I use fslabs A320 in my p3d v5. I also use msfs2020. Fenix has released A320 for msfs2020. FSLabs will also make the same for msfs2020. Also fslabs will do A320 neo and A330 for both p3d and msfs2020. Now, I am totally confused whether I should go for Fenix or wait for FSLabs!

Haseen Ahmad.

Edited May 21, 20224 yr by haseen

Given that we have no idea when the FS Labs plane will release (and they take a LONG time), you should go for the Fenix. It is an extremely detailed plane, and it's only $60. 

13 minutes ago, haseen said:

I use fslabs A320 in my p3d v5. I also use msfs2020. Fenix has released A320 for msfs2020. FSLabs will also make the same for msfs2020. Also fslabs will do A320 neo and A330 for both p3d and msfs2020. Now, I am totally confused whether I should go for Fenix or wait for FSLabs!

Haseen Ahmad.

Life is short:

Get the Fenix (it's Really good) you will not see a FS Labs product for a couple of years in MSFS, that's my guess.

Edited May 21, 20224 yr by jbdbow1970

12 minutes ago, haseen said:

I use fslabs A320 in my p3d v5. I also use msfs2020. Fenix has released A320 for msfs2020. FSLabs will also make the same for msfs2020. Also fslabs will do A320 neo and A330 for both p3d and msfs2020. Now, I am totally confused whether I should go for Fenix or wait for FSLabs!

Haseen Ahmad.

It could be years until FSLabs releases an A320 for MSFS. Also, the Fenix is $61 USD.  Do you think FSLabs will be priced as low as the Fenix A320?

And from the comments I have read so far, the Fenix A320 in  MSFS surpasses the FSLabs A320 in P3D.

So with the Fenix A320, you are getting a higher quality plane, at a lower price, than FSLabs.

This is a relatively easy decision, all the below list are assumptions: 

• It will take years before FSLabs releases its A320 (who really knows where they stand at this time?)
• FSLabs will be much more expensive than Fenix (so was PMDG with P3D...)
• Fenix is way better than the FSLabs (let's see that in detail when the apples are in the same basket)

I too am a former FSLabs A320/319/321 user, now exclusively "flying" MSFS, and, for the time being, I fly the FBW A320 which is already very good and getting better every week. When we have both planes (Fenix and FSLabs) side by side, with all the testers and streamers of this world eager to stage the ultimate comparison, we will be in a position to make an informed decision based on facts, not assumptions.

But, thanks to the excellent work of FBW, we have an A320 to fly today, without all the bells and whistles, circuit breakers and failures, ACARS messages and other perks, but very reliable and realistic. And who knows, FBW may surprise us in the meantime with feature we never thought of, negating the need for the others!

But the above makes at least one assumption: That you are able to resist the hype following a new release!

Edited May 21, 20224 yr by Bernard Ducret

8 minutes ago, Bernard Ducret said:

 

• Fenix is way better than the FSLabs (let's see that in detail when the apples are in the same basket)

I too am a former FSLabs A320/319/321 user, now exclusively "flying" MSFS,

Thanks for your comment!  I am seeing more and more comments, consistent with yours that the Fenix A320 is better than the FSLabs A320!

easy choice - try the Fenix or not,

your decision...

I think there’s a very good chance that the FSL A320 will never be released to market.

Fenix is strong on release, and is only going to get better. I don’t think FSL can match them, and given how popular this Fenix launch seems to be I suspect that FSL may have to change focus.

FSL A320 - which I own - was a good release back in the day. That was then, this is now.

There's a simple test you can take if you want to figure out whether you should buy the Fenix. Just answer the following questions:

Do you like the Airbus? (No: 0 pts, Yes: 1pts)

Do you have 50 pounds at your disposal? (No: 0 pts, Yes: 1pts)

 

If you get 2 points, then you should buy.

 

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

Thanks for your comment!  I am seeing more and more comments, consistent with yours that the Fenix A320 is better than the FSLabs A320!

Ermmm, I am seeing not authentic display fonts, pitch attitudes of 19deg during initial climb, fuel flows around 800 during cruise, a questionable landing behaviour (AC almost flares itself). Sure this might eventually be fixed with custom flight/engine models in the future. But how on earth can people rate Fenix better at that point ?

Abnormals seem to be more comprehensive in the Fenix, but who has evaluated them all yet ?

Also don't forget the many innovations FSL came up with, e.g. winter operations with first serious icing simulation. I have yet to see this kind of innovations in the Fenix.

Don't get me wrong, the Fenix is a very nice product at that price tag. Just these kind of "Better than..." statements are useless at that point.

Edited May 21, 20224 yr by 320Driver

28 minutes ago, 320Driver said:

Ermmm, I am seeing not authentic display fonts, pitch attitudes of 19deg during initial climb, fuel flows around 800 during cruise, a questionable landing behaviour (AC almost flares itself). Sure this might eventually be fixed with customer flight/engine models in the future. But how on earth can people rate Fenix better at that point ?

Abnormals seem to be more comprehensive in the Fenix, but who has evaluated them all yet ?

Also don't forget the many innovations FSL came up with, e.g. winter operations with first serious icing simulation. I have yet to see this kind of innovations in the Fenix.

Don't get me wrong, the Fenix is avery nice product at that price tag. Just these kind of "Better than..." statements are useless at that point.

In addition to this, I'm finding some complex procedures that the Fenix fails to draw correctly in the ND and fly correctly. Hopefully this can be improved with feedback from general users.

Texturing and Modelling though, it is heads and shoulders above the FSLabs. It just loses out on the Flight model like you mentioned. With further refinements, im sure it can surpass FSLabs, but not yet at this point.

1 hour ago, Kopteeni said:

There's a simple test you can take if you want to figure out whether you should buy the Fenix. Just answer the following questions:

Do you like the Airbus? (No: 0 pts, Yes: 1pts)

Do you have 50 pounds at your disposal? (No: 0 pts, Yes: 1pts)

 

If you get 2 points, then you should buy.

 

Reasonable logic, but for this plane it should actually read “If you get 1 point or more, then you should buy.”

38 minutes ago, 320Driver said:

Ermmm, I am seeing not authentic display fonts, pitch attitudes of 19deg during initial climb, fuel flows around 800 during cruise, a questionable landing behaviour (AC almost flares itself). Sure this might eventually be fixed with customer flight/engine models in the future. But how on earth can people rate Fenix better at that point ?

Abnormals seem to be more comprehensive in the Fenix, but who has evaluated them all yet ?

Also don't forget the many innovations FSL came up with, e.g. winter operations with first serious icing simulation. I have yet to see this kind of innovations in the Fenix.

Don't get me wrong, the Fenix is avery nice product at that price tag. Just these kind of "Better than..." statements are useless at that point.

Interesting you should pick these points to argue the quality of the Fenix a320. Fenix themselves have been open about their shortcomings, and specifically mentioned two of the points you mentioned. They are going to give the displays and the fonts another pass, even though I've only heard praise concerning the fidelity and accuracy of the displays from real life A320 pilots. Fenix also talked about how the sim presented them with a "nut" in regards to fuel flow - how it's either comparable to a rocket ship during takeoff, or just a trickle during the descent, and how Fenix had to compromise to try to get it as close to real life as possible. It's now within the margins of 8% of the real thing. Do you happen to know how these figures compare to other sim providers?

When it comes to the high pitch during takeoff, I've noticed this myself, but I'm not a real life pilot, and I cannot say it is wrong. I have flown several a320 in sims over the years (my favorite aircraft, and I've simmed for more than 20 years), and I do think the pitch attitude is a bit higher than what I'm used to. It could be down do this particular iteration of engines and frame and thus correct, but I don't know.

The landing behaviour feels very controlled and gives me a good sense of control of the flare. Many other iterations from other providers have typically had an over-pronounciation of the airbus flare logic which lowers the nose at so-so many degrees per second during the flare to immitate non-fly-by-wire airplanes, and the translation into sim practical terms meant that the flare became harder than it probably should compared to the real thing. But then again, I'm making some assumptions saying this, because I'm just a sim pilot.

With all that said, I think it is wise (and ethical) to be open about the short-comings of the product, and not just buy into any hype that seems to only acknowledge the pros. In the end, there are a lot of pros to be happy about with this product, though!

Edited May 21, 20224 yr by Andreas Stangenes

18 minutes ago, 320Driver said:

Ermmm, I am seeing not authentic display fonts, pitch attitudes of 19deg during initial climb, fuel flows around 800 during cruise, a questionable landing behaviour (AC almost flares itself). Sure this might eventually be fixed with customer flight/engine models in the future. But how on earth can people rate Fenix better at that point ?

Abnormals seem to be more comprehensive in the Fenix, but who has evaluated them all yet ?

Also don't forget the many innovations FSL came up with, e.g. winter operations with first serious icing simulation. I have yet to see this kind of innovations in the Fenix.

Don't get me wrong, the Fenix is avery nice product at that price tag. Just these kind of "Better than..." statements are useless at that point.

If I remember correctly the FSL A320 had similar issues on its release, couldn't lock on to an ILS was one of them. All software goes through a period of bug testing once released and the devs make that quite plain on release of their various offerings. I think most long term flight sim aficionados would tell you the same thing, I think Oz put it best:

"FSLA320 - which I own - was a good release back in the day. That was then, this is now."

I also own all versions of the FSL A320 to the tune of $206 and flew it 2 or 3 times a day for several years, yes it was amazing, but it doesn't come close to the Fenix.

23 minutes ago, SierraHotel said:

If I remember correctly the FSL A320 had similar issues on its release, couldn't lock on to an ILS was one of them. All software goes through a period of bug testing once released and the devs make that quite plain on release of their various offerings. I think most long term flight sim aficionados would tell you the same thing, I think Oz put it best:

"FSLA320 - which I own - was a good release back in the day. That was then, this is now."

I also own all versions of the FSL A320 to the tune of $206 and flew it 2 or 3 times a day for several years, yes it was amazing, but it doesn't come close to the Fenix.

I think @SierraHotel makes a good point. You can nitpick the small details of this Fenix A320 and find some flaws with it. But if you evaluate the whole package, a lot of people that have flown the FSLabs are coming to the conclusion that as an overall package, the Fenix A320 is just better. Sorry @320Driver, I disagree with you here, but @SierraHotel makes a better point than you, that you have to evaluate the Fenix A320 as an overall package, and it just exceeds the FSLabs A320.