1 hour ago, DEHowie said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Now that's a lof of topics, but I'm yet to hear any facts (at least about those that are not yet officially acknowledged, like fuel burn and fonts). So I'd like you to elaborate.

1) I'd like to hear about crz pitch and cruise power: What's wrong about that? What is it in the Fenix and what do you think it should be in real life?
2) incorrect FMGC: What exactly is incorrect?
3) EFB data: What is that even supposed to mean? Do you mean TO perf calculations?

31 minutes ago, DEHowie said:

Im just glad im not one of the real world pilots who got paid by the dev

Source? Or is it just your pet conspiracy theory?

It's an add-on that has been warmly received by nearly everyone in the community, in spite of errors. Your diatribe is a lone voice of total negativity.

I'm intrigued that you think Fenix paid off real world pilots for some positive PR. I mean, Fenix having all that cash sitting around during the expensive development phase. Plus, pilots at mainline carriers are renowned for earning minimum wage and always looking for streaming side gigs to supplement their pittance of an income. 😉

Hey there! Some great feedback in this thread, a lot is already noted and on the docket to be improved in upcoming patches - and some is blown just a little out of proportion (unreliable airspeed matches perfectly with the tables we have, but each operator is different as we discovered in development). Some of the aero stuff is very much a limitation of the MSFS aero model and it seems obtuse to compare P3D flight dynamics to MSFS when most are aware of the significant differences in approach both simulators take toward their aerodynamic model, but we'll keep plugging away.
 

Just to add though, no one has ever been paid to give positive reviews of the Fenix A320, and it's very disrespectful to those guys and gals to suggest as much - they were all directed to give their full honest impressions of the product, and to be as critical as they'd like without recourse from us. On the subject of openness and transparency, it might give a little more context to know that @DEHowie is a member of the FSLabs team, so no doubt has some quite some experience with the A320! 😉

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by Aamir
Aamir is bad at formatting

7 minutes ago, Aamir said:

Just to add though, no one has ever been paid to give positive reviews of the Fenix A320, and it's very disrespectful to those guys and gals to suggest as much - they were all directed to give their full honest impressions of the product, and to be as critical as they'd like without recourse from us.

Disrespectful indeed. This is unfortunately how some of Avsim-iners start the the conspiracy theories and mis-informarion campaign without proving the facts which ultimately spreads fake information all over social media 

2 hours ago, DEHowie said:

Its been discussed the Fenix has a pile of realism issues ranging from small to huge.Single engine wise the pitch attitudes Fenix use are nothing near the 12 degrees used by the real aircraft. Im quite staggered that other real world pilots have remained completely silent about large obvious errors ANy Airbus pilot would immediately recognize.

if they are not commenting they either fail to understand some of the most basic performance based attitudes every Airbus pilot MUST know or they are remaining silent for another more obvious reason..

Still waiting for you to clarify that 15 deg pitch up post takeoff that you were expecting to see from Fenix.

18 minutes ago, Aamir said:

On the subject of openness and transparency, it might give a little more context to know that @DEHowie is a member of the FSLabs team, so no doubt has some quite some experience with the A320! 😉

Shots fired! 😄

Really anyone should take notice of that an official member of the FSLabs team is doing anti-PR to another product for a platform that FSLabs has nothing to do with. It's not like he's doing it in a factual way, he's word dropping several topics without almost any single piece of evidence and even says that real pilots got paid to say good things about the Fenix.
I'll just say I'll think twice about buying anything anymore from FSL (I bought everything they did until now), and I'll end with that I'm happy that this A320 comes without secret malware installed on my pc to spy upon my sensitive data...

Well I found that real life A320 pilot and beta tester Blackbox711 was fairly critical in his first few streams of the Fenix A320.

He said basically that the Fenix is subject to limitations of the asobo platform.

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by markk70
typo

3 hours ago, DEHowie said:

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.

2 hours 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.

...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... Its a mish mash i=of EIS 1 and 2 which leads to  dogs breakfast A320...

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

If I want conspiracy, I go to who you test for. Test.exe for anyway.... 🙄🔥

The Fenix isn't perfect but I don't think it was ever billed as such by them (there certainly was a lot of hype within the community but I think much of that has proven to be justified, one could easily argue it is class leading), it will be good to see your list and what Fenix can do about it. Until then, it's just anecdotal conjecture from a tin-foil hatter who "reports" to a competitor that appears to have a case of major sour grapes.

The cruise power, fuel burn, pitch etc is not a revelation, Amir said pre-release they had to make some compromises on that to get performance figures in-line elsewhere in the flight regime.

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by ckyliu

1 hour ago, Aamir said:

Hey there! Some great feedback in this thread, a lot is already noted and on the docket to be improved in upcoming patches - and some is blown just a little out of proportion (unreliable airspeed matches perfectly with the tables we have, but each operator is different as we discovered in development). Some of the aero stuff is very much a limitation of the MSFS aero model and it seems obtuse to compare P3D flight dynamics to MSFS when most are aware of the significant differences in approach both simulators take toward their aerodynamic model, but we'll keep plugging away.
 

Just to add though, no one has ever been paid to give positive reviews of the Fenix A320, and it's very disrespectful to those guys and gals to suggest as much - they were all directed to give their full honest impressions of the product, and to be as critical as they'd like without recourse from us. On the subject of openness and transparency, it might give a little more context to know that @DEHowie is a member of the FSLabs team, so no doubt has some quite some experience with the A320! 😉

Thank you @Aamir for your precious information and confirming what I suggested in the OP - the asymmetric thrust effects in terms of the flight dynamics are majorly affected by the core FM used in MFS, still very crude in most aspects, and in some way very similar in terms of limitations and inconsistencies to the FSX / P3D one. This is expected since there is still many of the code and parametrization of aircraft flight dynamics being done based on the "Legacy" FM, although ASOBO is progressively fine tuning it and adding further details.

On the systems part of my observations, stuff like the engine parameters displayed on the ECAMs for the engine whoose Master Switch was turned OFF, I hope it can be used for further fine-tuning and improvement on the systems simulation, such as the not so correct sideslip cue indications in the PFD, etc...

Overall the experience with this A320 is very positive, it was a true pleasur to handfly in the approach, down to landing, and behaved very convincingly under the x-wind conditions that were present at LPPT for rw 02 at the moment ( using RW Weather in MFS, which is now very close to real ! ).

I think the Fénix A320is a TRUE MUST HAVE !

 

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by jcomm

9 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Shots fired! 😄

Really anyone should take notice of that an official member of the FSLabs team is doing anti-PR to another product for a platform that FSLabs has nothing to do with. It's not like he's doing it in a factual way, he's word dropping several topics without almost any single piece of evidence and even says that real pilots got paid to say good things about the Fenix.
I'll just say I'll think twice about buying anything anymore from FSL (I bought everything they did until now), and I'll end with that I'm happy that this A320 comes without secret malware installed on my pc to spy upon my sensitive data...

His disrespectful and very vague style of communication is doing a disservice to FSLabs for sure. I'm not exactly thrilled to become part of their community by purchasing their products when they eventually release something for MSFS.

3 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Why? What would be the point?

He would like to see the Fenix fly over dismal looking scenery maybe?

Guys this statment said all you need to know about the guy.

"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 dont give him the time of day.

I would not use the word "disrespectful" well i would if I wanted to be diplomatic, more the words that come to mind are

Rude and a blanted lairs about other yourtubers. 

I dont care if he is a A320 test pilot I have zero respect for his posts hear and the ones he edited/deleted the other day. He can go grind his axe in the P3D forum or on FSL forums.

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by Nyxx

2 hours ago, DEHowie said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Why don't you post that you are part of the FS Lab team?    

29 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Why don't you post that you are part of the FS Lab team?    

Cowardice and sneaky mayhaps?

1 hour ago, Nyxx said:

He can go grind his axe in the P3D forum or on FSL forums.

With this narrative, really good luck for FSL to even sell in MSFS. Honestly I don't feel getting anything from them, I would have given my 139$ to Fenix as they deserved way better than FSL