12 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

I'm not a real life pilot but I think it was Chock who said the A319 and A321 are very similar in functionality to the A320.  If so, once the A320 is released by Fenix, it may not take Fenix too long to do the A319 or A321, assuming the functionality of the A321/A321 is very similar to the A320.

That is true. The SOP manual for the real A321 (which is also the manual for the A320, and the A330 for that matter) cautions pilots to remember that they are in a longer aeroplane when rotating and flaring if they've been flying the A320, because you really cannot tell the difference from the appearance of the cockpit, and appearance-wise the same is pretty much true of the A319 and A318 as well although without the caveat of watching the pitch angle on rotation and flare. Piloting-wise the biggest deal is probably the different turning circle clearances when taxying the things, and with the A321 this is something you have to be aware of when pushing them back too. The one that is notably different in flight operations, is the A318, since it can be cleared for steep approaches although this is usually airport-specific too since it requires ILS calibration for the other approach angle (which in product terms for a flight sim probably limits its appeal to all but the purists), so the A318 has switches on the overhead related to this functionality and some FMC stuff which is somewhat different to its bigger sisters. Nevertheless, the A318 does tick the boxes for a number of airlines with specific requirements, since most of them favour range over capacity.

After that, it's really just range and capacity with separate them. Not that this makes it a five-minute job for anyone simulating different variants, but most of the work is in the FMC differences for that range and performance, since it affects things like trim when the extended-range A321s with their additional fuel tank located in what is normally the forward part of the rear cargo hold. And to be fair it's not just some modeling changes required, since the stretching and shortening of the A320 to make the other variants wasn't just a case of adding or deleting a few fuselage frames. If you look as the rear cargo hold of a narrow-body Airbus for example, you will see that the rear hold door blends into the wing/body fairing a bit more on shorter versions, and the small variants don't have the bulk cargo door either. But as opposed to modeling something completely from the ground-up, these changes are comparatively minor, so for anyone making an A320 for a flight sim, making some, or all of these other variants, and most likely the A321, is a bit of a no-brainer to expand a product range.

Much as I'd like to see it because I like the looks of it, I think its doubtful that FSL will be making an A340. It's a pretty aeroplane but like the fugly A380, it's a bit of a white elephant; a much more feasible product for FSL would be the A350, and if they have any sense, I'm presuming they've have had one of those in the pipeline for a long time and are busy tweaking it for MSFS.

What I don't think any FS developer has ever really bothered with in too much detail, but which would add an element of realism and would be comparatively easy to implement, is the choice of either bulk loading/AKH ULDs. This differentiates most A320s and A321s where the airlines are concerned and it does affect load planning and indeed spin times. Jet 2's operations with their narrow bodies is currently all bulk loaded stuff although they do have a load of A321 NEOs on order and you never know, they may go for AKH ops with these because they use AKEs with their A330s, so it's not like they don't have the gear for it. Aer Lingus use ULDs on their narrow bodies, whereas BA do both bulk and ULDs with theirs. This would have a bearing on things like GSX too and whilst most people probably don't care, for the realism nerds, seeing an Aer Lingus A320 with belt-loaders on its main holds would probably have them apoplectic on the forums, but it's worth bearing in mind that these are the users who don't balk at big price tags for their airliner add-ons, so anything a developer can do to please them in this regard is probably worth the effort. 🤣

Edited October 9, 20214 yr by Chock

I look at this quite simply.  FSL completely changed FSX and P3D for me, the most immersive experience I've had that 'ruined' other pay-ware addons overnight.

If they can push the boundaries of MSFS in the same way then that would be great, if Fenix can do it as well then double great!  At the moment though I've flown neither A320 in MSFS so will have to see who delivers the better product.

I want all these developers to succeed, I don't see it as a race, if MSFS is going to be around for years they've all got a chance to take the lead at some point.

Either way it's exciting times for their customers!

Cheers

1 hour ago, Chock said:

That is true. The SOP manual for the real A321 (which is also the manual for the A320, and the A330 for that matter) cautions pilots to remember that they are in a longer aeroplane when rotating and flaring if they've been flying the A320, because you really cannot tell the difference from the appearance of the cockpit, and appearance-wise the same is pretty much true of the A319 and A318 as well although without the caveat of watching the pitch angle on rotation and flare. Piloting-wise the biggest deal is probably the different turning circle clearances when taxying the things, and with the A321 this is something you have to be aware of when pushing them back too. The one that is notably different in flight operations, is the A318, since it can be cleared for steep approaches although this is usually airport-specific too since it requires ILS calibration for the other approach angle (which in product terms for a flight sim probably limits its appeal to all but the purists), so the A318 has switches on the overhead related to this functionality and some FMC stuff which is somewhat different to its bigger sisters. Nevertheless, the A318 does tick the boxes for a number of airlines with specific requirements, since most of them favour range over capacity.

After that, it's really just range and capacity with separate them. Not that this makes it a five-minute job for anyone simulating different variants, but most of the work is in the FMC differences for that range and performance, since it affects things like trim when the extended-range A321s with their additional fuel tank located in what is normally the forward part of the rear cargo hold. And to be fair it's not just some modeling changes required, since the stretching and shortening of the A320 to make the other variants wasn't just a case of adding or deleting a few fuselage frames. If you look as the rear cargo hold of a narrow-body Airbus for example, you will see that the rear hold door blends into the wing/body fairing a bit more on shorter versions, and the small variants don't have the bulk cargo door either. But as opposed to modeling something completely from the ground-up, these changes are comparatively minor, so for anyone making an A320 for a flight sim, making some, or all of these other variants, and most likely the A321, is a bit of a no-brainer to expand a product range.

 

Ahh, thanks for the details on the differences between the A319/A321 vs the A320 again.  Based on what you said above, I don't think it will take Fenix all that long to do the A319 and A321 then, once the Fenix A320 is released. I assume the first few months after the Fenix A320 is released, Fenix will be patching and fixing the A320.  But once the Fenix A320 is stabilized, I can see Fenix working on the A319 or A321, and I suspect those can be done in under one year, for each.

13 hours ago, captain420 said:

Would be nice if someone can do an Airbus 350XWB.

Here you go...

https://twitter.com/DFD35X

 

Edited October 9, 20214 yr by airlinejets

37 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Based on what you said above, I don't think it will take Fenix all that long to do the A319 and A321 then, once the Fenix A320 is released. I assume the first few months after the Fenix A320 is released

We need to bear in mind that there'll possibly be a bit more to it as far as the legalities are concerned. The licencing which Fenix have with ProSim for using their 320 as the basis for one in MSFS may not cover further products. Not something which could not be worked out, but I daresay ProSim won't have granted carte blanche for Fenix to do anything they like in terms of further products.

Ultimately it's a good advert for ProSim too of course, but they need their financial slice of the pie too, so some of the potential for further products will depend on the returns on the investment which Fenix, and to some extent ProSim, see from the A320 venture. An A321 would almost certainly be a big seller as it is a popular airliner and it has the range necessary to open up wider use in a sim version, but an older variant of the 319 and 318 might be a tougher sell to anyone other than a hardcore flight sim nerd. Having said that, the 318 does go transatlantic from London City to the US via Ireland, which gives it some novelty value as a long range commercial jet which can also be used for short hauls as well.

Of course there is also motivation to consider too; just because a developer can do something does not mean they'd necessarily want to. they might be inclined to want to have a stab at using the ProSim 737 as the basis for something, possibly even their forthcoming 738 avionics system, maybe even go for something completely different from scratch, or even just sit back and do nothing. So this is all getting a bit ahead of things at the moment when the initial product is not even out of the door yet, but certainly I don't see the Fenix A320 being anything other than a big seller if its promise is anything to go by.

3 hours ago, slod said:

I look at this quite simply.  FSL completely changed FSX and P3D for me, the most immersive experience I've had that 'ruined' other pay-ware addons overnight.

Yes the combo of FSL and GSXv2/simbrief is the pinnacle of what it would feel like to be a captain of a A320. It really made for me PMDG's feel "lite" in immersion.

7 hours ago, Chock said:

That is true. The SOP manual for the real A321 (which is also the manual for the A320, and the A330 for that matter) cautions pilots to remember that they are in a longer aeroplane when rotating and flaring if they've been flying the A320, because you really cannot tell the difference from the appearance of the cockpit, and appearance-wise the same is pretty much true of the A319 and A318 as well although without the caveat of watching the pitch angle on rotation and flare. Piloting-wise the biggest deal is probably the different turning circle clearances when taxying the things, and with the A321 this is something you have to be aware of when pushing them back too. The one that is notably different in flight operations, is the A318, since it can be cleared for steep approaches although this is usually airport-specific too since it requires ILS calibration for the other approach angle (which in product terms for a flight sim probably limits its appeal to all but the purists), so the A318 has switches on the overhead related to this functionality and some FMC stuff which is somewhat different to its bigger sisters. Nevertheless, the A318 does tick the boxes for a number of airlines with specific requirements, since most of them favour range over capacity.

After that, it's really just range and capacity with separate them. Not that this makes it a five-minute job for anyone simulating different variants, but most of the work is in the FMC differences for that range and performance, since it affects things like trim when the extended-range A321s with their additional fuel tank located in what is normally the forward part of the rear cargo hold. And to be fair it's not just some modeling changes required, since the stretching and shortening of the A320 to make the other variants wasn't just a case of adding or deleting a few fuselage frames. If you look as the rear cargo hold of a narrow-body Airbus for example, you will see that the rear hold door blends into the wing/body fairing a bit more on shorter versions, and the small variants don't have the bulk cargo door either. But as opposed to modeling something completely from the ground-up, these changes are comparatively minor, so for anyone making an A320 for a flight sim, making some, or all of these other variants, and most likely the A321, is a bit of a no-brainer to expand a product range.

Much as I'd like to see it because I like the looks of it, I think its doubtful that FSL will be making an A340. It's a pretty aeroplane but like the fugly A380, it's a bit of a white elephant; a much more feasible product for FSL would be the A350, and if they have any sense, I'm presuming they've have had one of those in the pipeline for a long time and are busy tweaking it for MSFS.

What I don't think any FS developer has ever really bothered with in too much detail, but which would add an element of realism and would be comparatively easy to implement, is the choice of either bulk loading/AKH ULDs. This differentiates most A320s and A321s where the airlines are concerned and it does affect load planning and indeed spin times. Jet 2's operations with their narrow bodies is currently all bulk loaded stuff although they do have a load of A321 NEOs on order and you never know, they may go for AKH ops with these because they use AKEs with their A330s, so it's not like they don't have the gear for it. Aer Lingus use ULDs on their narrow bodies, whereas BA do both bulk and ULDs with theirs. This would have a bearing on things like GSX too and whilst most people probably don't care, for the realism nerds, seeing an Aer Lingus A320 with belt-loaders on its main holds would probably have them apoplectic on the forums, but it's worth bearing in mind that these are the users who don't balk at big price tags for their airliner add-ons, so anything a developer can do to please them in this regard is probably worth the effort. 🤣

The manual for the A330 is not the same as for the A32S airplanes. The A330, although operationally similar, has considerable systems differences.

6 hours ago, Ilari Kousa said:

The manual for the A330 is not the same as for the A32S airplanes. The A330, although operationally similar, has considerable systems differences.

Nope, I said the SOP manual for the A320 and the A321 and the A330 is the same thing not that the procedures were all the same for all three types. There are individual sections which differ, and these are divided by cards, but they are all in the same single binder. I should know, it was me who created that manual originally for the real thing many years ago.

Edited October 9, 20214 yr by Chock

maybe in meantime FSL can quickly develop a MD11 for MSFS, if I remember correctly Lefteris has some experience with it and can find again his LAMM Schematic, I would be pleased...

6 hours ago, cseu said:

maybe in meantime FSL can quickly develop a MD11 for MSFS, if I remember correctly Lefteris has some experience with it and can find again his LAMM Schematic, I would be pleased...

TFDi is doing an MD-11 for P3D and MSFS.

On 10/8/2021 at 4:33 PM, GCBraun said:

Hoping for the Concorde or for an A330 at least...please not another A320.

Same to me - not another A320; but would love a good Concorde, this is definitely missing in MSFS !

cheers 😉

On 10/9/2021 at 5:00 AM, slod said:

 

I look at this quite simply.  FSL completely changed FSX and P3D for me, the most immersive experience I've had that 'ruined' other pay-ware addons overnight

 

I find it hard to fly anything besides the FSL (and Leonardo) aircraft.  Their AOC/ATSU, CPDLC and finally the GSX integration really make the little realistic details matter.  PMDG lags far far behind in the realism I know RR doesn’t like GSX/Coatul and has said as much, but not even being able to grab airport WX or ATIS from the CDU’s on the PMDG stuff really drives me nuts.  Most other addons have the ability to do it.  
 

FSL is truly in a league of its own.  My opinion is that it really feels as tho you sit down in the flight deck and FEEL like you’re prepping for a flight, getting your loadsheets, your cargo loading etc.  The GSX integration with the weights/baggage/pax/catering and even water, jetways and GPU/ground AC is simply sublime when it comes to it.  
 

Here’s hoping they give us the Concorde and a PROPERLY modeled A330-200/300 and whatever other Airbus products they can get the data for!  
 

With all that being said, I will be installing MSFS for the first time when the Fenix A320 and Whiskyjet A220’s are ready to go.  

53 minutes ago, DJ Rosko said:

 but not even being able to grab airport WX or ATIS from the CDU’s on the PMDG stuff really drives me nuts.

Yo are very spoiled! LOL

29 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Yo are very spoiled! LOL

Spoiled by the FSlabs, Leonardo Maddog and to the extent I fly it, the QW 787-that functionality is all there.  
 

I’m not hopeful for Global Flight Ops… I feel like they woulda said something-anything by now. 

Edited October 16, 20214 yr by DJ Rosko

1 minute ago, DJ Rosko said:

Spoiled by the FSlabs, Leonardo Maddog and to the extent I fly it, the QW 787-that functionality is all there.  
 

I’m not hopeful for Global Flight Ops… I feel like they woulda said something-anything by now. 

I mean for many of us is not a big deal  do weather briefing prior flight or dial ATIS frequency  LOL