FsLabs a320 released for P3Dv4

[Cargostorm 151]

1 hour ago, hawkhero said:

I use PFPX for flight planning. Any issues exporting to the Airbus? I’ saving up for FSLabs A320. Almost there!

No problem. Just select PFX flight plan as format and export the flight plan as PDF. I then save this file into the FSlabs uplink folder. Did it yesterday with P3D 4.1 and the new bus.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

6 hours ago, YukonPete said:

The PMDG 737 is what 7-8 years old and is no where near as complex as the FSLA320. So you can't really compare the two and frames.  Apples & Oranges

Sure, but I've compared it to the qots ii as well, and that's hardly an old pmdg. Same story - pmdg much better.

over on the fsl forums, there seemed to be a lot of people feeling that performance was down compared to the v3 version. That's the opposite of pmdg, who managed to ring better fps out of their v4 versions. And the performance of the fsl a320 is still pretty bad with sliders full left, and gpu and CPU at 30 percent load or less. I think there's a lot of room for optimisation here, and I hope they do it. 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

1 hour ago, Zimmerbz said:

This is something I don't understand and hopefully someone can shed some light.  I am not technical nor am I a "gamer" so my knowledge of frames, specs, etc. are minimal.  I have both the PMDG and FSL320.  I enjoy them both.  People talk about framerates all the time and how one is lower than the other, so on and so forth.  In comparing "frames" between the 2 planes, yes PMDG might be a few more than FSL.  However, what does that even mean?  My eye cannot tell the difference between these "numbers" that people are reporting on.  Both are visually very smooth to me whether it is 10 frames or 50 flying with complex scenery and payware airports.  In fact, I would say that both planes are smooth for me, the FSL bus (though "less frame rates") is WAY smoother than PMDG when flying at night and with dynamic lighting on.  Yes, I might have a few hiccups when something is loading but shouldn't people be more concerned with a smooth flight visually than what some number tells you when you hit Shift Z?  I've see that number low and I have seen it high but it doesn't affect the smoothness of the sim. 

There is no way that 10 frames per second is optimally smooth. When you get proper, fast, consistent frame rates, the sim feels much more like flying. 24 frames per second can fool the human brain for a movie, but you want more than that for flight sim. Try aerofly FS2, locked at 120 frames per second. That's smooth, and that's what's most of the gaming world expects these days. It's only fsx'ers who've been trained to accept the ridiculously low frame rates we've dealt with over the last 10'years!

Over and above that, if you're flying vr - like I and many others in 2017 are - you will need 45 frames per second minimum, otherwise you are going to be airsick on a flight of any decent length.

I can get that with the PMDG planes. I get half that - around 24 fps in vr mode - with the Airbus. For me, It's the difference between flying a plane regularly on multi-hour flights, or leaving it in the hangar.

Unfortunately, no hardware in the world will comfortably run this plane in VR at the current time. Also, the plane crashes the VR Mode big time - not great beta testing, but that's another story, I hope they fix it (at the moment, LMs code is being blamed, but this is the only addon that causes this issue).

[Christopher Low 5,352]

20 frames per second would be fine for me if that was the minimum. Of course, I am not using VR, or a monitor the size of a small house

[Nyxx 6,993]

10 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

20 frames per second would be fine for me if that was the minimum. Of course, I am not using VR, or a monitor the size of a small house

Look back to see my spec, add to that I run 1080*1920 only 8gb of RAM

aa daylight Smaa x4

[SteveW 1,792]

11 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

20 frames per second would be fine for me if that was the minimum. Of course, I am not using VR, or a monitor the size of a small house

I'll take the monitor the size of a house, keep the goggles.

[Nighthwk 566]

Compromises people, if it's a hog on fps then don't run VR with it. I'm sure you'll be able to scrape buy on just a regular monitor for the time being...

[virtualstuff 757]

5 minutes ago, SteveW said:

I'll take the monitor the size of a house, keep the goggles.

Hahahaha same here

[anden145 2,285]

52 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

over on the fsl forums, there seemed to be a lot of people feeling that performance was down compared to the v3 version. That's the opposite of pmdg, who managed to ring better fps out of their v4 versions. And the performance of the fsl a320 is still pretty bad with sliders full left, and gpu and CPU at 30 percent load or less. I think there's a lot of room for optimisation here, and I hope they do it. 

Don't really understand this statement... I have better performance in Prepar3D V4 than in Prepar3D V3.

[Nighthwk 566]

2 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

Don't really understand this statement... I have better performance in Prepar3D V4 than in Prepar3D V3.

Just the usual group of people complaining about how performance sucks for them. 

[N2382R 49]

Random question that's not PMDG v FSLABS themed....where are the liveries?

[Nyxx 6,993]

3 minutes ago, N2382R said:

Random question that's not PMDG v FSLABS themed....where are the liveries?

Random answer 

A2A forums 

Goto the down load page on the website you can see it from there forums 

[N2382R 49]

11 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Random answer 

A2A forums 

Ha, thank you. Mind sharing a link? Must be blind...

[Nyxx 6,993]

27 minutes ago, N2382R said:

Ha, thank you. Mind sharing a link? Must be blind...

https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/files/category/14-a320-x-aircraft-liveries/

[N2382R 49]

10 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/files/category/14-a320-x-aircraft-liveries/

Negative ghost rider. Page doesn't exist.