appear any faster, and it certainly won't help your reputation. 7 days pass quickly, Kirk. But 270 days of silence is a lifetime in flight simulation. Best regards to the community!