Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jcomm

Fenix A320 - Engine-out weirdiness...

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Why? What would be the point?

Why Not:

Since some don't care much for FFA320 would seem to be a nice addition in that environment. Beside, why is the inertia  alway toward MSFS when it comes to porting aircraft like ex: (inibuild A310) to be consider ok but not other way around?  With all the things they are putting in XP12 would good test for an aircraft such as that. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, holland786 said:

While yes, not all path types are implemented (namely procedure terms and correct behaviour of CX/VX legs), I'd like to get your feedback if possible as I think the current path generation is quite accurate. Feel free to reach out on Discord or make a thread on this forum with your opinion on the matter. I really want this to work well for everyone.

Firstly please, please do not take anything I say as a criticism. I am not a pilot. I simply use a simulator on my home PC for fun. Any errors I encounter may well be due to me.

LNAV. - The FMS does not like direct approaches without a STAR. The path that is drawn is mostly nonsense. Even with a STAR very often the path is drawn late and is incoherent. The path is not predicting early enough. Usually it will resolve itself but it's a bit nerve racking until it does😀. Lines and curves all over the place. Maybe a via is necessary? 
 

VNAV - Sometimes it's OK but sometimes it isn't. And mostly it isn't,

And here's the controversial bit. I don't have any such problems with the Fenix. Don't hate me. Just saying. Managed mode. Approach mode. Flaps, Gear and I'm down every time.

 

Edited by jarmstro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Firstly please, please do not take anything I say as a criticism. I am not a pilot. I simply use a simulator on my home PC for fun. Any errors I encounter may well be due to me.

LNAV. - The FMS does not like direct approaches without a STAR. The path that is drawn is mostly nonsense. Even with a STAR very often the path is drawn late and is incoherent. The path is not predicting early enough. Usually it will resolve itself but it's a bit nerve racking until it does😀. Lines and curves all over the place. Maybe a via is necessary? 
 

VNAV - Sometimes it's OK but sometimes it isn't. And mostly it isn't,

And here's the controversial bit. I don't have any such problems with the Fenix. Don't hate me. Just saying.

 

Well, I'm not hating anyone! and I certainly do not want to blame anything on other people.

However one trend I've seen is that a lot of people have a hard time with our LNAV specifically becaus it is a bit more "unforgiving" in a way. For example, you cannot just go and delete all discontinuities and expect a valid path 100% of the time - we model the algorithms to the capability of correction and fallback that they have IRL - not less, and especially relevant in this case, not more. I believe this reflects the IRL aircraft correctly.

It is indeed important to use a VIA or understand how the arrival connects (or if it is meant to connect in the first place - for example, some arrivals at EGKK or YSSY are not meant to connect - deleting a discontinuity would cause an invalid path because it would ask the FMS to generate a turn with very difficult geometry. Something we have noticed is also problematic IRL. Here is an example of an IRL (Honeywell H2C) FMS performing the path capture fallback algorithm on a turn with an excessive angle:

Sans_titre.png

side note: I actuallly had to go back and remove some improvements I had made to our code after seeing this image and noticing it did not fix this situation the way I expected it to.

The crew did another direct to here afterwards to resolve ths situation. Apparently, this is even a common procedure shared among pilots who fly on this specific FMS when seeing those turns, at least at one airline.

If you have specific examples of broken paths, you can always ask in our discord flight-school channel or post on this forum. When I have time I often read through charts with the user and figure out what is selected wrong (because most of the time, that's what it is). But as always - there can be bugs, and we will fix them!

As for VNAV, I totally understand. A new version of it is in development to better address the current issues with v1.

  • Like 7

Developer - FlyByWire Simulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Firstly please, please do not take anything I say as a criticism. I am not a pilot. I simply use a simulator on my home PC for fun. Any errors I encounter may well be due to me.

LNAV. - The FMS does not like direct approaches without a STAR. The path that is drawn is mostly nonsense. Even with a STAR very often the path is drawn late and is incoherent. The path is not predicting early enough. Usually it will resolve itself but it's a bit nerve racking until it does😀. Lines and curves all over the place. Maybe a via is necessary? 
 

VNAV - Sometimes it's OK but sometimes it isn't. And mostly it isn't,

And here's the controversial bit. I don't have any such problems with the Fenix. Don't hate me. Just saying. Managed mode. Approach mode. Flaps, Gear and I'm down every time.

 

There we come to the point. You just assume all of that is correct because it’s comfortable. Which is not necessarily the case. Also just saying, don’t hate me.

What really annoys me is like the above. Discussions and assumptions that are not based on facts or real knowledge but are taken in a way telling it *must* be right. That makes it kind of toxic for people being really engaged because it destroys any discussions from the start and by the way also hinders a product to get better.

Years ago I gave feedback to FSL team that their roll law behaves wrong beyond 33°. We’ll long story short I was laughed at, some people being very much like you.

I tried it myself in a certified flight simulator and I was right they are wrong. And it’s still wrong in their plane…and by the way the Fenix has that right.

So you see where this is ending?

Im also happy to say that the devs of Fenix are not behaving like this and I also enjoy flying the Fenix a lot.

You can enjoy something and still see room for improvement…to make it even better.

Edited by AGuther
  • Like 16
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I’m fairly certain that @DEHowie in pointing out issues hasn’t disappeared.  It’s more likely he’s not answered yet cause it’s about 2am where he lives.
 

As for myself, I’ve been an FSL die hard for two solid years.  I bought the Fenix on day one and given her a solid three weeks of flying the tail right off the thing.   I’ve quite enjoyed it, but there’s a bunch of nagging issues that bug me to no end.  I’ve also asked a few questions of BB711 and other RW A320 pilot friends regarding the pitch/power couple, over aggressive VNAV, completely torqued rotation/ground mode to normal law blending logic and a few other odds and ends.  As for the answers, they’ve been fairly critical answers from both BB and others regarding the Fenix.  When I asked a few RW pilots (besides BB) who did stream the Fenix, I was told “it’s fine” when it was clearly not “fine” on stream or in practice with the plane-which made me scratch my head as to why they’d say “oh that’s fine” not sure yet I’ll have to go back and watch over again. 
 

Overall, I’m satisfied and feel I’ve gotten my moneys worth and then some from the Fenix, but today I’m back in P3D flying my beloved A321 with IAEs.  I think they delivered a serviceable, fun to fly and well above average A320 for the time being.  I’m interested to see what they do moving forward to enhance realism and fix the glaring and minor issues. 
 

I’m sure @Aamir can confirm it’s probably a nightmare with this hybrid flight model they’ve had to implement-using prosim/Asobo default/their own custom model.  
 

I’ve made a list of stuff I’d like to see fixed up/added etc.  Hopefully some others will like this list and add to it as well to help Fenix along the journey.  
 

ASOBO ISSUES? 

-Ground model halfway decent but still faster than maybe it should be (AS?)  

-WXR/PWS (AS)

-Terrain Radar doesn’t show limits (Asobo or Fenix idk?) 

 

Fenix Pros/Cons

-Sounds are excellent-maybe little too much bass in cruise-something I can’t quite put my finger on-it sounds just a TINY bit off in pitch/harmonics during cruise vs IRL. BUT, I usually fly on IAE’s IRL.  The intermediate approach/flap deployment thrust changes/SPEED-ALT* down low sounds great!  Exterior sound is also amazing!  

 

-Far too low of a weight variant-WV008 w 162.2K/142.2K is super low for an Airbus these days.  Would like to see modifiable WVs/OEWs or at least options for more MTOW/MZFW/MLW as well as more configurable cabins 

 

-Fuel Burn way off-have used everything from -6 to -16 on SimBrief and still not been quite able to nail down a profile-at heavy weights this will put you over MLW due to the low MLW of the Fenix in general   

 

-VNAV is way too agressive and always slows to the bottom of the bracket.  I’ve not only seen it myself but also heard and seen it in other streams. (MSFS/Asobo drag model?)  Open Cl reducing/increasing speed yanks the nose up/hammers the nose down-perhaps this is F/D or AP logic that could be tuned-RW IAE pilot told me the FDs can be aggressive, but the AP will usually not follow the FDs as aggressively 

 

-Skalarki support and proper profiles and/or tutorials for home cockpit hardware Bravo/TCA etc etc.  

 

-Flap sounds could maybe be a touch louder?

 

-Handles pretty decent with the right control sensitivity.  

 

-Drops speed like a rock

 

-Climbs like a rocketship even when at heavy weights-frequently 18-20° on takeoff

 

-Rotation logic torqued

 

-It floats like it has sharklets (quoting V1 Sim-but I wholeheartedly agree) 

Minor tweaks 

-FD’s shouldn’t be on by default 

 

-ENG page/PB on ECAM shouldn’t be on by default (should be the door page) 

 

-AOC doesn’t do very much. It could use some more features like optional D-ATIS in the US and via VATSIM/IVAO (a-la FSLabs style with auto update) 

 

-Step Climb/re cruise-ALT CRZ not available in FMA until resetting the PROG/INIT page, FMGS doesn’t automatically apply NEW CRZ FL350 in scratchpad (did this once then not again) Not sure if it’s legit for a Thales box? 

 

-Approach Phase (D) pseudo waypoint Seems to go into the flight plan really late a lot of times-later than it should potentially be? 
 

 -MSFS drag model and Fenix speed dropping fast notwithstanding, it should be hard to slow an Airbus down that fast-especially when the Decel point is on the localizer just priorto G/S capture or the FAF-not sure how accurate this is-but other Airbus sims don’t have it this late.  Will continue to monitor.  Airbus aircraft have extremely slick wings and in general do not go down and slow down

-Thrust seems overly aggressive-lots of breaking 250kt restrictions (eg: coming into CLB or OPEN CLB out of SPD/ALT after an ALT restriction the thrust just hammers in) 

 

 

Wishlist 

-Higher weight variant option/Option to set own preferred OEW/MZFW/MTOW/MLW  

 

-That the IAEs and Sharks are actual physical mods and not visual only additions as in some Airbus products. 

 

-Full Skalarki support-Prosim or no sim-they should’ve realized that people who would buy their product do own skalarki gear!  This is becoming more of an issue apparently.  

 

Things I’m seeing most: 

 

-Asobo needs to either open the weather or contract someone that knows how to interpolate and smooth the thing.  

 

Hope this might help. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, holland786 said:

Hey, I've developed much of the LNAV on the A32NX.

Here are a few comparison screenshots we've done, compared to none else than the real life counterpart of our FMS:

ad-fms-comparison-2.png

Frame_702.png

 

While yes, not all path types are implemented (namely procedure terms and correct behaviour of CX/VX legs), I'd like to get your feedback if possible as I think the current path generation is quite accurate. Feel free to reach out on Discord or make a thread on this forum with your opinion on the matter. I really want this to work well for everyone.

No, our entire systems simulation is written from scratch, including LNAV and VNAV. There is very little asobo code remaining that actually does anything of importance.

 

edit: by the way, I do not mean to hijack this thread. so if this is off topic my apologies!

It's very on-topic. Actually this thread will be a great source for discussing the various implementations of modern Airbuses in MFS.

So far only, to my knowledge, there's only the FBW A32N and the Fénix A320, both extraordinary, the former even Freeware !!!


Limited by Main Thread... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RaptyrOne said:

What does Fenix do that is so much better than FBW?

VNAV calculation and the flying of Non Precission Approaches in Approach Mode. Something the FBW is not yet capable of doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair in my procedural flying I rarely use VNAV on descent but mostly VS, as many pilots do in real life. However on those overloaded american STARs it does come in very handy, as the workload of respecting all altitude restrictions (especially the AT restrictions) manually is quite high in a single pilot environment, and even in other cases VNAV serves me a good purpose as a backup to check against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, AGuther said:

There we come to the point. You just assume all of that is correct because it’s comfortable. Which is not necessarily the case. Also just saying, don’t hate me.

What really annoys me is like the above. Discussions and assumptions that are not based on facts or real knowledge but are taken in a way telling it *must* be right. That makes it kind of toxic for people being really engaged because it destroys any discussions from the start and by the way also hinders a product to get better.

Years ago I gave feedback to FSL team that their roll law behaves wrong beyond 33°. We’ll long story short I was laughed at, some people being very much like you.

I tried it myself in a certified flight simulator and I was right they are wrong. And it’s still wrong in their plane…and by the way the Fenix has that right.

So you see where this is ending?

Im also happy to say that the devs of Fenix are not behaving like this and I also enjoy flying the Fenix a lot.

You can enjoy something and still see room for improvement…to make it even better.

And here lies the issue. I learn to use the sim as does everyone. I am under no illusion that I am learning to fly a real aeroplane. In fact I am not in any way flying a real aeroplane. Nor do I wish to fly a real plane. What matters is how it flies in the sim and that I can pretend it's just like the real thing. And the Fenix flies just fine. Because I can fly it.

Edited by jarmstro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AGuther said:

There we come to the point. You just assume all of that is correct because it’s comfortable. Which is not necessarily the case.

Seen it more than a few times here. People blame the dev or aircraft for “unrealistic” behaviour when in fact the aircraft is doing precisely what it would in real life. I have been guilty too, thinking “what the heck is this aircraft doing now!?” Problem was me, not the aircraft. The way the LNAV is drawn on the ND along certain STAR’s is a perfect case in point when discont’s are deleted. The jumble of lines is pilot induced, not a bug in the aircraft. LNAV and VNAV on the FBW A32NX is very, very good. 

  • Like 1

GregH

System Spec: Core i7 6700K @ 4,7GHz; GTX980Ti, 32GB DDR4 3200; WD Black NVMe; Samsung EVO850 SSD; CH Products Yoke, Pedals & Quad; Airbus Side Stick, TrackIR; 1440p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Farlis said:

VNAV calculation and the flying of Non Precission Approaches in Approach Mode. Something the FBW is not yet capable of doing.

One might argue that FBW handles VNAV better than Fenix right now. I don’t own Fenix but I do know that VNAV works very well in Experimental FBW version and there are also some comments about Fenix VNAV needing refinement. So if anything, they both need work and are on a level.
 

Non Precision Approaches yes but hopefully that will be implemented soon.😉

  • Like 1

GregH

System Spec: Core i7 6700K @ 4,7GHz; GTX980Ti, 32GB DDR4 3200; WD Black NVMe; Samsung EVO850 SSD; CH Products Yoke, Pedals & Quad; Airbus Side Stick, TrackIR; 1440p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, jarmstro said:

What matters is how it flies in the sim and that I can pretend it's just like the real thing. And the Fenix flies just fine. Because I can fly it.

And you can call yourself a hardcore simmer  (TM) because is comfortable for you 🙄

Edited by omarsmak30
  • Like 2

i9-9900K OC 5.0ghz, 32GB DDR4 3600 RAM, RTX 2080Super 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

And the Fenix flies just fine. Because I can fly it.

Maybe you should stick to flying Asobo's Cessna 172...

 

I for one prefer a simulation to include virtual twins of the real aircraft, down to the minute behaviour of its avionics in real life instead of something that just feels comfortable to fly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, RaptyrOne said:

One might argue that FBW handles VNAV better than Fenix right now.

 

Uh what? The last time I used VNAV on the FBW (exp version) two weeks ago it got unusable as soon as I changed or entered manually any of the restrictions. TOD was also way wrong. Also there was no cost index to be set or descent speed to be changed.
No offense, but unless there was a major breakthrough in the last two weeks, this is utter nonsense.

Edited by Fiorentoni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Maybe you should stick to flying Asobo's Cessna 172...

 

I for one prefer a simulation to include virtual twins of the real aircraft, down to the minute behaviour of its avionics in real life instead of something that just feels comfortable to fly.

Why? I enjoy flying the Fenix. And the PMDG 737, and the MD82, and the BA146, and the 414, and the Kodiak, and all the other aircraft I have bought including several Carenado's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...