6 hours ago, VBHB said:

Nice I'll run this plane on my usual A330 routes. Finally a decent mid hauler!

With the A310-300 you can fly everything from short trips to airports with a RWY just under 2000m like LOWI Innsbruck, LGSK Skiathos and LIRQ Firenze and long haul overnight flights to other continents:

 

From my home base I can reach basically everything on MZFW except Australia and half of South America.

I can fly to all of the US, Caribbean, Africa (FSDG, I count on you!) and Asia.

 

Plus I had my first every flight on an A310 back then.
Perfect plane for me! 💖

28 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

The Majestic q400 is the most complete simulation.

What?
I had the pilot edition of the MJC DH8D and quite a few buttons and switches didn't work, as far as I remember..?

While the Dash 8 is so much fun to fly, I've been doing much more flights in P3D with PMDGs 737 and 747 back then because they felt like a "more complete simulation" to me.

55 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Since you seem to find so much and so many to be "laughable" , mind enlightening us on what basis do YOU determine the accuracy (or lack thereof) of say the physics?

You seem to be always determined to come in on every thread and try to push the FSL birds as being superior to the Fenix, and how MSFS physics is not good, etc... I'll let you continue on your laughable quest 🙂 ... And yes, saying that the "MSFS physics sucks" really is laughable and that was a good response by iniBuilds on their discord.

We'll stick to reality and what we see with our own eyes about the state of flight dynamics and physics in MSFS.. and oh, how iniBuilds themselves have now come out and said their complex A310 bird's flight model is at par with XP, and how the physics really are good in MSFS. This just adds to the pile of evidence already seen in the Fenix A320, Maddog M80, PMDG 737, Milviz C310, and on and on...  If all this gets under your skin, well I'd suggest you not read said comments then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited June 13, 20224 yr by lwt1971

41 minutes ago, Konterhalbe said:

What?
I had the pilot edition of the MJC DH8D and quite a few buttons and switches didn't work, as far as I remember..?

While the Dash 8 is so much fun to fly, I've been doing much more flights in P3D with PMDGs 737 and 747 back then because they felt like a "more complete simulation" to me.

It's hard to argue what's more "complete"  But one thing that is hard to argue. The Q400 is a lot tougher to learn than a boeing.  Can't wait for it to be released in msfs

The beauty of flight sims is the chance to fly airplanes that are retired or soon to be retired.  Q400 and A310 are examples of that.  While not everybody enjoys flying retired planes, a significant amount of people still do.  

18 minutes ago, micstatic said:

It's hard to argue what's more "complete"  But one thing that is hard to argue. The Q400 is a lot tougher to learn than a boeing.  Can't wait for it to be released in msfs

The beauty of flight sims is the chance to fly airplanes that are retired or soon to be retired.  Q400 and A310 are examples of that.  While not everybody enjoys flying retired planes, a significant amount of people still do.  

When I got the Q 400, the first thing I did was purchase the videos that were the tutorial of that aircraft. They were almost necessary to properly learn how to fly the Q. https://www.airline2sim.com/products/majestic-dash-8-q400-cadet

33 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

. and oh, how iniBuilds themselves have now come out and said their complex A310 bird's flight model is at par with XP, and how the physics really are good in MSFS. 

 

Oh, inibuilds have said that on their product! isn't that a surprise?! I have offered you many times to put things to the test, I bet you never did! Instead, you and bob have dismissed Darren Howie, probably the most knowledgeable and experienced A32x captain to post on those forums. Now, isn't that just laughable.....

3 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Oh, inibuilds have said that on their product! isn't that a surprise?! I have offered you many times to put things to the test, I bet you never did! Instead, you and bob have dismissed Darren Howie, probably the most knowledgeable and experienced A32x captain to post on those forums. Now, isn't that just laughable.....

Ok, keep believing whatever you want to believe about the FSL and Fenix and iniBuilds and whatever else that comforts you. You're not convincing us of anything in the least, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Edited June 13, 20224 yr by lwt1971

The Majestic Q400 is easily top 3 simulations. 
I would love to see any naysayers successfully land that bird with a passing satisfactory touchdown with full damage/realism on a windy day.🤣

3 hours ago, blueshark747 said:

The Majestic Q400 is easily top 3 simulations. 
I would love to see any naysayers successfully land that bird with a passing satisfactory touchdown with full damage/realism on a windy day.🤣

Been there done that.

On 6/13/2022 at 5:07 PM, ha5mvo said:

The FSLabs does a way better job in simulating an A320.

How so?

Edit: Not meant as a dig but as a genuine question, however making a blunt statement without any actual argumentation doesn't help with credibility.

Edited June 15, 20223 yr by threegreen

23 minutes ago, threegreen said:

How so?

RNP AR procedures, Descent profile idle management, placing the FDP correctly, managing Dir to waypoints. Dynamics in general... Considerably overpowered on takeoff! will command a 19-20 degree pitch (always 15 degree on the real thing).  Very draggy on descent, as if the speed brakes are constantly deployed - will almost always decelerate to the lower airspeed bracket. 

Wrong pitch\power dynamics (try to follow the "unreliable airspeed" procedure and you'll see what I mean).

The FBW on the fenix requires small corrections, somewhat "unstable" for lack of a better word.

Fuel consumption is off...

The IRS unit...well...you won't find the one depicted on any existing airframe.

Fonts are incorrect.

I can go on till the cows come home if you really want me to...

1 minute ago, ha5mvo said:

RNP AR procedures, Descent profile idle management, placing the FDP correctly, managing Dir to waypoints. Dynamics in general... Considerably overpowered on takeoff! will command a 19-20 degree pitch (always 15 degree on the real thing).  Very draggy on descent, as if the speed brakes are constantly deployed - will almost always decelerate to the lower airspeed bracket. 

Wrong pitch\power dynamics (try to follow the "unreliable airspeed" procedure and you'll see what I mean).

The FBW on the fenix requires small corrections, somewhat "unstable" for lack of a better word.

Fuel consumption is off...

The IRS unit...well...you won't find the one depicted on any existing airframe.

Fonts are incorrect.

I can go on till the cows come home if you really want me to...

Are you an A 320  pilot in real life? 

To quote the most experienced A32x captain to post here:

"So lets look at the Fenix briefly and believe me i could write far far more.

The IRU panel/system in the fenix hasnt been installed by Airbus in over 20 years and the old panel ie keypad etc isnt even compatible with a modern IRU. You see the IRU's in the A320 needed to be modified for the approval of RNP AR as the IRU's in Fenix represent a version long gone from Airbus. Since their replacement the IRU's have been upgraded twice and the analogue panel is LONG gone from the overhead.

The Fenix as presented cant even fly an RNP AR as its IRU's are not correct, neither is the overhead panel which are swapped out with the IRU upgrade 15 years ago. So either the systems wrong or the model is wrong. Whatever the case its wrong end of story.

Speaking of old lets talk Prosim which is the base for Fenix it itself is extremely old with literally being at least 20 years old as a basis. Meaning most ECAMS have had extensive modification by Airbus. In short many of the failures are inaccurate with incorrect ECAM information. ECAMS are continually updated as systems develop and change so unsurprisingly Prosim is a long way from a modern Airbus. It might be approved but hey so is the B-17. That doesnt mean it represents what a modern Airbus is like!

Lets move onto the flight model. Now every A320 you or anyone would ever fly climbs out at 15 degrees nose up the only exception to this is at light weights and non flex temp departures. Watch ANY video of an A320 departure yep 15 degrees it is. Fenix climbs out at yep 20 degrees nose up heavily loaded!. Its written in FCOM and every pilot who has ever flown any A320 knows 15/12 as the two base pitch attitudes they would of used hundreds to thousands of times. Fenix didnt even get something so basic correct. To blend with that the handling is nothing at all like the very light touch and feel of any Airbus. In fact Fenix climbs beautifully at 15 degrees nose up "ON ONE ENGINE". In a real A320 if you even tried to climb on one engine at 15 degrees id give you under 20 seconds to still be on this planet. Its impossible for the real aircraft to do, end of story.

Unlike Boeings using multiple derates and an ATM ie FLEX Airbus performance is very very predictable and 15 degrees pitch up is the figure you get basically every take off unless your very light or going Toga. Neo's with a larger flex range can get slightly less than 15 but again its a small difference not 30 plus percent.

So as any pilot would know Power + Attitude equals performance so it doesnt take long at all to see if you have the wrong attitude and are getting wrong performance then the flight model is simply broken. How broken well thats easy id recommend everyone saying its not broken go do a simple test. Grab the QRH go to the unreliable speed checklist find your weight and set the power and attitude let it stabilize then watch what happens. Yes you get a speed nowhere near that your supposed to. yes the flight model is broken.

So now we know its broken what else does that mean. OK it means the N1 on final is wrong, the drag model is broken, the fuel flow is off by a mere 40-50%!

Did i mention the fuel burn is off by 40% getting 1600Kg/Hr as opposed to the 2450 of the real CFM A320. Yea 40 to 50%.

By being forced into a very old A320 systems wise because of the Prosim base Fenix is a hodge podge of multiple real world A320's none of which exist in reality together nor could they as the systems used do not correspond to the capability of the aircraft. A cross between EIS1 and 2 with incorrect fonts and an FMGC standard nobody knows because it doesn't represent any standard. Non RNP AR capable overhead panel with RNP AR capability yea you get the picture..

Now i could go on for paragraph after paragraph highlighting things like Fonts, flight control feel, incorrect deceleration distances/times ie the flight model has huge issues the EFB using non optimized take off data which hasnt been used in 25 plus years.

The EFB performance data generated is not even close to what you get out of an Airbus flysmart calculator i have no idea what these guys where thinking maybe a balanced field Boeing style FMC version but its nothing close to optimized data.

I mean the control feel on it is nothing even remotely like flying a wingertip driven A320.

Why am i having to adjust control sensitivities when it should fly perfectly well with linear control sensitivity just as the real aircraft?

Fly By Wire is simple the side stick in normal law commands a roll rate. That means ANY dev can use linear curves to set a required deflection to generate a roll rate. Its not rocket science its very basic in fact. Yet the fenix is like flying a 737 needing large sidestick movements unseen in a real Airbus. With the complete failure to implement the external flight model the million dollar question is if it will ever fly remotely like a real A320 as my experience is its right now not even close to the beautiful light fingertip handling of the real A320..

Fenix where very good at marketing and this impression of it being amazing is very well spun. It has some VERY nice systems rendition which is to be highly commended even if it doesn't know what generation its from an airframe number or the decade its supposed to be from. The overhead panel from a first gen A320 with modern brake system and new aircon controllers, like i said its a mish mash. if they had simply said hey lets do a 2015-2017 A320 then at least it would be timeframe accurate with system and display consistency.

Its very obvious to anyone who knows an Airbus well enough that it has significant problems but that are well founded in FACT like Airbus FCOM and the QRH its easy to find the issues.

Many wont care and thats fine but for the people out there who want there simulation to be "accurate" and 'reflective" should care. Those who dont know but bought this on th epremise it was study level should know. I loved flying the Airbus but for anyone thinking this is somehow the "best" or close needs to look elsewhere for that experience right now. Hopefully fenix can get the eexternal flight model to work so some semblence of fidelity to the flight model and controls can be restored.

Now this doesnt mean you may wont enjoy Fenix but lets be very clear the Fenix was marketed and talked up as being the "ultimate" Airbus and its a VERY long way from that indeed.

Why are all these things important?

Ill tell you because the team at fenix promised, marketed and sold this product as a study level Airbus A320 how many times did they say it would be the best?. .

How are you supposed to fly an Airbus which handles terribly, has a mish mash of systems drawn from over 3 decades, has a drag and thrust model so wrong you cant fly the values used in every take off every day by every A320 in the world.

Anyone saying this is "study level" either doesnt know what study level implies.

I'll tell you what study level means and SHOULD mean to every developer.

It means that anyone with suitable amount of real world experience could sit down and do 80-90% of whats covered in a real world type rating then hop into a real full motion sim and apply that to safely fly it. That is the ultimate test, they would already be familiar with the ECAMs, failure management and flying the aircraft with familiar power settings. These things are important in an Airbus as when your flying direct law approaches you MUST know what power setting to set ie what N1, what pitch attitude. Right now the fenix can do none of those because the flight model will not allow accurate power and pitch values to be used.

This is why flight model is SO important in an Airbus because when all the automatics fail and it turns into a 737 you need to know the powers and pitches off by heart. if you dont good luck enjoy the ride in.

Why cant i use the very rules, guides and gates i used in the real aircraft in thousands of flights in every type of weather imaginable in the Fenix. Experience from the real world doesnt lie and you cannot hide issues either.

If you dont like what i have to say sorry get a ticket in the far queue and wait in line.

if you dont like realism thats ok there are plenty of aircraft in the market for you.

Study level simulations are the high ground of flight simulation and several developers have worked for many years to ensure quality and accuracy are the prime areas of concern. 

Again if you like fenix thats fine by me go enjoy your Airbus but its certainly not what it was marketed as.

if your expectations have been met thats fine but mine have not particularly based off how it was presented and what it delivered."

Edited June 15, 20223 yr by ha5mvo

Oh here we go again, one FSL shill quotes another FSL shill (aka "the most experienced A32x captain" to a certain someone), who Aamir thankfully identified to us as a FSL team member who kept dumping on a recent Fenix thread, see Aamir's post here:
https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/620248-fenix-a320-engine-out-weirdiness/?do=findComment&comment=4791522... to then go on and on about how FSL is so much better than the Fenix by exaggerating its small issues, on a thread about the iniBuilds A310, which btw we Fenix A320 lovers can't absolutely wait to fly in all its high fidelity and high flight dynamics goodness in the MSFS 40th anniversary edition 🙂

Keep on harping, and we'll keep taking the words of multiple legitimate IRL A320/airbus pilots over the words of FSL shills any day :)) ... given that the words of a FSL team member's words on the Fenix A320 are being regurgitated here, I'll copy/paste the various IRL a320/airbus pilots' comments again too:

Into the Blue Simulations: 
- https://youtu.be/x-j-JvXglDo?t=4100: "Thoroughly impressed with everything ... not much negative to say, long list of positives ... sounds really top notch in cockpit ambience and engine sounds ... flight model is hands down the best airbus experience I've ever had in any sim, small negative where auto thrust came on too quickly at times, pretty amazing overall and very true to life ... systems modelling top of the class"

V1 Simulations:
- "this EFB is blowing my mind ... this failure landing distance procedure is better than what we do in real life"
- "this is the closest airbus simulation I've ever flown to the real aircraft, period ... it's the benchmark" (watch from here onwards: https://youtu.be/YbOkK-eWtJI?t=6451)
- watch his video from https://youtu.be/YbOkK-eWtJI?t=4547 onwards where he does a hydraulics green system failure and then IRL procedures all the way to a diverted landing with gravity gear extensions, slow surface controls deployments, etc
- "the immersion that you get from this airplane is nothing like what you've seen before, you saw a little bit of it with FSLabs" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXqAew3kRg)

320 Sim Pilot:
- has had nothing but compliments for the Fenix, check out his videos here: https://www.youtube.com/c/320SimPilot/videos
- "I can't express how happy I am about the handling of this aircraft, fantastic"
- "Love hand flying the Fenix a320, just behaves like the real aircraft.. this is all with default default controller settings even"
 

 

Edited June 15, 20223 yr by lwt1971

Geezus...