5 hours ago, jbdbow1970 said:

Folks using the Challenger 650 in X-Plane would beg to differ. I don't know as I don't own either. Fenix and the PMDG 736 are the best bang for your buck these days.

I was going to mention this too. I am not a fan of XP (although I was originally very interested in XP 12's pre-release, but when XP 12 was officially released, my interest evaporated instantly).  But saying the FSL A320 is the greatest study level plane, even better than the Hot Start Challenger, that's debatable in itself 🤣.

Just now, abrams_tank said:

I was going to mention this too. I am not a fan of XP (although I was originally very interested in XP 12's pre-release, but when XP 12 was officially released, my interest evaporated instantly).  But saying the FSL A320 is the greatest study level plane, even better than the Hot Start Challenger, that's debatable in itself 🤣.

i cant speak about XP never owned it , and its a debate that we are having aren't we 😃

13 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

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.

Could it be argued that there is more to an immersive/best/etc aircraft than simply the list of failures? Personally, I think so. That said, I would like to see a comparable list as you mentioned. I think that would be interesting. In the end, both are very good and OP should not hesitate to get the Fenix.

4 minutes ago, Bigt said:

Could it be argued that there is more to an immersive/best/etc aircraft than simply the list of failures? Personally, I think so. That said, I would like to see a comparable list as you mentioned. I think that would be interesting. In the end, both are very good and OP should not hesitate to get the Fenix.

Yes, I would like to see a list of all the failures of the FSLabs A320 too! I keep asking for it, nobody has provided it.

Until then, it's reasonable to assume that Fenix is simulating more failures than the FSLabs A320. I know everyone has a different definition of "study level." For my definition of "study level," if I am to call a specific plane the "greatest study level aircraft ever," that plane should at least be simulating more failures than the competition, IMO.

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by abrams_tank

5 hours ago, arwasairl said:

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. 

Yep true, if not mistaken, the issue is related to the engine stuff issue that they are working on currently 

8 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 😎 

Hey guys just my opinion , I fly the Fenix 99% of the time now and love it , its all good right ?. just saying for overall immersion and integration the FSL is going to be very difficult to beat and I really hope Fenix do that for this sim 

Interesting people talk about failures when there is a much more important difference. The sensation and feel of flying an A320 is simply not there in the Fenix A320. It more feels like a 737 with Autotrim than an A320. Also the missing inertia ruins it. I don't really care if Asobo or Fenix is to blame for this, the end result is what counts.

Now, no doubt the FSLabs in P3D isn't perfect either, it feels a bit too much on rails. But overall it is a world of difference to the Fenix experience !

Don't believe me ? Even if that is still no replacement for the real plane, book an hour in a Full Flight Simulator. You willl immediately notice what I am talking about.

There are many other essential things to look at, e.g. the pitch/thrust relations, which FSL got very close, but Fenix didn't.

I am well aware, FSL is working much longer on the A320 than Fenix. But I guess the original poster was looking for a comparison right now. The Fenix A320 is not even close to the FSL A320 in its current state.

I can imagine what is coming my way now : "BUT real world pilots X and Y have said in their videos and streams Fenix is better "

Try to look behind the influencer business these days. Do you think real world pilots do this streams just for fun or because they have too much spare time ? No, they generate income with it. How ? By getting and keeping subscribers. And how do you do that if so many have moved to MSFS ? Simple. By telling users what they want to hear.

One of the more important guys out there even almost lost his credibility by moving too much in Fenix direction. Fortunately he got the curve now and admits the Fenix flaws.

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by 320Driver

14 minutes ago, 320Driver said:

Don't believe me ? Even if that is still no replacement for the real plane, book an hour in a Full Flight Simulator

How do you know the full flight simulator is 100% correct either? Unless you are a real life A320 pilot? 

1 hour ago, omarsmak30 said:

How do you know the full flight simulator is 100% correct either? Unless you are a real life A320 pilot? 

That's easy... No simulator is a 100% match to the experience of flying a real aircraft, because it isn't an aircraft.  So, we all know that the full flight simulator is NOT 100% correct.

But he wasn't saying that it was, the way I read his comment.  He was just saying that a full flight sim (I assume we're talking about level D sims), while still not perfect, is of course much more accurate than any desktop sim ever can be.  So, comparing the performance in the desktop sim to the actual sim will be demonstrative.

I PREFER MSFS over P3D5 because it quite simply has a much more realistic depiction of the holistic environment (although it has quirks and issues in a number of cases however I did use the word holistic).

I PREFER the FSL holistically as it is a more complete simulation of the A320 series.

However, I fly almost exclusively in MSFS with the Fenix A320 as holistically (there is that word again) it is an overall better experience if you want to get the best environment possible with the best airplane possible.

If you want the best airplane regardless of environment then that is FSL in P3D5.

If you want the best overall experience then Fenix in MSFS.

Lastly from a consumer engagement point of view, Fenix talks to you, and engages with you, so you are a happier customer even though it currently does not have IAE or SL.

I have never understood the FSL community engagement strategy to the extent it exists.

Thus in summary whilst specifically FSL is a better product, Fenix is a better partner in a better environment and looking at my logs, I  last flew FSL in P3D5 on 22OCT22 and I have done almost 70hrs of flying with Fenix in MSFS since, except tonight where I am doing a FSL A321 flight in P3D5 because I wanted to fly a very specific flight in very specific (A321 SL) airframe.

11 minutes ago, mwa05 said:

I have never understood the FSL community engagement strategy to the extent it exists.

Well FSL is an arrogant developer which explains their attitude towards their community. Meanwhile, Fenix is super approachable and humble, for me that is the best attitude of developers that I wish to have, even if their product "is not the best", I am fine with that as long I know my voice is heard by them. Unlike FSL, like having deaf ears.  

I think I'll have to wait a little longer for an Airbus in IL-2 Great Battles 😕

For serious Airbus 320 trainning, if I was preparing for RL TR or already seating right seat I would go Airlinetools A32x.

Someone in this thread mentioned the "holistc environment" in MFS, and that's indeed what makes MFS a true success, even if I struggle to accept the fact that I really don't like the way it models flight in most of the aircraft models I use, and actually prefer XP for that, and even more IL-2 Great Battles or DCS for an even better overall aerodynamics and physics simulation.

 

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by cagarini

21 minutes ago, cagarini said:

I think I'll have to wait a little longer for an Airbus in IL-2 Great Battles 😕

For serious Airbus 320 trainning, if I was preparing for RL TR or already seating right seat I would go Airlinetools A32x.

Someone in this thread mentioned the "holistc environment" in MFS, and that's indeed what makes MFS a true success, even if I struggle to accept the fact that I really don't like the way it models flight in most of the aircraft models I use, and actually prefer XP for that, and even more IL-2 Great Battles or DCS for an even better overall aerodynamics and physics simulation.

 

The MSFS flight model is extremely powerful, but the parts of the model that are cartoonishly inaccurate just so happen to be the phases of flight where the flight model is most important. It's a weird situation because MSFS has the lead flight model developer from IL-2 Great Battles working on MSFS flight models.

This may just be a "We're taking our time to get it right" situation, especially considering the size and experience of their physics team, but the fact that there aren't yet patches for the easily tweakable inaccuracies, despite the size and experience of said team, is equally concerning.

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by WestAir

3 minutes ago, WestAir said:

The MSFS flight model is extremely powerful, but the parts of the model that are cartoonishly inaccurate just so happen to be the phases where the flight model is most important. It's a weird situation because MSFS has the lead flight model developer from IL-2 Great Battles working on MSFS flight models.

This may just be a "We're taking our time to get it right" situation, especially considering the size and experience of their physics team, but the fact that there aren't yet patches for the easily tweakable inaccuracies, despite the size and experience of said team, is equally concerning.

From what I‘ve head that IL-2 developer has only recently moved over to Asobo.

39 minutes ago, mwa05 said:

I PREFER the FSL holistically as it is a more complete simulation of the A320 series.

it's exactly that what I understand the thread title is all about. It is not about environment or developers attitude.

I very much understand though some prefer the overall environment regardless of the airplane itself. There are many ways to approach a sim or sim addon and all are valid. At the end of the day what you enjoy most is what counts most !

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by 320Driver