2 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

No offense, but unless there was a major breakthrough in the last two weeks, this is utter nonsense.

No offence taken. And no offence in return, but on multiple flights the FBW has done an admirable job handling VNAV. That sir, is not utter nonsense. It is fact. I did not imply it is perfect and stated that. VNAV is a very complicated and dynamic maths problem. Even PMDG VNAV is getting some criticism, as is Fenix. My point was that FBW does in fact offer VNAV and it is miles better than being “utter nonsense”.

11 minutes ago, RaptyrOne said:

My point was that FBW does in fact offer VNAV and it is miles better than being “utter nonsense”.

"Utter nonsense" was your statement that the FBW VNAV might be better than the Fenix VNAV. I did not call the FBW VNAV itself so, at least don't misquote me and we're good.

16 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

"Utter nonsense" was your statement that the FBW VNAV might be better than the Fenix VNAV. I did not call the FBW VNAV itself so, at least don't misquote me and we're good.

I said it could be argued it was better. I guess that is precisely what we are doing.😁 it was not a statement to invoke ire. So both airbuses need work on VNAV. We can leave it there. We are good.😉 

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by RaptyrOne

Well, the Fenix A320 has been out for less than a month right? I am quite sure that 90% of the items cited in this topic will be fixed before PMDG release their LNAV V2.

Nothing will be fixed if people will refrain from bringing up issues or if their voice will get  aggressively muffled by those who think that the FENIX is just infallible! 

You just can't say a single critical word without (the same) people jumping at your jugular. There's just to much tribalism going around in our society and these forums are no exception unfortunately.

In all fairness, the FENIX team do not share that stance and they seem to be open to suggestions whenever they happen to go through.

I must say, I have done plenty of experiments comparing the flight dynamics to FCOM and official published data and found all of @DEHowie observations to be correct. I don't care who and what he's beta testing for if what he says is true...

I sure hope those issues are fixable and that MSFS doesn't have too much of that xbox DNA to make things beyond repair but people also HAVE to allow some critical appreciation by others without the latter taking the risk of being lynch mobbed.

1 hour ago, ha5mvo said:

In all fairness, the FENIX team do not share that stance and they seem to be open to suggestions whenever they happen to go through.

I must say, I have done plenty of experiments comparing the flight dynamics to FCOM and official published data and found all of @DEHowie observations to be correct. I don't care who and what he's beta testing for if what he says is true...

That FSL beta tester has been doing the rounds with his drop-ins here and elsewhere, and his agenda is very clear... but, given that he's not been able to articulate in more detail on those issues and how exactly the Fenix does it wrong compared to IRL and/or other A320 sim aircrafts, can you maybe? I also presume you know what the IRL scenario should be for these cases. Given that @Aamir monitors this forum and has chimed in on this thread, perhaps he can review your detailed findings.
 

1 hour ago, ha5mvo said:

I sure hope those issues are fixable and that MSFS doesn't have too much of that xbox DNA to make things beyond repair ...

I'm sorry, when you say things like above, after laughing a bit I can't help but take you less seriously... what is it about the "xbox DNA" that makes things "beyond repair"? do explain if you can please.

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by lwt1971

20 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Nothing will be fixed if people will refrain from bringing up issues or if their voice will get  aggressively muffled by those who think that the FENIX is just infallible! 

You just can't say a single critical word without (the same) people jumping at your jugular. There's just to much tribalism going around in our society and these forums are no exception unfortunately.

In all fairness, the FENIX team do not share that stance and they seem to be open to suggestions whenever they happen to go through.

I must say, I have done plenty of experiments comparing the flight dynamics to FCOM and official published data and found all of @DEHowie observations to be correct. I don't care who and what he's beta testing for if what he says is true...

I sure hope those issues are fixable and that MSFS doesn't have too much of that xbox DNA to make things beyond repair but people also HAVE to allow some critical appreciation by others without the latter taking the risk of being lynch mobbed.

DEHowie did not even elaborate on his "observations" except for one or two, so I'm curious what exactly did you check? What experiments? What were your results in the Fenix, what is the published data you compared it with? If you say you found "all" to be correct, then I'm sure you can tell us about those he said:
"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"

If you don't want anyone "jumping" on you, how about stopping making obfuscated, imprecise claims and instead telling us exactly what you did and what exactly is wrong?

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by Fiorentoni

36 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

I sure hope those issues are fixable and that MSFS doesn't have too much of that xbox DNA

 

It was at this point I felt it would be best if I didn't take you seriously.

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by Krakin

Just now, Krakin said:

It was at this point I felt it would be best if i didn't take you seriously.

I think you did something wrong, because that was not my quote 🙂

15 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I think you did something wrong, because that was not my quote 🙂

Yeah it's fixed but I have no Idea how that happened.

12 minutes ago, Krakin said:

but I have no Idea how that happened.

If you quote someone else quoting someone else, the system will only show who you are quoting, not who they quoted.

This has gone so off topic!

5 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

Nothing will be fixed if people will refrain from bringing up issues or if their voice will get  aggressively muffled by those who think that the FENIX is just infallible! 

You just can't say a single critical word without (the same) people jumping at your jugular. There's just to much tribalism going around in our society and these forums are no exception unfortunately.

In all fairness, the FENIX team do not share that stance and they seem to be open to suggestions whenever they happen to go through.

I must say, I have done plenty of experiments comparing the flight dynamics to FCOM and official published data and found all of @DEHowie observations to be correct. I don't care who and what he's beta testing for if what he says is true...

I sure hope those issues are fixable and that MSFS doesn't have too much of that xbox DNA to make things beyond repair but people also HAVE to allow some critical appreciation by others without the latter taking the risk of being lynch mobbed.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I think unfortunately there’s a ton of stuff wrong but the people jumping down other peoples throats is related to a few things.   For one-people who’ve only used MSFS have never had an FSL or Toliss bird to fly, they’ve got nothing to compare it to-so of course it’s “perfect” to them.  The other thing I suspect but am not entirely sure on-is that the going for the jugular when seeing critical things pointed out about the Fenix is related to the maturity level (or lack there of) of some of the folks throwing the daggers.  

5 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

That FSL beta tester has been doing the rounds with his drop-ins here and elsewhere, and his agenda is very clear... but, given that he's not been able to articulate in more detail on those issues and how exactly the Fenix does it wrong compared to IRL and/or other A320 sim aircrafts, can you maybe? I also presume you know what the IRL scenario should be for these cases. Given that @Aamir monitors this forum and has chimed in on this thread, perhaps he can review your detailed findings.
 

I'm sorry, when you say things like above, after laughing a bit I can't help but take you less seriously... what is it about the "xbox DNA" that makes things "beyond repair"? do explain if you can please.

 

5 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

DEHowie did not even elaborate on his "observations" except for one or two, so I'm curious what exactly did you check? What experiments? What were your results in the Fenix, what is the published data you compared it with? If you say you found "all" to be correct, then I'm sure you can tell us about those he said:
"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"

If you don't want anyone "jumping" on you, how about stopping making obfuscated, imprecise claims and instead telling us exactly what you did and what exactly is wrong?

To take the two above posts into account.  Darren mentioned the RNP-the ADIRS Fenix modeled isn’t rated for RNP-it’s an older model.  Fenix did a nice job of compromising between EIS1/EIS2 aircraft aesthetically speaking.  The cruise pitch is a touch off-perhaps should be a degree or two lower depending on your situation, the fuel burn is WAAAY off, the rotation is whacky, the VNAV is a nightmare (from what I’ve heard due to MSFS limitations) and the list goes on.  I put my noted up above and tagged Aamir-I certainly hope he takes it the right way.  I don’t dare try in the discord or I’ll get jumped on.  
 

As for what @ha5mvo said about the “XBOX dna” I believe he’s referring to the WASM language (at the very least-I’m sure there’s more under the hood) which helps port MSFS onto Xbox and I’m sure causes tons of issues-one of them being data transmission and reception outside the sandbox (I’m paraphrasing something a much smarter friend told me there)  If the devs can’t/aren’t allowed to get SDK updates and things they need to deliver better addons-because “it won’t fly for the Xbox version of msfs” then it’ll be broken beyond repair… 

Edited June 8, 20223 yr by DJ Rosko

19 minutes ago, DJ Rosko said:

As for what @ha5mvo said about the “XBOX dna” I believe he’s referring to the WASM language (at the very least-I’m sure there’s more under the hood) which helps port MSFS onto Xbox and I’m sure causes tons of issues-one of them being data transmission and reception outside the sandbox (I’m paraphrasing something a much smarter friend told me there)  If the devs can’t/aren’t allowed to get SDK updates and things they need to deliver better addons-because “it won’t fly for the Xbox version of msfs” then it’ll be broken beyond repair… 

Well that has nothing to do with the Fenix since it is not using WASM at all or any WASM related aspects in the MSFS SDK. The Fenix A320 is PC only and its systems simulation code runs completely outside of MSFS. I have a feeling ha5mvo and his "xbox dna" musings are about another overused misinformation talking point when it comes to MSFS, but anyways...

Also, I'm going to believe my own eyes when it comes to the Fenix, and also what various knowledgeable and unbiased real-life A320 pilots and veteran pilots have said of the Fenix A320 and all their praise of the positives about the Fenix, and where they've also compared it to the FSL and Toliss birds (which they themselves have also flown/reviewed) and still feel the Fenix is better ... than some randoms on internet forums who seem to have other agendas :)

Edited June 8, 20223 yr by lwt1971

1 hour ago, DJ Rosko said:

 

To take the two above posts into account.  Darren mentioned the RNP-the ADIRS Fenix modeled isn’t rated for RNP-it’s an older model.  Fenix did a nice job of compromising between EIS1/EIS2 aircraft aesthetically speaking.  The cruise pitch is a touch off-perhaps should be a degree or two lower depending on your situation, the fuel burn is WAAAY off, the rotation is whacky, the VNAV is a nightmare (from what I’ve heard due to MSFS limitations) and the list goes on.  I put my noted up above and tagged Aamir-I certainly hope he takes it the right way.  I don’t dare try in the discord or I’ll get jumped on.  

So at least you tried. You repeated what Darren already said (ADIRS model; a visual inaccuracy only), explained what Fenix themselves admitted weeks ago even before release (cruise fuel burn; total fuel burn is actually 6% off according to Aamir, so not waaaaay), and finally added one new thing (cruise pitch, which is - in some situations - one degree too high…).
Then you did what the others did and said obfuscated things like „whacky rotation“ and „VNAV nightmare“ without any explanation, and then „the list goes on“ without even mentioning anything. Are you all doing this on purpose? Are you being paid by… no I‘m not going down Darren‘s road.
 For your information VNAV is doing its job all the time in every flight I made so far, totally hands-off, even in the most unforeseen tailwind situations. It‘s not perfect in regards to speed restrictions (it slows down a bit too late in some cases and remains above the restricted speed for 5-10 seconds), but… „nightmare“?!

Now I‘m not negating the fact that there is still much work to do to make this aircraft „perfect“, and the FSL version is obviously doing those things better at the moment, but making it seem like it‘s barely flyable or a Captain Sim-ish aircraft with those obfuscated claims is really wrong and not helpful.