Opinions could vary between IRL pilots and/or simmers when it comes to computer-sim aircraft "feel" and flight dynamics I suppose... but I think those that are both experienced IRL pilots *and* simmers, who've also got experience with other aircrafts in multiple sims, their opinions are not something to dismiss... even more so when they all align in their opinions (as is the case here on the Fenix A320's handling/dynamics with 320 Sim Pilot, V1 Simulations, BlackBox711, Into the Blue Simulations, KatiePilot, etc etc).

In any case, for a 2-week old product, if this is the starting point upon which further improvements/fixes will come whether it be in the area of flight dynamics, or systems, or modelling, etc (especially when combined with known improvements coming in MSFS itself like ground physics/handling)... then the Fenix A320 is in a very very good place.

Edited June 3, 20224 yr by lwt1971

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Opinions could vary between IRL pilots and/or simmers when it comes to computer-sim aircraft "feel" and flight dynamics I suppose... but I think those that are both experienced IRL pilots *and* simmers, who've also got experience with other aircrafts in multiple sims, their opinions are not something to dismiss... even more so when they all align in their opinions (as is the case here on the Fenix A320's handling/dynamics with 320 Sim Pilot, V1 Simulations, BlackBox711, Into the Blue Simulations, KatiePilot, etc etc).

I don't ever remember any sim aircraft getting so many positive comments from real professional pilots that fly aircraft for a living, as the Fenix. 

46 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Yes, I also have noticed that there is very little knocking of the PMDG 737, but if you go to their forum , there are  many pages of complaints about problems users are experiencing.  

And they lock the threads down pretty quick.

15 hours ago, G550flyer said:

Ok, Ok, since I am a performance guru, give me the airport and altimeter used for your 66 ton aircraft. I will tell you what the real world aircraft will do by running charts.

Rick

hi Rick,

Airport at 146 ASL , 15 deg Celsius, 1013 millibars and no wind

4 hours ago, G550flyer said:

Wow, ok. First, my disclaimer that it was not based on the NEO clearly states that I took that into consideration. Also, the topic in this chat and the previous chat were both based on one aspect of performance, which was climb rates. Both OPs questioned if the "climb rates" were realistic. Now, with that being said, the non NEO and NEO are not that different. The things impacting climb rates are engines, wing design and drag. There's a 4 sq ft wing area difference, 240 pound difference in total thrust and the NEO has the drag edge. I can easily shorten the drag gap by adding sharklets to the non NEO getting about a 7% increase in fuel savings. It's one of the reasons the CEO stays popular. It's just like my discussion I had with a rich guy who consulted with me on rather he should buy used G5s or new G550s for his charter start up. I told him to go with the used 5s because they are significantly cheaper. The 550 has better avionics and longer range due to the trailing edge of the wings and vortex generators up the winglets. It's cheaper to get the 5s, upgrade the avionics and give up the range increase. The 5 is very capable in range performance. Now, back to the original topic. These OPs were talking about initial climb rates which are not much different, especially when you add in sharklets. The edge/difference you will see become evident in longer periods of time. The difference between the CEO and NEO is about 300 miles in range over a long flight. Ok, thats over an hour of advantage. Throw sharklets on the CEO and that difference is 50 miles. You didn't mention initial climb rates in your calcs, but you showed a difference in 6 minutes in a climb. I can takeoff 7 minutes late and still be considered on time in my ops. If I am flying faster just to make up 6 minutes, it ain't worth the pain on the airframe. In my ops, if I can't make up to 15 minutes of time by flying faster, why burn the gas. Again, it all comes down to fleet numbers and how long you are flying the jet. If an airline has a low number of aircraft and only fly short hauls, the NEO won't make a big impact. It's like when I flew Gulfstreams doing presidential airlift. Our C-32s(757-200s) started coming back from depot with winglets installed. We only had a handful of them and we didn't do a lot of long range flights with them. We gained zero benefits from winglets, but it was a nice gesture from Boeing. I flew DC-10-30s for a while, so lets compare it to the MD-11. At similar weights, the takeoff and approach speeds are literally the same. Typically, when you design the same model of aircraft for airlines, the focus is efficiency. One of the biggest costs to an airline is fuel. They don't care about power and climb rates, they focus on savings and being cheaper to operate. Seldom are they looking at high elevation and short runway performance. Usually engine power means a trade off on fuel savings. Thats acceptable when you are looking at engine out performance such as ETOPs. In fact, it's the reason the DC-10 had the third engine added to the tail as an after thought. Engines were not powerful enough to meet those requirements back then.

 

All I'm saying is that typically, performance between similar model aircraft is not that different or invalid as you say. It all depends on what we are talking about. I don't get your comment. The OPs were asking were these sim aircraft reflecting realistic climb rates. That question was answered. Byyyeeeeeeeee!      

As I stated in the parenthetical, I was specifically commenting on your FBW A32NX performance assessment, where you suggested that the OP in that thread try taking off from sea level and climbing to FL350. Regardless of whether you would still be considered "on time" in your ops, or whether or not it is "worth it" to fly faster just to make up 6 minutes, the figures you gave that OP for comparison were incorrect. If the user had actually used that information to do their comparison, they would have concluded (incorrectly) that the FBW A32NX climbs too fast.

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I don't ever remember any sim aircraft getting so many positive comments from real professional pilots that fly aircraft for a living, as the Fenix. 

totally agreed Bob. I was Deputy Editor of PC Pilot magazine for well over a decade and saw pretty much every release and this one is the most stable day 1 release I have seen. It flies so well and I haven't seen any showstoppers. As a software dev in my day job, I think Aamir and the team really have something to be proud of.

8 minutes ago, JaneRachel said:

totally agreed Bob. I was Deputy Editor of PC Pilot magazine for well over a decade and saw pretty much every release and this one is the most stable day 1 release I have seen. It flies so well and I haven't seen any showstoppers. As a software dev in my day job, I think Aamir and the team really have something to be proud of.

Ah good old PcPilot, used to pick one up before school when I was in high school, get all excited to get home and try the add ons on the CD it came with…. The p3 Orion! That was such a good freeware add on I got with PC pilot. 
 

I agree that this is probably the best and most stable release in a sim too… and finally good add ons can shine even more with a modern sim engine, dynamics and hardware. 

1 minute ago, Ridvan Celik said:

Ah good old PcPilot, used to pick one up before school when I was in high school, get all excited to get home and try the add ons on the CD it came with…. The p3 Orion! That was such a good freeware add on I got with PC pilot. 
 

I agree that this is probably the best and most stable release in a sim too… and finally good add ons can shine even more with a modern sim engine, dynamics and hardware. 

I used to read PC Pilot at work till I got caught....