Flightsim.to now has a FBW compatibility mod for the LatinVFR A321. I love the A321 and have been jonsin' for one. The PMP one based off the Stock FSX model was pretty poorly done.  I though now that the FBW cockpit can be integrated id give it a shot.  

The FBW cockpit does lack some features.  Ground handling seems not to work and a few other things here and there.  But Navigraph works, Simbrief works,  the systems all work. 

There are a few issues. 

-Performance seems to hampered and the jet struggles to climb above 30000 feet. Although. in fairness the PMDG and FBW does too. 

-For the wing views the plane that I see is that the wing panels are very disjointed and haphazardly placed.  I will be writing to Ricardo at LatinVFR about this.  It shouldn't be a hard fix. 

-Some of the textures have white lines through them,  not sure if this could be rectified by a 3rd part painter or if it's hard coded into the texture layers.

-The tires are shiny and reflective.  not sure what that's about.  

-The people in the cabin are not modeled super well in cabin views, but the moving people look super cool from the outside. -and as a bonus Latin VFR didn't cheap out with parallax texturing, they actually modeled the cabin as you can see in the Lufthansa screen shot the windows actually cast sun rays on to the wing if at the right angle to the sun.

-The wing flex is very lack luster, its very subtle and it only works on the last little bit of the wing, but at least it doesn't twitch out of control like the CRJ and PMDG.

The Good.

-Model looks solid other than the movable wing surfaces.

-Flies well, only issue is the performance above 30,000 but that is present on many aircraft.

-4 models and the correct airlines are assigned correct engines.  

-Lots of stock textures that aren't bad but could use some work.  still looks way better than the PMP A321.

-Good animations,  Lighting looks good.

- FPS Performance is good. I'm getting equal frames to the FBW A320.   My System: i79700KF, RTX2070S, 32GB RAM, 2TB Nvme SSD.

My verdict:  If money is not a problem and you really like the A321 it works with the FBW cockpit and that is a huge improvement, And of course...there is no alternative.  I got it before someone complains and gets it taken off of Flightsim.to.

A picture is worth a thousand words so here you go.

 

 

 

 

Now the problems.  As you can see the white lines through the TAP titles and the white line mess above the cargo door are not great,  the screen shot above you can see white lines through the tail.

The worst part are the spoilers and flaps in the wing views, what a mess.

 

The right wing is a little better, but I was expecting at least that the wing views would be nice but no such luck.. Looks ok from in front of the engine and the last row... but over the wing, pretty ugly.

 

 

Edited August 6, 20223 yr by aniiran

The PMDG 737's or FBW A320 do not struggle to get above 30k, Where did you dream that one up from lol

31 minutes ago, Car147 said:

The PMDG 737's or FBW A320 do not struggle to get above 30k, Where did you dream that one up from lol

It looks like they all do correct FPM above FL300. I was under the impression that a B738 loaded for a one hour flight could keep 2000ft/min.  But it appears it usually does between 700 and 1400 fpm above FL300. So then there is no problem with any of the jets.

Edited August 6, 20223 yr by aniiran
did more research

31 minutes ago, aniiran said:

It looks like they all do correct FPM above FL300. I was under the impression that a B738 loaded for a one hour flight could keep 2000ft/min.  But it appears it usually does between 700 and 1400 fpm above FL300. So then there is no problem with any of the jets.

You need to do a little more reading about what happens as you get higher. The good thing about aviation is you’re always learning. Google it! 

Edited August 6, 20223 yr by Ridvan Celik

5 hours ago, aniiran said:

It looks like they all do correct FPM above FL300. I was under the impression that a B738 loaded for a one hour flight could keep 2000ft/min.  But it appears it usually does between 700 and 1400 fpm above FL300. So then there is no problem with any of the jets.

Jets climb in general depends on  balance between constrains, environment  and  fuel efficiency. For example high density altitude will reduce climb gradient and increase take off distance . There are also factors such as obstruction clearance, noise restrictions, speed constrain may dictate on how jet climb.

Typical climb profile usually divided in two parts below 10000 ft MSL and above. After jet passes 10000 ft usually speed restriction ends and  jet can accelerate and climb at much higher speed like Mach 0.59-0.75 .

I have been flightsimming for 20 years. Yes, I am aware of many things about the atmosphere and the fact that it gets thinner, but I was under the impression that a lightly loaded (say 5000 kgs. of fuel, 85% passenger/cargo load, 63 tons or so)  A321 could keep 2000/fpm above 30,000.  2000 FPM is too high of a number but 1,500 seems doable if the Fenix is as realistic as everyone says it is.

To me it is inconclusive.

Given a weather scenario of clear skies and a weight of 64,000kgs (typical for 1 hr flights) the FBW does seem underpowered. The Fenix can consistently hold 1600 fpm at mach .77 all the way from FL300 to FL 370.  The FBW will struggle to hold more than 700 FPM at mach .77.  

The CFM56-5A3 in the A320 CEO puts out 25,600 lbs. of thrust and the A320neo with the LEAP 1-B 27,120 lbs. of thrust...so to me something is off.  They are both digital toy airplanes, but 320 Sim Pilot on YouTube seems quite impressed with the Fenix in every way.

The only other reference point I have is flight radar programs Squakbox, FR24 and Flightaware and the the instant FPM readings in the track logs.  They seem to vary quite a lot because of various conditions and I don't know the weights of each flight, so it is not super helpful.

Anyway, this was about the FBW cockpit with the Latin VFR A321 and my impressions of it.  

 

Edited August 7, 20223 yr by aniiran

2 hours ago, aniiran said:

I have been flightsimming for 20 years. Yes, I am aware of many things about the atmosphere and the fact that it gets thinner, but I was under the impression that a lightly loaded (say 5000 kgs. of fuel, 85% passenger/cargo load, 63 tons or so)  A321 could keep 2000/fpm above 30,000.  2000 FPM is too high of a number but 1,500 seems doable if the Fenix is as realistic as everyone says it is.

To me it is inconclusive.

Given a weather scenario of clear skies and a weight of 64,000kgs (typical for 1 hr flights) the FBW does seem underpowered. The Fenix can consistently hold 1600 fpm at mach .77 all the way from FL300 to FL 370.  The FBW will struggle to hold more than 700 FPM at mach .77.  

The CFM56-5A3 in the A320 CEO puts out 25,600 lbs. of thrust and the A320neo with the LEAP 1-B 27,120 lbs. of thrust...so to me something is off.  They are both digital toy airplanes, but 320 Sim Pilot on YouTube seems quite impressed with the Fenix in every way.

The only other reference point I have is flight radar programs Squakbox, FR24 and Flightaware and the the instant FPM readings in the track logs.  They seem to vary quite a lot because of various conditions and I don't know the weights of each flight, so it is not super helpful.

Anyway, this was about the FBW cockpit with the Latin VFR A321 and my impressions of it.  

 

I've been flight simming for about 15 so that's half my life and I'm still learning. Yes as you get higher the air gets thinner etc etc put simply the engines don't perform as well as they do at lower alts.

And as mentioned before, there as many many variables affecting climb performance. If something was off about the climb performance at higher altitudes, the actual pilots who were on the team with FBW and Fenix, or the ones who reviewed it would have picked up on it very quickly I would assume. 

Your impression came with a statement about performance above 30k feet.... we are all here to help... and any new comers using the plane you're using that are reading this might see and it will be helpful to them too. 

Also, I don't own that 321 mod so it could be something with that too. 

Edited August 7, 20223 yr by Ridvan Celik

I'm a casual flier of tubeliners with zero interest in the PMDG. Fenix etc so something like this is right up my street. I fly the default Asobo A320 extensively.

This does not look good at all , the wing textures look off and Ive seen the pax in the cabin that look like they came from 1992 (saw a youtube). Can they be removed?

The cabin modelling is also bleh. Gaps around windows and such. Really need to tighten up on the modelling. For us casuals we do like our cabins and wingviews so this is a big disappointment. Still from a YouTube below.

Come on..

...payware? ☝️😷

Compare with stock Asobo 👇

 

I appreciate them being upfront. This is an Asobo A320 with A321 tube bolted onto it. So gamers know what they are getting.

If they go back to this and sort out the modelling issues and fix the wing textures then it would be better.

This video mentions that you cant move to the window seats (invisible wall?) So I guess some camera.cfg tweaks are needed. Why on earth would they do that.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 20223 yr by ThrottleUp