20 minutes ago, Pilot53 said:

You know what, perhaps my comment was a bit harsh and uncalled for. So I apologize.  Im flying the fenix right now in cruise and so far she seems to be dead on in terms of pitch, power, and climb performance.  Lets see how se does during descent and landing.  My last flight definitely felt like it was a bit too easy to slow down compared to what I was used to from the fslabs, but that doesnt mean the fs labs was 100% correct necessarily either.

I flew six flights for my Va since  this morning. I try and fly by the book, and this aircraft is spot on. 

5 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I flew six flights for my Va since  this morning. I try and fly by the book, and this aircraft is spot on. 

Which book is that?

I have the companies published figures and I can tell you that they are off. Not by much, that's true but flying or landing it with a failed speed indication based on pitch/power (that's piloting 101) is quite difficult.

I understand that most will engage the AP at 400 feet and disengage at 1000 or after an autoland and thus will care more about the sound of the cargo door  - and that's fine. 

For me, its a bit of a miss if all that impressive system simulation is not coupled with an accurate flight behavior. That's basic stuff. Having said that, I should reiterate, that fenix are not way off the mark, it just needs some small corrections and a bit of polishing. I'm even sure it can be achieved if they decided to do something about it. 

1 hour ago, ha5mvo said:

For me, its a bit of a miss if all that impressive system simulation is not coupled with an accurate flight behavior. That's basic stuff. Having said that, I should reiterate, that fenix are not way off the mark, it just needs some small corrections and a bit of polishing. I'm even sure it can be achieved if they decided to do something about it. 

I don't understand these constant (and honestly I'm getting a bit tired of) "I-know-better-than-all-the-testers-and-real-world-airline-pilots-who-have-tested-this-addon". What are you really basing these assumptions (or accusations?) on?! You do realise, that there's probably a gazillion things, which can affect flight performance? Weather, wind, temperature, weight etc... 

Also, if you're so sure, that this addon is so faulty and wrong, that you make time to come in here and complain, why don't you show us your documentation of what you're claiming? Or write all these - so far unfounded - complaints on their Discord? Or even better, shoot Fenix a support ticket, along with the necessary documentation of your claims. I'm not saying that it's perfect in any way, but so far (by the amount I've flown it) it's word not allowed good and far better than anything other I've seen. 

Also, Aamir and the Fenix development- and support team is really nice and open and are more than welcoming for critisism and improvements. As long as such ideas, improvements, criticisms, are within reason and have some basis in reality and are backed up by other than your word. No matter how important you think it is.

P.s - sorry for sounding harsh!

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by anden145

22 hours ago, EnSnellHest said:

possibility to open the bulk cargo door.

You already can. I'm confused...

16 hours ago, Kopteeni said:

his is awesome stuff to read for someone who used to work as a baggage handler.

So awesome that you felt the need to quote the entire treatise including the pictures?

 

3 minutes ago, Farlis said:

So awesome that you felt the need to quote the entire treatise including the pictures?

 

Sorry officer. Does first time offense count as a warning or do I need to pay fines?

1 hour ago, anden145 said:

I don't understand these constant (and honestly I'm getting a bit tired of) "I-know-better-than-all-the-testers-and-real-world-airline-pilots-who-have-tested-this-addon". What are you really basing these assumptions (or accusations?) on?! You do realise, that there's probably a gazillion things, which can affect flight performance? Weather, wind, temperature, weight etc... 

Also, if you're so sure, that this addon is so faulty and wrong, that you make time to come in here and complain, why don't you show us your documentation of what you're claiming? Or write all these - so far unfounded - complaints on their Discord? Or even better, shoot Fenix a support ticket, along with the necessary documentation of your claims. I'm not saying that it's perfect in any way, but so far (by the amount I've flown it) it's word not allowed good and far better than anything other I've seen. 

Also, Aamir and the Fenix development- and support team is really nice and open and are more than welcoming for critisism and improvements. As long as such ideas, improvements, criticisms, are within reason and have some basis in reality and are backed up by other than your word. No matter how important you think it is.

P.s - sorry for sounding harsh!

Getting tired? well... tough!

you can easily skip that post and join the cheering masses! 

All I said, was that it needs more polishing AND that I'm comparing it to published data! Again, to run certain procedures that are outside the scope of autoflight you need the airplane to behave in  a certain expected manner.  Again, as I said, they are not far off the mark. It just needs some polishing, that's all.

What I don't understand, is why people get so huffed and puffed whenever, god forbid, someone dares to sound a word of  criticism.

relax man! stay cool, chant omm, no need to get that excited over it.

40 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

All I said, was that it needs more polishing AND that I'm comparing it to published data!

That’s all fine, but - as Anders suggested above - have you communicated your findings to the Fenix folks?

44 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

chant omm

Excuse me, it's "Aum" !  😄

There is some severe berating of anyone that dares to descibe this aircraft as anything other than perfection, it's true.  There are a handful of members here that literally get super snarky with anyone who dares to give a perceived criticism.  (Comments such as "Captain Sim would be better for you".  The funny thing is - Aamir is not like that at all - he will freely admit things are not perfect and has committed to further improving the product.  

It's just that classical ol' tribalsim that's gone on for 20 years on FS sites.   "I want to reaffirm my buying decision by obliterating anyone who threatens it".

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by JYW

Just now, JYW said:

Excuse me, it's "Aum" !  😄

There is some severe berating of anyone that dares to descibe this aircraft as anything other than perfection, it's true.  There are a handful of members here that literally get super snarky with anyone who dares to give a perceived criticism.  (Comments such as "Captain Sim would be better for you", which are abstractly out of perspective against what the other person actually said.  The funny thing is - Aamir is not like that at all - he will freely admit things are not perfect and has committed to further improving the product.   It's just that classical ol' tribalsim that's gone on for 20 years of FS sites.   "I want to reaffirm my buying decision by obliterating anyone who threatens it".

Uhuh, so you imply anyone who responds to criticism actually affirms the criticism unconsciously but does not want to face reality? Except that this is nonsense, do you realize who are doing exactly what you are criticising, just the other way around?

In the end as for every product the quality depends on what you want out of it. People can have completely opposite expectations on things like a freakin toaster, so go figure how it's with a complex airliner simuation. This doesn't make one true and the other one false. What you criticise could be of no importance to someone else.
So what's only left to debate is the facts. But unfortunately these days people come out and say "I've read the following facts" (like aircraft performance), but don't realize the context of facts (e.g. wind, weather, airframe specifics etc.). This does it make even harder to debate factually (because those people are convinced they are objectively right, while they are not), and this is why it always ends up like this. Ah, I hate the internet, the scourge of god.

54 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Getting tired? well... tough!

you can easily skip that post and join the cheering masses! 

All I said, was that it needs more polishing AND that I'm comparing it to published data! Again, to run certain procedures that are outside the scope of autoflight you need the airplane to behave in  a certain expected manner.  Again, as I said, they are not far off the mark. It just needs some polishing, that's all.

What I don't understand, is why people get so huffed and puffed whenever, god forbid, someone dares to sound a word of  criticism.

relax man! stay cool, chant omm, no need to get that excited over it.

You should read the complaints on the PMDG 737 forum about the problems with that aircraft, I think it needs a bit more than some polishing. 

https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/pmdg-737-for-msfs

Look. We all know that there are NO perfect sim airplanes.  There just aren't.  Not FSL, not A2A, not PMDG, nor Milvz. Every single one of them deviates from the actual airplane in some way shape or form. As simmers, we just need for them to get it close enough for fantasy. 

What annoys me is the binary, "This plane is rubbish because the <insert favorite nit here> isn't 100% accurate, and you guys suck for letting them get away with it because you are enjoying yourselves instead of helping me tilt my favorite windmill by bashing them over the head about it ".  Most of us understand that a couple of numbers are probably off a little because, in the end,  it's still just a freaking game and we can live with it. 

This is why I despise the stompy feet, 'stop the updates until each blade of grass follows the sun properly all day long' crowd. Yeah, some things will be a little off. Remember how many MORE things were wrong with every other simulator we've had in the past? Can you imagine if Asobo decided not to start working on msfs until after every single little bug in FSX was corrected before moving forward? We all be Rip Van Winkle waiting for that. 

So, my point in all of this it is enjoy what they've given us at the moment, and we'll have to run on the assumption that Fenix loves their product, and will continue to strive to make it the best  that they can with future improvements. But in the long run, if they're happy with it, I'll be happy with it. Just please don't tell me that I'm an word not allowed because I enjoy something with a 2% variation in some obscure number that I'll never notice.

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by MDFlier

Once GSX comes out, I would love for them to integrate it into the Fenix/PMDG planes like FSLabs did with theirs.

Other wishes I currently have for the Fenix A320 are:

1. Louder engine sounds in the cockpit. I don't hear them at all.
2. PA sounds that trigger automatically like in the FBWA320NZ
3. Weather Radar
4. PDF Viewer app on the EFB
5. Customizeable wallpaper on the EFB

 

4 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Louder engine sounds in the cockpit. I don't hear them at al

Louder  wish  there  was  a way  to turn  them  down  abit,   all i hear  over  atc  is  the  eng  sounds

8 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

Louder  wish  there  was  a way  to turn  them  down  abit,   all i hear  over  atc  is  the  eng  sounds

Same here, I would like the engine sounds to be a bit louder.