23 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

Why is better? 

Certain small details in FSL are more "accurate" than Fenix. There's the obvious point that FSL has both IAE and CFM engines in the base package, and they offer the 319, 321 and SL variants. There is also the problem with the engine's burn performance but in fairness, they have addressed the issue as being an issue with MSFS and are working to get a custom engine model in place.

I've heard from real pilots that the Fenix's climb profile is out of whack, it can nose up 15 degrees with one engine only which is not realistic, but again it's probably due to that inaccurate engine model that they're already working on. 

Another thing is the old ADIRS panel on the overhead, which the Fenix has. In the real world, the older IRUs cannot do RNP AR approaches or fly RF legs. For some reason though, the Fenix is able to do both perfectly fine. The newer ADIRS panel you see in the ToLiss A321 NEO or FSLabs is more accurate of a depiction to the real aircraft as of recently. It's an easy fix though, since they just need to change that panel's 3d model to the newer ADIRS panel to properly reflect the version of IRUs they're simulating.

There's still value in Fenix, but it's still not yet "better" than FSLabs at this very moment. Of course, if you value visuals more, then there isn't any reason to choose ToLiss or FSLabs at all. 

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by arwasairl

2 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

Lack of weather radar and working TCAS. The former is the MSFS's limitation as PMDG has the same "issue". 

There is working TCAS on the Fenix. You probably mean it's not working with that PSXT tool or whatever it is called, but it works perfectly on native MSFS traffic, AIG, FSLTL and - most importantly - Vatsi.

2 hours ago, RichieFly said:

I think if you enjoy Vatsim activities, the FSL has features not present in the Fenix and you'd miss those moving to the Fenix.

What features should that be? I extensively flew the FSL and Fenix on Vatsim and I cannot think of any feature the FSL has that the Fenix doesn't. I absolutely miss nothing from FSL on Vatsim with the Fenix (except of course the unreliable fuel prediction for now, but that's not really a missing "feature"). Actually the Fenix has a feature - remotely important for Vatsim - which the FSL has not: constant mach. EDIT: Oh and step alts!

EDIT2: I'll say it clear: The Fenix is THE Vatsim plane. It has everything you need. The only other airplane that also offers the complete Vatsim package is the Maddog since the latest update (CPDLC and stuff).

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by Fiorentoni

39 minutes ago, shamrockflyer said:

If FSL started developing an A320 for MSFS then they'd just be wasting their time and money on doing so.

I disagree. It will be years before Fenix fills out the 320 series (IAEs, 319/321, Sharklets). If FSL offers more variants, they have a foothold in the market.

FSLabs is better, but MSFS is just a much richer experience IMO. Fenix generally fine, performance is heavy and VNAV still a little buggy. But I'm hopeful of fixes.

19 minutes ago, Chapstick said:

I disagree. It will be years before Fenix fills out the 320 series (IAEs, 319/321, Sharklets). If FSL offers more variants, they have a foothold in the market.

Considering FSL's times, Fenix has a very solid chance to fill out the 320 series before FSL releases its first MSFS aircraft. 

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

Considering FSL's times, Fenix has a very solid chance to fill out the 320 series before FSL releases its first MSFS aircraft. 

I remember waiting so long for SL models. I still can’t believe it took them that long to release it. I never even got to fly it 

18 minutes ago, environmental_ice said:

I remember waiting so long for SL models. I still can’t believe it took them that long to release it. I never even got to fly it 

Let’s see how long it takes them to bring the Neo to the P3d market. With that, the Concorde, and the A330 all in development for P3d, I’d imagine it will be a while before they enter the msfs market.

You're going to be shocked at the general MSFS environment and perormance, if haven't tried before.  As others have said, currently probably no study level aircraft quite at P3D FSL level, but.......for the slight compromises with Fenix, FBW, etc you have a much more realistic airport environment and ground + sky textures environment and noticeably faster frame rates.

At risk of starting a PC/Mac war, also consider PMDG 737 - quite an amazaing and solid implementation now in MSFS.

2 hours ago, arwasairl said:

Certain small details in FSL are more "accurate" than Fenix. There's the obvious point that FSL has both IAE and CFM engines in the base package, and they offer the 319, 321 and SL variants. There is also the problem with the engine's burn performance but in fairness, they have addressed the issue as being an issue with MSFS and are working to get a custom engine model in place.

I've heard from real pilots that the Fenix's climb profile is out of whack, it can nose up 15 degrees with one engine only which is not realistic, but again it's probably due to that inaccurate engine model that they're already working on. 

Another thing is the old ADIRS panel on the overhead, which the Fenix has. In the real world, the older IRUs cannot do RNP AR approaches or fly RF legs. For some reason though, the Fenix is able to do both perfectly fine. The newer ADIRS panel you see in the ToLiss A321 NEO or FSLabs is more accurate of a depiction to the real aircraft as of recently. It's an easy fix though, since they just need to change that panel's 3d model to the newer ADIRS panel to properly reflect the version of IRUs they're simulating.

There's still value in Fenix, but it's still not yet "better" than FSLabs at this very moment. Of course, if you value visuals more, then there isn't any reason to choose ToLiss or FSLabs at all. 

Fenix is releasing IAE in the base pack along with Sharklets don't forget

The Fenix doesn't support some external hardware that FSLabs does, such as Skalarki. So, if you have an advanced hardware set-up, you should do some research in this area.

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by Matt Webb

2 hours ago, Chapstick said:

I disagree. It will be years before Fenix fills out the 320 series (IAEs, 319/321, Sharklets). If FSL offers more variants, they have a foothold in the market.

It may not even be years no one knows what they are working on behind the scenes maybe we might get full 320 set this year or even a heavy.

3 hours ago, Chapstick said:

I disagree. It will be years before Fenix fills out the 320 series (IAEs, 319/321, Sharklets). If FSL offers more variants, they have a foothold in the market.

 I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen. 

As others have said, I'd say the FSL are better aircraft but the Fenix is very very good. Beyond that, the immersion you get from the visuals alone in MSFS makes it all worthwhile and I find it impossible going back to P3D. OP, you'll enjoy the Fenix and this new platform.

7 hours ago, sonny147 said:

the Fenix is really good , but not yet at FSL standard , but getting there . the GSX integration with the Fenix is in the early stages . FSL A3XXX is the greatest study level aircraft there as ever been in flight simulation in my opinion 😎 

Again, this is debatable.  I have been asking for a list of the FSLab A320 failures for some time now (asking here at Avsim, asking elsewhere too), and I have not seen a list from FSLabs, of all the failures they simulate for their A320.

On the other hand, Fenix has published their failures list before and there are over 200 failures simulated by the Fenix A320: https://fenixsim.com/public/images/failurelist-v0.2.pdf..  Mind you, this failure list was published in 2021, so there may even be more failures simulated since the release of the Fenix A320.

For people that demand "study level" airliners, if FSLabs is simulating less failures than Fenix A320, that does not make the FSLabs more study level than the Fenix A320.

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by abrams_tank