7 minutes ago, Johnny19 said:

I had no idea 🙂 

It is on the MIC button situated below tge EFB

21 minutes ago, grandfred29 said:

You can't do it from fms as reverser is not an axis. I don't use it now but i already set them with fs20 controller setting for fbw.

Reverser on the bravo is a button not an axis unfortunaly

yeah so I use the switch to turn on the reverser then the main axis to set the reverse power - thats the way it typically has to work for all planes with the Bravo

9 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

I understand this is a complex machine, but I have the FSL A320 locked at 30fps in P3D all the time. That's why I'm wondering why my computer is having such a hard time with this airframe. I run no slider at ULTRA, mostly medium/high, 150 LOD.

I assume the external Fenix app which is doing all the system calculations and display rendering does this regardless of MSFS view mode.

IIRC the i9-9900K has a builtin internal GPU; if you switch that on in BIOS, you can select it in the app just for the display rendering, so your CPU and main GPU are not that burdened; have you tried that and if yes, did it help?

6 minutes ago, roi1862 said:

I wish there was another way to know besides "gambling" away and purchasing it.

if you have a well tuned modern computer - you’ll be fine,

& an amazing way to test your MFS rig,

quite inexpensive for what you get - wonderful $value,

& this is Day 1…

"Purchasing the PMDG was a much safer bet as reports of performance was positive all around."

Yes I fully agree. I gambled with both aircraft. The Fenix is "WOW" but so is the PMDG B737. Both have eyecandy.

But two negatives with the A320: Lack of a detailed user guide, and a bit of a framerate hit.

B737 has several user guides, and is more framerate friendly. 

 

It is what the streamers said...around 5 fps less than PMDG. But it does run smooth and has much more features when compared to the 737.

In summary, this is a high-quality add-on with great systems, features and high visual fidelity. For sure the best Airbus I have ever flown (and I have pretty much all models for all sims inclusing FSL, ToLiss, FF, etc).

Edited May 20, 20224 yr by GCBraun

1 hour ago, cepact said:

My impression is that this product has been over hyped and I regret buying it impulsively as the performance is disappointing.

The only thing impressive in this product is the core simulation of the plane, which is just Prosim running on the background. What they did on top of that (sounds, graphics, EFB etc.) is not that impressive. So I would rate a 5/5 to the Prosim product and 2.5/5 for Fenix.

The graphics aren't that impressive? Almost everyone else says this aircraft is currently the benchmark in flight simulation. Of course it will have a performance hit on the hardware.

47 minutes ago, pstrub said:

Funny how you totally missed the point. The complaints I saw were from people who had no problems flying the FBW A320 and/or the PMDG 737 at good fps, but ran into framerate issues with the Fenix. 

If your framerates are ok with other high-end airliners (that perform similar to the Fenix A320 on other systems), it doesn't make sense to blame the hardware. 

It makes absolute sense, the Fenix has a lot more system depth than the 737. That goes all on the CPU.

Some will remember when FSL came out with their A320 for P3D. It was unflyable, it was so hard on performance, while also PMDG's Boeings were great. Things changed for the better eventually with updates. I'm sure Fenix will optimize the code as well.

4 minutes ago, Johnny19 said:

Some will remember when FSL came out with their A320 for P3D. It was unflyable, it was so hard on performance, while also PMDG's Boeings were great. Things changed for the better eventually with updates. I'm sure Fenix will optimize the code as well.

I remember the same kind of heat with the PMDG737 on FSX (or FSX itself). They said it was built for future hardware. 😄

Edited May 20, 20224 yr by tweekz

Guys, you have to remember a detailed airbus simulation will always be worse performing than a previous generation boeing with less than half the fly-by-wire layers that have to run on one cpu. 

I'd wager that if and when a next generation boeing with similar fly-by-wire systems like a 787 (pmdg level, not the qw rubbish) comes along it would be a lot worse than the old 737.

1 hour ago, omarsmak30 said:

So how’s it comparing to FSLabs? (I am not at home and I will be back on Monday, thus I am asking 😞)

Visuals obviously 100x better, systems depth is better (offsets, step climbs etc.), sounds honestly I don‘t remember FSL. Seems a level above FSL, but of course it‘s still early too judge.

Which is the best GPU option for rendering displays ?  Integrated of Nvidia GPU? I have 11900k with  RTX3090.

Also i dont know if its good to have 2 graphic cards enabled as possibly could cause some conflicts 

 

how i make that the integrated gpu show on the fenix settings options? i can only see the cpu  and my external gpu  but not my integrated  and is enable on the bios of the motherboard

21 minutes ago, Makinen11 said:

Guys, you have to remember a detailed airbus simulation will always be worse performing than a previous generation boeing with less than half the fly-by-wire layers that have to run on one cpu. 

I'd wager that if and when a next generation boeing with similar fly-by-wire systems like a 787 (pmdg level, not the qw rubbish) comes along it would be a lot worse than the old 737.

This just isn’t true from what many devs have said about how much CPU power it takes to run the avionics. Done right, it’s really not that much.