I like how much time I can spend flying with MSFS compared to how much time I spent tweaking and fixing things in P3D, but to each their own...P3D served me well in it's time.  Anyway, that's not the topic of this thread so I digress.

Edited February 20, 20242 yr by regis9

13 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

 the on-rails experience I remember in P3D (at least for me).

This always intrigues me. It implies that in P3D the plane almost flies itself. (Which it would do, if A/P was engaged). Nothing could be further from the truth.

A very simple test:

- try an engine-out scenario in both trhe Fenix and the FSLabs... 

Report back your findings...

Or, try a flap 3 approach on both for some weather and weight conditions...

Report back...

Sometime ago Fenix revealed the "new" detailed simulation of the EGT variations in the IAE 3 stage turbines. That's great! but it's been there in the FSLabs since ever...

They're both great Airbus models for a sim, that's for sure, but comparing, in trying to suggest FSLabs is outdated or inferior will never lead to anything other than posts like this...

For Airbus feel / systems modeling, and interaction with weather effects I still way prefer P3d v5.4 + FSLabs or XP12 + Toliss ...

7 hours ago, jcomm said:

A very simple test:

- try an engine-out scenario in both trhe Fenix and the FSLabs... 

Report back your findings...

Or, try a flap 3 approach on both for some weather and weight conditions...

Report back...

 

Since this is an MSFS forum how does one go about installing the FSLabs Airbus into MSFS, so the comparison between the Fenix and FsLabs can be made??😉

11 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

This always intrigues me. It implies that in P3D the plane almost flies itself. (Which it would do, if A/P was engaged). Nothing could be further from the truth.

The "on rails" monicker was not to say that the plane felt like it was flying itself but more about how the aircraft never felt like it was moving realistically thru the atmosphere, with the little bumps and movements due to atmospheric airflow, etc
 

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

A very simple test:

- try an engine-out scenario in both trhe Fenix and the FSLabs... 

Report back your findings...

Or, try a flap 3 approach on both for some weather and weight conditions...

Report back...

Sometime ago Fenix revealed the "new" detailed simulation of the EGT variations in the IAE 3 stage turbines. That's great! but it's been there in the FSLabs since ever...

They're both great Airbus models for a sim, that's for sure, but comparing, in trying to suggest FSLabs is outdated or inferior will never lead to anything other than posts like this...

For Airbus feel / systems modeling, and interaction with weather effects I still way prefer P3d v5.4 + FSLabs or XP12 + Toliss ...

Ya we know about the specific issues in Fenix V1 (and even despite those the Fenix V1 + MSFS combo was far more compelling as an overall experience to me, others on here, and IRL pilots who're also experienced simmers like V-1 Simulations). Given what Fenix has shown as coming in V2 Block 2 I'm seeing a very deep simulation of engines, systems, FM, etc and certainly looks like it is going to push the envelope (and also simulate aspects not ever seen before in other offerings). V-1 as an IRL A320 captain too also seems very encouraged/excited based on the Fenix's recent deep dive video: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/642219-fenix-a320-v2-block2-features-deep-dive-video/?do=findComment&comment=5065771 and he's experienced with P3D + FSL. Proof of course will be in the pudding so let's wait to see when Block 2 actually releases so we can try it for ourselves, and hear what all the experts say (especially those who're IRL pilots as well as experienced simmers)

P3D is saddled with the FSX core and FSX FDE, and no amount of customizing/overriding in aircraft add-ons is going to get over those limitations. And "interaction with weather" in P3D meant needing external weather add-ons, and that still can't get over those FSX core limitations.

 

Edited February 20, 20242 yr by lwt1971

11 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

P3D was saddled with the FSX core and FSX FDE, and no amount of customizing/overriding in aircraft add-ons is going to get over those limitations. And "interaction with weather" in P3D meant needing external weather add-ons, and that still can't get over those FSX core limitations.

 

No matter how much lipstick, is slapped onto FSX by P3D, it is still FSX,  

34 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

P3D is saddled with the FSX core and FSX FDE, and no amount of customizing/overriding in aircraft add-ons is going to get over those limitations. And "interaction with weather" in P3D meant needing external weather add-ons, and that still can't get over those FSX core limitations.

 

True, partially, at least until 2024 comes out - and I am really giving it the benefit of doubt, because, as you know, MFS is still pretty much FSX FM wise in such basic details as...

.) the planform wing of  a C172 being the base model for the geometry of a wing for any fixed wing aircraft...

.) stuff like pitch trim still working as in FSX - as if all aircraft had stabilators instead of like many GA (and not only) trim tabs in their elevators...

Try setting the trim full nose heavy or full tail heavy in the default C172, which even has all of the bells and whistles of the new "CFM" approach, and go flying....

Watch no matter how your elevator deflects (as seen from an outside view) you don't have enough pitch authority ... while you should because instead the neutral point should be the one moving... and, the elevator is properly deflected, up or down, full deflection, but the aircraft can't climb or descend.... 

Edited February 20, 20242 yr by jcomm

10 minutes ago, jcomm said:

 

Try setting the trim full nose heavy or full tail heavy in the default C172, which even has all of the bells and whistles of the new "CFM" approach, and go flying....

Watch no matter how your elevator deflects (as seen from an outside view) you don't have enough pitch authority ... while you should because instead the neutral point should be the one moving... and, the elevator is properly deflected, up or down, full deflection, but the aircraft can't climb or descend.... 

This is sound about right for a trim stall. 

35 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

...never felt like it was moving realistically thru the atmosphere, with the little bumps and movements due to atmospheric airflow, etc.

 

..V-1 as an IRL A320 captain too...

Landings were always what spoiled it for me, esp if there was any type of wind / weather. 

Sure, you might have to put in some rudder for a crosswind, but you NEVER had to work hard to get one on the ground. 

IRL you can almost get a full body workout if you're on final on a gusty day.

--

You can add A320 Sim Pilot & Into the Blue Sims to the list of IRL A32x pilots who have rated the Fenix with gushing superlatives. 

 

") the planform wing of  a C172 being the base model for the geometry of a wing for any fixed wing aircraft"

I was reading thru the devs guide the other day and wing sweep is a parameter that can be set. 

Afaik, though, unconventional planforms like canards, deltas, and swing wing (variable geometry) aren't. 

19 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

This is sound about right for a trim stall. 

Try it, before stalling you will be running out of authority although the elevator is properly deflected, because the pitch trim in MFS, just as in FSX, is based on a stabilator instead of trim tab...

It's not bad for the modelling of most airliners, but not realistic for other fixed wing aircraft types.

This being said, I haven't yet tested the new ground physics tweaks, so I can't say if they're any good, but I did listen to the devs session about upcoming features, and OFC there's MSFS 2024 which I hope can bring a completely new base FM, more away from the dependencies the present one still has on the base FSX FM...

5 hours ago, jcomm said:

True, partially, at least until 2024 comes out - and I am really giving it the benefit of doubt, because, as you know, MFS is still pretty much FSX FM wise in such basic details as...

.) the planform wing of  a C172 being the base model for the geometry of a wing for any fixed wing aircraft...

.) stuff like pitch trim still working as in FSX - as if all aircraft had stabilators instead of like many GA (and not only) trim tabs in their elevators...

Try setting the trim full nose heavy or full tail heavy in the default C172, which even has all of the bells and whistles of the new "CFM" approach, and go flying....

Watch no matter how your elevator deflects (as seen from an outside view) you don't have enough pitch authority ... while you should because instead the neutral point should be the one moving....

Disagree mostly 🙂 ... for starters, to say that "MSFS is still pretty much FSX FM wise" is ummm... well, let's see what the real expert Matt Nischan says: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/641960-was-fsx-dumbed-down/?do=findComment&comment=5062072
"... the MSFS flight model is light years ahead of the FSX one" ... and before that when he explained in detail: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-4549236 (setting aside his comparison of MSFS's modern FM to XP's, to say that it is mostly similar to FSX is bordering on extreme naiveté hehe). And it's best to take stock of various well implemented aircraft out there both default and 3rd party to get a feel for what the MSFS FDE is capable of, rather than just the C172, though the C172 is a fairly good example for a default bird.. any quirks that remain in it (if they really do exist) are maybe due to it using CFD while still being held back by a more basic geometry definition, and/or MS/Asobo not fleshing out the C172 FM as deeply as they could. One default aircraft like it alone doesn't obviously and necessarily speak for the MSFS FDE's capabilities in total.

I do agree about the aircraft geometry definition being too basic in MSFS and that's one of the things being addressed in MSFS 2024 to allow more detailed geometry and surfaces definition by aircraft devs, something that will be important for CFD to really shine.

I'll have to try your specific scenarios above but I can easily say the C172 flies overall more realistically in MSFS than FSX, and apparently even more so now with the ground handling improvements (I'm holding out on the SU15 beta for now).
 

Edited February 20, 20242 yr by lwt1971

28 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Try it, before stalling you will be running out of authority although the elevator is properly deflected, because the pitch trim in MFS, just as in FSX, is based on a stabilator instead of trim tab...

 

But this is what it is! We have number of accidents with older 172  in particular "N" model which has 40 degrees flaps. While 40 flaps degrees are good for steep approach and short field landing it requires extra work during bulk landing. On the "go around" check list calls for full power, carb heat off and immediately taking flaps from 40 degrees to 30 degrees.  If this is not done promptly  there are two things can happen: extremely slow climb rate (if any) and an excessive pitch ! Pilot can easily runout of elevator authority and stall. You can imagine why all consequent 172 models were stripped of 40 degrees flaps.    

 

Use no flaps. Cruise just at the bottom of the Yellow arc. 

Set full nose heavy trim, then try to fly straight &  level... 

Even better... Set the Trim for straight and level and from the outside check the elevator deflection. Then set full nose heavy trim ... Try to fly straight and level using the same amount of elevator deflection and see if you can... You should be able... OFC 

2 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

with the little bumps and movements due to atmospheric airflow, etc

 

Not my experience at all.