FBW vs. Fenix for Casual Airbus Flyer

[Crocket 47]

11 hours ago, Aamir said:

It's worth remembering that it's entirely possible that different people do different parts of the simulation. 

C'mon, guys. You have a group of dedicated, hardworking, enthusiastic developers putting together an Airbus simulation for you all for free in between working real jobs, studying, spending time with their families, and all the other things people get up to in their lives. They definitely deserve better than this sort of unfair rhetoric. Especially given they, frankly, owe everyone absolutely nothing. 

Appreciate the support, meanwhile I'm realizing I'm bad at jokes 😄

The truth behind that joke is that we actually spend a lot of time on absolutely useless things, or actually what is felt as useless by most people, and this kind of example of surfaces affected by aerodynamics with simulated hydraulic actuators is the perfect example: you won't see any difference, until everything finally comes together and when a hydraulic failure occurs in flight while you were maneuvering, you'll get the realistic reaction of a plane with stuck surfaces until airflow can reposition them after some seconds (critical seconds :D).

Can be quite frustrating when all you hear then is "FBW is just a tiny mod on asobo poor neo, they can't simulate proper systems" 😄

 

That said: in the end you'll get a nice neo addon plane for free 🙂

[silentghostx 66]

Definitely missed the joke there @Crocket 😅! My bad!

But it is the simulation of these little “useless” details that makes the overall experience so immersive, and that makes the distinction of a quality product from one that isn’t. There are add-ons out there that people/companies are charging money for, that doesn’t even go anywhere near the level of detail you guys put into this beauty. Thanks again!

[Oldschool61 38]

On 6/28/2022 at 8:34 PM, vyper883 said:

I can explain it to you, OR......... You can simply click on the link I provided to you earlier in the thread :----------------------> https://docs.flybywiresim.com/fbw-a32nx/feature-guides/cFMS/#special-notes

To quote FBW: 

"Our custom FMS provides better accuracy and features over the default offering in MSFS which results in issues syncing the flight plan from the MCDU back into the simulator. Flight plans with complex routing may have significant issues if synced backwards or loaded externally through MSFS's simplified flight planning.This will always be problematic unless Asobo improves the built-in flight planner. Other aircraft with complex flight planning capabilities also have this limitation."

how can it have better  accuracy, waypoints are way points ?  I can see more features or function but to claim your more accurate is a stretch since Airac data and way points are just specific GPS coordinates.   COmplex routes?  Just a set of GPS values which are not variable regardless of airac data.   Sounds like mostly a bunch of smoke and mirrors with a pinch of extra features for the MCDU which should not be affected by your waypoint source.

[Oldschool61 38]

On 6/29/2022 at 2:14 AM, Crocket said:

Appreciate the support, meanwhile I'm realizing I'm bad at jokes 😄

The truth behind that joke is that we actually spend a lot of time on absolutely useless things, or actually what is felt as useless by most people, and this kind of example of surfaces affected by aerodynamics with simulated hydraulic actuators is the perfect example: you won't see any difference, until everything finally comes together and when a hydraulic failure occurs in flight while you were maneuvering, you'll get the realistic reaction of a plane with stuck surfaces until airflow can reposition them after some seconds (critical seconds :D).

Can be quite frustrating when all you hear then is "FBW is just a tiny mod on asobo poor neo, they can't simulate proper systems" 😄

 

That said: in the end you'll get a nice neo addon plane for free 🙂

And if it actually supported the MS flight planner that would put it a step above the others!!

[tup61 1,586]

23 minutes ago, Oldschool61 said:

how can it have better  accuracy, waypoints are way points ?  I can see more features or function but to claim your more accurate is a stretch since Airac data and way points are just specific GPS coordinates.   COmplex routes?  Just a set of GPS values which are not variable regardless of airac data.   Sounds like mostly a bunch of smoke and mirrors with a pinch of extra features for the MCDU which should not be affected by your waypoint source.

Okay, you clearly have no clue of everything that's going on in the background... Just have a look at this list. There is more to it all than just a few waypoints. Or did you think a programmer can simply tell a virtual plane to go from A to B and that's it? Do you think that flight path on the PDF shows up there all by itself? I can understand a lot of what you said previously but now you are talking nonsense. 😉 You have no clue how much code it takes before even the simplest of things can apparently (!!!) work 'just like that'.

[holland786 504]

5 hours ago, Oldschool61 said:

how can it have better  accuracy, waypoints are way points ?  I can see more features or function but to claim your more accurate is a stretch since Airac data and way points are just specific GPS coordinates.   COmplex routes?  Just a set of GPS values which are not variable regardless of airac data.   Sounds like mostly a bunch of smoke and mirrors with a pinch of extra features for the MCDU which should not be affected by your waypoint source.

A simple answer: those "waypoints" are more complicated than you think - when we talk about a flight plan in the FMS we actually talk about "legs" because not everything in a flight plan is a waypoint - for example, an altittude termination after taking off is not a waypoint; a vectors leg is not a waypoint; etc. Those are all things that have more difficult interpretations than just going A->B->C->D.

Even then - any time flying any aircraft with some sort of flight plan and LNAV and you will see that the plane turns a bit before the leg actually ends - that's for the obvious reason that your aircraft does not turn on itself, and requires a bit of distance to complete the turn - just like how someone does not spin their car on its center once reaching the middle of an intersection to head in the right direction. Now that might seem easy, and the calculation for it is actually rather simple - until you look at cases where the route isn't just a simple set of lines between fixed waypoints.

This area of work, called "turn prediction" is probably one of the hardest things in the FMS to get right. Not only does every FMS do it differently, but it is also something that is almost entirely undocumented to pilots - as it isn't really something important for operations. So not only is there no "standard" way of doing it for anything remotely more complex than a point-to-point procedure, you also do not have easy access to the information required to make it accurate. Ask any pilot and they won't be able to give you detailed information because it is just not a thing anyone is ever taught. The most you'll hear is that sometimes the turns are weird and they do a DIRECT TO to fix it.

Let's try it: How do you generate a turn from a leg going from A->B, and then turning onto a course of 300 degrees towards waypoint C? B might not lie on that radial at all - and the course from A to B might not even intersect it. That means we have to do something a bit more complicated here - the airbus FMS actually uses quite an overkill solution in this case, which you see below. Other systems just give up and draw an arrow pointing to the leg.

Getting this right took a very long time, and that is with the assistance of aviation industry veterans.

And I think the results speak for themselves (people familiar with me will know I love posting this picture):

With over 300 possible combinations of different path types to deal with, this is far from an easy thing to do.

And we aren't done either - the entire flight planning logic of the FMS is being rewritten as we speak, creating the basis of an entirely new FMS (that we call FMSv2) which will form the core of the A320 and A380 FMS (because yes, those very visibly different aircraft share very similar FMS software, if you take an A320 equipped with the Honeywell FMS and not the Thales variant).

This work is under way, and requires rewriting a LOT of code, some of it from older stages of the project.

It isn't just a "pinch of extra features" being worked on here, this is a major undertaking aimed specifically at providing the closest thing to a 1:1 representation of the FMS as humanly possible. This is what our project is about - we replicate things to a degree that includes reproducing some annoying quirks of the real thing - and we stick to implementing everything just as it is done in real life, so that when things go wrong and failures start appearing, everything behaves like it would in real life.

Now this might not be for everyone. I completely understand that. The whole point of this thread is about using an airplane for more casual flying - but I think both projects mentioned here share pretty much the same goal... It is possible that at some point another developer will cater to the more casual segment of the market, but I cannot predict that and I am for one not personally interested in developing such aircraft.

And now I realize that I said "A simple answer" at the start, which arguably has not really happened here.

[vyper883 20]

17 hours ago, Oldschool61 said:

how can it have better  accuracy, waypoints are way points ?  I can see more features or function but to claim your more accurate is a stretch since Airac data and way points are just specific GPS coordinates.   COmplex routes?  Just a set of GPS values which are not variable regardless of airac data.   Sounds like mostly a bunch of smoke and mirrors with a pinch of extra features for the MCDU which should not be affected by your waypoint source.

I feel bad for the folks- including an actual FBW developer, which have taken the time to explain these things to you, ad nauseum, with a generous amount of patience I-might-add.

But personally, I won't be trolled any further. How can your responses be anything but?

Edited July 1, 2022 by vyper883
spelling

[Oldschool61 38]

4 hours ago, vyper883 said:

I feel bad for the folks- including an actual FBW developer, which have taken the time to explain these things to you, ad nauseum, with a generous amount of patience I-might-add.

But personally, I won't be trolled any further. How can your responses be anything but?

I guess you dont understand what data is or something.  GPS doesnt change based on who creates the data file.  Airac data is basically gps positions in space so to speak.  If 2 people make the same route using the same data values then the route is identical.  I'm trying to keep it simple for you.  Sure it takes a little coding but not likely what you think it does.  Likely just a matter of importing the data base of "nav" points which they plane does now with sim brief.  You would just need to use a different file/data base.  How do you think they handle the monthly airac updates?

[Oldschool61 38]

15 hours ago, holland786 said:

A simple answer: those "waypoints" are more complicated than you think - when we talk about a flight plan in the FMS we actually talk about "legs" because not everything in a flight plan is a waypoint - for example, an altittude termination after taking off is not a waypoint; a vectors leg is not a waypoint; etc. Those are all things that have more difficult interpretations than just going A->B->C->D.

Even then - any time flying any aircraft with some sort of flight plan and LNAV and you will see that the plane turns a bit before the leg actually ends - that's for the obvious reason that your aircraft does not turn on itself, and requires a bit of distance to complete the turn - just like how someone does not spin their car on its center once reaching the middle of an intersection to head in the right direction. Now that might seem easy, and the calculation for it is actually rather simple - until you look at cases where the route isn't just a simple set of lines between fixed waypoints.

This area of work, called "turn prediction" is probably one of the hardest things in the FMS to get right. Not only does every FMS do it differently, but it is also something that is almost entirely undocumented to pilots - as it isn't really something important for operations. So not only is there no "standard" way of doing it for anything remotely more complex than a point-to-point procedure, you also do not have easy access to the information required to make it accurate. Ask any pilot and they won't be able to give you detailed information because it is just not a thing anyone is ever taught. The most you'll hear is that sometimes the turns are weird and they do a DIRECT TO to fix it.

Let's try it: How do you generate a turn from a leg going from A->B, and then turning onto a course of 300 degrees towards waypoint C? B might not lie on that radial at all - and the course from A to B might not even intersect it. That means we have to do something a bit more complicated here - the airbus FMS actually uses quite an overkill solution in this case, which you see below. Other systems just give up and draw an arrow pointing to the leg.

Getting this right took a very long time, and that is with the assistance of aviation industry veterans.

And I think the results speak for themselves (people familiar with me will know I love posting this picture):

With over 300 possible combinations of different path types to deal with, this is far from an easy thing to do.

And we aren't done either - the entire flight planning logic of the FMS is being rewritten as we speak, creating the basis of an entirely new FMS (that we call FMSv2) which will form the core of the A320 and A380 FMS (because yes, those very visibly different aircraft share very similar FMS software, if you take an A320 equipped with the Honeywell FMS and not the Thales variant).

This work is under way, and requires rewriting a LOT of code, some of it from older stages of the project.

It isn't just a "pinch of extra features" being worked on here, this is a major undertaking aimed specifically at providing the closest thing to a 1:1 representation of the FMS as humanly possible. This is what our project is about - we replicate things to a degree that includes reproducing some annoying quirks of the real thing - and we stick to implementing everything just as it is done in real life, so that when things go wrong and failures start appearing, everything behaves like it would in real life.

Now this might not be for everyone. I completely understand that. The whole point of this thread is about using an airplane for more casual flying - but I think both projects mentioned here share pretty much the same goal... It is possible that at some point another developer will cater to the more casual segment of the market, but I cannot predict that and I am for one not personally interested in developing such aircraft.

And now I realize that I said "A simple answer" at the start, which arguably has not really happened here.

I get what your saying.  But who's data base for airac points shouldn't really make a difference since your explaining how you have to calculate when to begin turns for next waypoint and such which I understand can be complicated.  Like you said every FMC programmer does it differently.  However they all are using airac data for the route calculation and the source of the data shouldnt make a  big different.  MS uses airac data just like simbrief does and likely they should be nearly identical with exception of format possibly.

[iborg1979 99]

11 minutes ago, Oldschool61 said:

I guess you dont understand what data is or something.  GPS doesnt change based on who creates the data file.  Airac data is basically gps positions in space so to speak.  If 2 people make the same route using the same data values then the route is identical.  I'm trying to keep it simple for you.  Sure it takes a little coding but not likely what you think it does.  Likely just a matter of importing the data base of "nav" points which they plane does now with sim brief.  You would just need to use a different file/data base.  How do you think they handle the monthly airac updates?

And yet in the kitchen, two different chefs can follow the exact same recipe step by step with identical ingredients yet one will produce something inedible and the other a 3* Michelin dish.

[FlyingGoose 405]

This is getting funny now. 🍿

[vyper883 20]

10 hours ago, Oldschool61 said:

I guess you dont understand what data is or something.  GPS doesnt change based on who creates the data file.  Airac data is basically gps positions in space so to speak.  If 2 people make the same route using the same data values then the route is identical.  I'm trying to keep it simple for you.  Sure it takes a little coding but not likely what you think it does.  Likely just a matter of importing the data base of "nav" points which they plane does now with sim brief.  You would just need to use a different file/data base.  How do you think they handle the monthly airac updates?

You're trying to keep things simple for me? That's a good one.....