Fenix A320 vs FsLabs

[WestAir 2,522]

11 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

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

True. And he's probably just getting back from the winter vacation seasons and getting used to his new environment. Hopefully he's given everything he needs to take the engine as far as it can go.

10 minutes ago, 320Driver said:

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

Exactly this. If we were to look at this from a wholly subjective point of view and compare features like the accuracy of the systems and FM simulation to published material, the FSLabs A320 would come out ahead.

If that's all you care about, absolutely go for the FSLabs Bus. If you care about literally anything else: Company communication, sim environment, graphics, price, future feature-set, accessibility, etc, the Fenix would score better on every metric.

I like to think that Fenix will soon surpass the FSLabs bus with regards to systems accuracy. The custom engine model, custom fonts, and bug fixes being logged on their discord paint a very real picture of Aamir's goal of having the best A320 simulation on any market. I think he can.

Edited January 8, 2023 by WestAir

[jcomm 5,939]

27 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 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.

I agree, and when I heard about Petrovich having moved to ASOBO I though a "revolution" could result, but then...

1) The Physics engine used by  1C / 777 in Rise of Flight and IL2 is very sophisticated, and surely differs from ASOBO/MS approach. I don't think Petrovich could start rewriting it from scratch.

2) I don't believe much in further enhancements to the main flight dynamics behind MFS, if not for other reasons, for continuity / compatibility issues they might carry. Just imagine the consequences of a significative FM update over the hundreds(?) of addon aircraft already released and purchased...

3) Mabe they're aiming for a new Combat Flight Simulator, and Petrovich is there to help them with that?

My memmory of a session in a full flight simulator ( CAE ) at TAP's tranning center, circa 2002, made me find that among all the A320s I tried in FSX, P3D, XP11 and 12, and AEFS, the closest feel (hand flying, in Normal Law) was the AEFS2 A320. I felt a very close to what I recall feel of inertia, response times even in commanded thrust when manually setting thrust (CFM engines). 2nd best was the Toliss in XP11.

Unfortunatelly silly turbulence effects plague both Xp12 and MFS these days, and while MFS gives a closer ro real world weather depiction / data, truth is both impact a lot in terms of overdone shear and turbulence effects on the feel of flight of any aircraft, including the Airbuses on both platforms.

Airlinetools is the most on-rails simulation of an A320 I ever used since Thalion A320 :-), but it's meant for procedural and dealing with failures trainning, and that it does really well...

A pitty we can never have it all in a single platform 😕

Edited January 8, 2023 by cagarini

[WestAir 2,522]

2 minutes ago, cagarini said:

3) Mabe they're aiming for a new Combat Simulator, and Petrovich is there to help them with that?

Petrovich stated he disliked working on combat sims, because of the death and destruction he's simulating, and has always wanted to work on the civilian aspects of aviation.

I also don't know how well a separate program would fare in such a market saturated by DCS, War Thunder, etc. Both those points made, I personally would gladly pay to support a Combat Update to MSFS. Not necessarily for the ability to blow things up, but rather I've always felt a sense of accomplishment when I complete a flight that has tangible risk, and a combat update would of course come with the ability to break your plane and create craters from what's left.

As it stands now, there's no risk of an airfoil jamming or separating from the airframe if you overspeed, no penalty for banging your nacelle on the runway during a botched de-crab. No consequence to anything, and it makes reaching the gate at my destination a little less note-worthy. A combat update would fix that, I think.

[SierraHotel 982]

11 hours ago, environmental_ice said:

FSL is better.

Nope, sorry mate, you're talking out of your ICE🤪😜

[320Driver 63]

1 hour ago, cagarini said:

My memmory of a session in a full flight simulator ( CAE ) at TAP's tranning center, circa 2002

that's a VERY old generation of LevelD Sims though. They have certainly developed a lot over the last two decades. Try a current generation LevelD Sim, it will give you a much better picture !

Edited January 8, 2023 by 320Driver

[ttbq1 347]

I think there was a thread already discussing this some time ago...

Anyway, my 2 cents after flying FSL in P3D for almost 4 years and Fenix also since release. Also, my best friend and also neighbor is a 320 captain and sometimes he had practiced before his sims training on my simulator using FSL and couple of weeks ago on FENIX because I already uninstalled P3D.

He told me after trying the MSFS for the first time that he was impressed with how the exterior looks and also he was impressed with the aircraft itself but he told me it was too sensible which I said maybe the joystick setup was not properly configured. we tried to adjust sensitivities but he still felt it a little bit off. now, he was practicing a low visibility approach in EGLL under CATII and he told me the system depth was perfectly fine.

At the end, he told me both FSL (previous sim) and Fenix (current sim) gave him what he needed to practice for his sim sessions and that both are really good recreation of the actual airplane, but he was really impressed with the sim itself and the graphics.

You can all make your own judgements.

 

 

[thepilot 579]

I think the screens (PFD especially) look much more realistic on the FSL, and the fonts are more accurate.

[320Driver 63]

1 hour ago, WestAir said:

I like to think that Fenix will soon surpass the FSLabs bus with regards to systems accuracy. The custom engine model, custom fonts, and bug fixes being logged on their discord paint a very real picture of Aamir's goal of having the best A320 simulation on any market. I think he can.

that is future talk. I can only judge what I have now. And you didn't mention flight model/A320 flight sensation/A320 feel my original post was all about. For me this has the highest priority, Flight comes first in a flight simulation :-).

However, looking at the future, also FSLabs is working on an MSFS version. Let's see what they come up with !

[WestAir 2,522]

52 minutes ago, 320Driver said:

that is future talk. I can only judge what I have now. And you didn't mention flight model/A320 flight sensation/A320 feel my original post was all about. For me this has the highest priority, Flight comes first in a flight simulation :-).

However, looking at the future, also FSLabs is working on an MSFS version. Let's see what they come up with !

I left out the flight model on purpose because a lot of it is in the hands of Asobo.

Until Asobo changes wheels from being point-particles with no surface area to having surface area with rotational forces, 3PD's can't model realistic wheels or wheel friction. The side-loading on wheels can never be properly simulated, nor the more intricate physics associated with a rotating wheel. Similarly, when you put in correct CL and AOA at each flap config, you can end up with wonky outputs that require you to "fudge" the numbers. The end result is that no matter how hard you try, you can't yet get 100% accurate book numbers in all stages of flight, altitude, speeds, and configurations. The Fenix gets about 0.3 degrees off in AoA at 175 knots with Flaps Full, for instance.

(Source: Angle of Attack versus Calibrated Air Speed on the Fenix in red compared with the Airbus Official Numbers in blue.)

I say this to say that from a FM standpoint, Fenix is handicapped by Asobo. It's really really close, and will been within the margin of realistic discrepancy between individual aircraft of the same type once the new engine model is released, but there are still situations where Fenix is not in control of the wheel. I don't know if FSLabs intends to make an external flight model like Majestic Sim did with the Q400, so I can't say for certain if they'll encounter the same roadblocks as Fenix SIm, PMDG, etc.

The engine also doesn't properly simulate things like icing, wind shear, wake turbulence, etc which are currently simulated (not well, but it is there) in P3D with ASN, and FSLabs has spent dev time customizing these to fit their product. Fenix, comparatively, recommends crash and icing settings in your sim be turned off.

Edited January 8, 2023 by WestAir

[Jazz 1,046]

1 hour ago, cagarini said:

since Thalion A320 🙂

I remember that on the Amiga 😆

I loved it 🤣

Edited January 8, 2023 by Jazz

[abrams_tank 7,425]

11 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.

Fenix had a head start in MSFS because they were using ProSim for their Fenix A320, so they didn't start at ground zero. But aside from ProSim, it seemed like Fenix moved mountains and developed quite fast, to come out with the Fenix A320 within 1.5 years of MSFS's release. 

As for FSLabs, aren't they known for their excessively slow pace of development?

I would be very surprised if FSLabs beat Fenix with the A319/A321 in MSFS, assuming FSLabs is planning to release the A320 in MSFS first (if FSLabs is targeting the A321 or A319 first in MSFS, rather than the A320, then this would be a different story).  More likely, I think Fenix will beat FSLabs with the A319/A321 in MSFS, and they will probably beat FSLabs by at least a year or two years (FSLabs hasn't even released their A320 for MSFS yet, they are far behind Fenix in MSFS at the moment).

Edited January 8, 2023 by abrams_tank

[Aamir 2,907]

5 hours ago, 320Driver said:

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.

 

"Feel" is always going to be quite interesting and subjective, I find. If it's one thing I've learned during the course of development, it's that pilot consultants will more or less often have completely different feedback from one to another. What is "perfect" for one, is "no, this doesn't feel right" to another. A lot of the times that comes down to control configurations, calibration, etc, but also interestingly, perception. We've built something that satisfies the majority of them in different areas, but I've certainly run into the case of completely opposite feedback more than once during the basic development of the aircraft. 

I also think it's slightly disrespectful to the media guys and pilot streamers to insinuate that they're saying the flight model feels great just because it brings them views. I'd offer an opinion to the contrary, I used to be in that industry after all, and controversy brings far more money and clicks overall. 

All said and done, I'm always happy for qualitative feedback from type-rated pilots, so if you have some points that you'd like me to look at in specific with regard to feel, drop me a DM with the details and I can have a look and see what can be done!

[Bigt 192]

44 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

 

As for FSLabs, aren't they known for their excessively slow pace of development?

 

Yes, this is my biggest issue with them. It's made worse by the fact that during these long development phases, they hardly communicate with the community about anything that is going on. It is a bit ridiculous, in my opinion.

[RALF9636 1,966]

16 hours ago, BWBriscoe said:

I'm currently a P3D user flying PMDG 777 and FsLabs A319/20/21.

I would very much like to make the transition to MSFS and wondered what the Fenix A320 is like compared to the FsLabs A320? Is it the same study level?

Thanks

Having used the FSL in P3D for years and now the Fenix in MSFS for half a year there is nothing I miss in the Fenix compared to the FSL except for a working TCAS with PSXT traffic (but as far as I know they are already working on this).

After all, the differences between the FSL and the Fenix are just nuances whereas the difference between P3D and MSFS is like night and day.

So unless you are a real life A320 pilot who focuses on scientific accuracy of systems and numbers and doesn't care for graphics and immersion, your decision should be easy.

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by RALF9636

[320Driver 63]

2 hours ago, Aamir said:

"Feel" is always going to be quite interesting and subjective, I find. If it's one thing I've learned during the course of development, it's that pilot consultants will more or less often have completely different feedback from one to another. What is "perfect" for one, is "no, this doesn't feel right" to another. A lot of the times that comes down to control configurations, calibration, etc, but also interestingly, perception. We've built something that satisfies the majority of them in different areas, but I've certainly run into the case of completely opposite feedback more than once during the basic development of the aircraft.

Absolutely right, controls are an important factor. I more than once came across flight model comments just to find out there is a plastic Saitek stick in use. I am using an OEM Sidestick for that matter.

I can't tell much else other than the feel and A320 flight sensation is simply not there for me. I didn't have the time to really get more into the reason. Immediately obvious is certainly the missing inertia, but that is not all.

Sorry, no intention to de disrespectful to streamers. It was just the sheer extend of things that got overseen by real pilots that made me think about some kind of, well, opportunism. Fortunately in the meantime that has changed to a more "down to earth" tone of certain things, e.g. the flight model shortcomings I noticed from the very beginning.

Thanks for the info to contact you directly. I'm afraid I might not find the time, but will try.

Edited January 8, 2023 by 320Driver