Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

That thread is a train wreck to be sure.

Yeah, I see some visual glitches here and there, but even in a GA aircraft, I only look at a bridge for a minute or so and move on. In P3D, I would be thinking, "In real life, the chart says there's is a river with a bridge where I need to start a dog leg to the left. I wish it were in the sim.". In MSFS I think, "There's the river and the bridge, according to the chart, I need to follow the river a bit, and dog leg to the left just before that bridge... I sure hope they take a look at the photogrammetry on that bridge by the next time I fly this route in 5 years or so. Whoa! look at this beautiful canyon that the airport sits in. And the airport is beautiful! Yippeee!".

Bridge? What bridge?

 

Edited by MDFlier
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

That thread is a train wreck to be sure.

Yeah, I see some visual glitches here and there, but even in a GA aircraft, I only look at a bridge for a minute or so and move on. In P3D, I would be thinking, "In real life, the chart says there's is a river with a bridge where I need to start a dog leg to the left. I wish it were in the sim.". In MSFS I think, "There's the river and the bridge, according to the chart, I need to follow the river a bit, and dog leg to the left just before that bridge... I sure hope they take a look at the photogrammetry on that bridge by the next time I fly this route in 5 years or so. Whoa! look at this beautiful canyon that the airport sits in. And the airport is beautiful! Yippeee!".

Bridge? What bridge?

 

Or just turn photogrammetry off and voila now every little thing - including bridges - look better than in P3D.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, for the A320, the only chance FSLabs has to get a share of the MSFS market is to hope Fenix doesn't expand development beyond the A320ceo and sell variants separately. A competitively priced A321neo might even sell well. If they demand to buy the A320ceo first, it will be a big failure.

But I believe that the best option would be to focus on the development of Concorde and the A330.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, edu2703 said:

Honestly, for the A320, the only chance FSLabs has to get a share of the MSFS market is to hope Fenix doesn't expand development beyond the A320ceo and sell variants separately. A competitively priced A321neo might even sell well. If they demand to buy the A320ceo first, it will be a big failure.

But I believe that the best option would be to focus on the development of Concorde and the A330.

I think @Chock mentioned that the A319 and A321 is very similar to the A320, at least systems wise.  So I can see that Fenix would work on the A319 or A321 not too long after they release their A320 and finish the few outstanding tasks they have planned for their A320 after its release.  This would take away the A319/A320/A321 market away from FSLabs from MSFS, if FSLabs is too slow to release their own A319/A321.

Edited by abrams_tank

i5-12400, RTX 3060 Ti, 32 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They’ve missed the bus.  😂😂

  • Like 9
  • Upvote 4

11900K @ 4.8Ghz, MSI Z590, 32GB G.Skill 3600Mhz, Gigabyte RTX 3080, GoFlight modules, Oculus VR

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fenix simulation won't release any other product than A320, because their product is based on Prosim. Prosim only has one A320 simulator. So far there is no proof Fenix is able to develop a plane like this themselves, even by using an already made A320 simulator they are taking too much time for release. Could you imagine how much time would they have needed if they developed from scratch ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, cepact said:

Fenix simulation won't release any other product than A320, because their product is based on Prosim. Prosim only has one A320 simulator. So far there is no proof Fenix is able to develop a plane like this themselves, even by using an already made A320 simulator they are taking too much time for release. Could you imagine how much time would they have needed if they developed from scratch ? 

Assuming they make a killing in revenue, which Fenix should, they'll have more than enough capital to hire a large enough team of devs to develop any aircraft they want without needing Prosim.

Prosim was entirely a time-saving measure. They could have developed the plane without it, only it would have taken 10 years and been cost prohibitive. The cost prohibitive aspect goes away with the revenue from a successful product.

  • Like 5

Take-offs are optional, landings are mandatory.
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
To make a small fortune in aviation you must start with a large fortune.

There's nothing less important than the runway behind you and the altitude above you.
It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Assuming they make a killing in revenue, which Fenix should, they'll have more than enough capital to hire a large enough team of devs to develop any aircraft they want without needing Prosim.

Prosim was entirely a time-saving measure. They could have developed the plane without it, only it would have taken 10 years and been cost prohibitive. The cost prohibitive aspect goes away with the revenue from a successful product.

Agreed... Also if the ProSim licensing allows for it, I imagine parts of that codebase could be adapted for a non-320 airbus sim aircraft maybe?

  • Like 2

Len
1980s: Sublogic FS II on C64 ---> 1990s: Flight Unlimited I/II, MSFS 95/98 ---> 2000s/2010s: FS/X, P3D, XP ---> 2020+: MSFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Agreed... Also if the ProSim licensing allows for it, I imagine parts of that codebase could be adapted for a non-320 airbus sim aircraft maybe?

I think Aamir's original quote about ProSim, when he disclosed that the Fenix A320 was using ProSim, was that Fenix could also alter the ProSim code base.  So it shouldn't be too hard for Fenix to adopt ProSim for an A319 or an A321.

  • Like 2

i5-12400, RTX 3060 Ti, 32 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I think Aamir's original quote about ProSim, when he disclosed that the Fenix A320 was using ProSim, was that Fenix could also alter the ProSim code base.  So it shouldn't be too hard for Fenix to adopt ProSim for an A319 or an A321.

Yes sounds like that shouldn't be hard to adapt for a 319 or 321.  What I wonder about however is if subsets of the ProSim A320 systems codebase can be used by Fenix to get a running start on a 330? I guess that's a maybe at best... I know Airbus at least from a pilot's perspective tries to have similarity and commonality between all the A3XX cockpits as much as possible, but I imagine the under-the-hood systems can be very different from each other at least for some of them... i.e: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=775349

  • Like 1

Len
1980s: Sublogic FS II on C64 ---> 1990s: Flight Unlimited I/II, MSFS 95/98 ---> 2000s/2010s: FS/X, P3D, XP ---> 2020+: MSFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I think Aamir's original quote about ProSim, when he disclosed that the Fenix A320 was using ProSim, was that Fenix could also alter the ProSim code base.  So it shouldn't be too hard for Fenix to adopt ProSim for an A319 or an A321.

This will be entirely dependent of Prosim and the license they signed with them. It's hard to believe they would be allowed to do whatever they want with the codebase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, cepact said:

This will be entirely dependent of Prosim and the license they signed with them. It's hard to believe they would be allowed to do whatever they want with the codebase.

Aamir said in his original comment about ProSim that they have the rights to modify it.  You can search for Aamir's original quote.  Also, check the Fenix thread from a few weeks ago.  One of the shareholders of Fenix is located in the same building as ProSim in Holland.  That is a huge coincidence.  While there was no proof that ProSim itself holds shares in Fenix, there is speculation that the company in the same building as ProSim could be some type of holding company that also owns ProSim (the holding company is not confirmed and just a theory, what was confirmed is that the company that holds shares in Fenix is located in the same building as ProSim).  I'm too lazy to point you to that thread too, but you can search for that Fenix thread, it was the subject of discussion within the last 2 weeks.

TLDR: ProSim may have closer ties to Fenix than we all think. It's not surprising if Fenix has full leeway with the ProSim code (sorry, I'm too tired right now to link Aamir's original quote about ProSim, and also the Fenix thread from a few weeks ago, you can search for it yourself).

Edited by abrams_tank
  • Like 2

i5-12400, RTX 3060 Ti, 32 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, cepact said:

Fenix simulation won't release any other product than A320, because their product is based on Prosim. Prosim only has one A320 simulator. So far there is no proof Fenix is able to develop a plane like this themselves, even by using an already made A320 simulator they are taking too much time for release. Could you imagine how much time would they have needed if they developed from scratch ? 

From their FAQ:

Quote

Will we create other variants of the A320 family?
We're currently focused on the A320 CEO for release, but other variants are planned in the future.

 

Edited by -Belga-
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2022 at 4:54 PM, MDFlier said:

That thread is a train wreck to be sure.

I feel for FSL and the situation they're in but after reading that thread, I couldn't help it.

spacer.png

  • Like 3

Microsoft Flight Simulator | PMDG 737 for MSFS | Fenix A320 | www.united-virtual.com | i9 9900K 5 GHz | Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 32 GB | RTX 3090 24 GB MSI Suprim X | Windows 10 Pro 64 bit | HP Reverb G2 VR HMD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dawsey.gif

  • Like 2

YouTube | Facebook | Discord

i9-9900K O/C 5.0 GHz | ASUS ROG Strix NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 OC Edition | 32GB DDR 4 - 3200MHz | Asus Rog Strix Z390-E Gaming | Sabrent 512GB M.2 & Sabrent 1TB M.2 | Kaken X62 Cpu Cooler | NZXT H510 Elite Case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...