17 minutes ago, craigeaglefire said:

must be a sinister conspiracy;)

YouTube doesn't approve of negative reviews as it hurts their revenue. 

We have to keep in mind that Prosim is not perfect and those imperfections may have translated to Fenix due to the way it works.

Some may not be corrected if Prosim does not correct it.

That’s my guess though.

Pierre

 

1 minute ago, psychedelic_tortilla said:

Yes, the infamous "Fenix OEO pitch attitude" conspiracy. "Pitch-up-gate", we conspirators call it. 

Actually we can expand that to the Fenix OEO,AEO,crz pitch, cruise power, cruise fuel burn,N1,EFB data, incorrect FMGC, wrong IRU, Incapable of RNP AR, wrong fonts, drag model conspiracy just to start(don't worry there are many many more)....so many conspiracies so little time...lol

Im just glad im not one of the real world pilots who got paid by the dev to market it as a "highly accurate" A320 that will lead the field.

 

 

 

 

 

Your point view is interesting.

I would be glad you let me know all that list of flaws.

Do you have reported to Fenix any way ? 

Then @Aamir could maybe chime in to tell us what Fenix have to say about this.

Pierre

20 minutes ago, DEHowie said:

Im just glad im not one of the real world pilots who got paid by the dev to market it as a "highly accurate" A320 that will lead the field.

Just listen to yourself.😂

Get back to P3D and your beta testing for FSL.

Just now, Pochi said:

Your point view is interesting.

I would be glad you let me know all that list of flaws.

Do you have reported to Fenix any way ? 

Then @Aamir could maybe chime in to tell us what Fenix have to say about this.

Pierre

Im putting together a nice list of several pages of "issues" with some nice FCOM references to highlight.

The easiest way to have a look at the errors is go open the QRH and use the "Unreliable Airspeed" checklist to see when you set pitch and power values see what "errors" you get. Car D sim has a tolerance of 3%. FSlabs 3%. Fenix 25%.

Sorry i dont "report" to fenix they are the people who claimed this would be a class leading Airbus. They paid off numerous influencers who have been well and truly been found out to be happy to accept large errors in multiple areas from systems to flight model.

Anyone with a FCOM or QRH from the last 5 years can find a litany of issues ranging from ECAM to flight model to model to basic system errors. To highlight the IRU panel used by Fenix was replaced over 20 years ago and if modeled correctly ie the aircraft reflects its model using that IRU panel RNP AR is not permitted as those IRU's do not have the capability to ensure safe navigation in some failure instances.

Its a mish mash i=of EIS 1 and 2 which leads to  dogs breakfast A320 representing nothing like any real A320 ever seen..EVER.

But how basics like post take off pitch attitudes could be missed, ignored or overlooked just shows the tip of a very large iceberg.

 

 

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

and the way I have to type some data into the MCDU instead of magically clicking a LSK and miraculously but irrealistically having it done for me.... 

I can't comment on the engine out characteristics of the Fenix, having never tried it or flown an airbus, but regarding this statement: if you're referring to selecting a datalink upload of route, perf, and winds data, that is in fact quite realistic. Most airlines use it these days... it's not the norm for a crew to have to hand jam most of this on a normal flight. 

17 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

I can't comment on the engine out characteristics of the Fenix, having never tried it or flown an airbus, but regarding this statement: if you're referring to selecting a datalink upload of route, perf, and winds data, that is in fact quite realistic. Most airlines use it these days... it's not the norm for a crew to have to hand jam most of this on a normal flight. 

No Andrew, I was referreing to the ZFW / ZFWCoG and V-speeds entries.

31 minutes ago, DEHowie said:

Im putting together a nice list of several pages of "issues" with some nice FCOM references to highlight.

The easiest way to have a look at the errors is go open the QRH and use the "Unreliable Airspeed" checklist to see when you set pitch and power values see what "errors" you get. Car D sim has a tolerance of 3%. FSlabs 3%. Fenix 25%.

Sorry i dont "report" to fenix they are the people who claimed this would be a class leading Airbus. They paid off numerous influencers who have been well and truly been found out to be happy to accept large errors in multiple areas from systems to flight model.

Anyone with a FCOM or QRH from the last 5 years can find a litany of issues ranging from ECAM to flight model to model to basic system errors. To highlight the IRU panel used by Fenix was replaced over 20 years ago and if modeled correctly ie the aircraft reflects its model using that IRU panel RNP AR is not permitted as those IRU's do not have the capability to ensure safe navigation in some failure instances.

Its a mish mash i=of EIS 1 and 2 which leads to  dogs breakfast A320 representing nothing like any real A320 ever seen..EVER.

But how basics like post take off pitch attitudes could be missed, ignored or overlooked just shows the tip of a very large iceberg.

 

 

Well, I hope you will publish this list soon, then I do not mind reporting to Fenix. They may acknowledge and polish their product with such feedbacks.

Pierre

Just now, Pochi said:

Well, I hope you will publish this list soon, then I do not mind reporting to Fenix. They may acknowledge and polish their product with such feedbacks.

Pierre

I hope they do as many people bought this on the basis of the way it was marketed AND on the words of well respected influencers.

My next test will be on the latest PMDG 737 update... 

OFC Robert already started issuing excuses like in the past with FSX:

One of the problems we have been trying to crack is "how to damp out the massively violent and unrealistic Asobo Atmospheric Shifts"

the typical - fault is not on our side, it's the core sim - we were used to see in the good old FSX / Ace Game Studios times ...

Let's see how the 737-700 performs under asymmetric thrust...

Independently of the wrong ECAM displays, and other peculiarities I experienced but did not write down in order to properly report, there is nonetheless a major problem with this asymmetric thrust behaviour - flight dynamics and systems modeling wise. The flight dynamics part can well be due to the MFS FM limitations. The systems are custom programmed though, so Fenix will certainly have a few items to address.

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by jcomm

Fenix is very open about deficiencies of this product. At least, I very well knew before I bought that the flight model wasn't 100% perfect to real life. It is close enough, and they are working on it. To call beta testers paid is rude and does not deserve further replies.

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by flyingpauls

I cannot wait until Xplane 12 comes out, and then see what all the fuss is about, my sims better than your sim BAAAh!

5 minutes ago, DEHowie said:

I hope they do as many people bought this on the basis of the way it was marketed AND on the words of well respected influencers.

And as far as I can tell of the many thousands of people who bought it you are amongst just a handful who are disgruntled. Including all the YouTubers I watch like IntoTheBlue who is a RW airbus pilot and bought the plane himself? 

29 minutes ago, flyingpauls said:

Fenix is very open about deficiencies of this product. At least, I very well knew before I bought that the flight model wasn't 100% perfect to real life. It is close enough, and they are working on it. To call beta testers paid is rude and does not deserve further replies.

Hope you're not referring to anything I wrote about, because I didn't even think about it that way.

I don't mind buying unifinished / still under development products, and I have been doing that since ages, on various flight simulation and professional platforms...

MFS itself, just as X-Plane, are good examples of unfinished products at release time, taking years to come to a stable state... 

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by jcomm