18 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.

DCS F-14 (& C-101) would probably want a word as well...

Just now, Krakin said:

@WestAir So you're saying the FSLabs version gets all odf those things right?

Some. FSLabs also has proper fuel burns, proper decals / fonts / alignments, a few more accuracies in some of the systems, and a few more bells and whistles like St. Elmo's fire, proper icing simulation, blown tires and brake degradation.

In a few patches, though, the list of things FSLabs does that the Fenix does not will get smaller and smaller. If someone were to ask which product to buy, my recommendation would be the Fenix. They're just a better investment.

Bottom line, of the two, only the Fenix is on MSFS.  I won't fly any other sim except MSFS...

4 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Some. FSLabs also has proper fuel burns, proper decals / fonts / alignments, a few more accuracies in some of the systems, and a few more bells and whistles like St. Elmo's fire, proper icing simulation, blown tires and brake degradation.

In a few patches, though, the list of things FSLabs does that the Fenix does not will get smaller and smaller. If someone were to ask which product to buy, my recommendation would be the Fenix. They're just a better investment.

Ok because going by what I asked, that long list is a bit misleading. We're also not considering what the Fenix gets right that the FSLabs does not so I still have no idea how things really stack up.

2 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Bottom line, of the two, only the Fenix is on MSFS.  I won't fly any other sim except MSFS...

And at the end of the day, the Fenix and the FSL A320 are both the best recreation of the airliner on their respective flight sim platforms.

The only usefulness this topic can generate is a list of features that one add-on contains vs the the other does not, thereby adding to a customer wishlist for future updates, rather than arguing over which is better. At that point, I think we should probably also discuss the Flight Factor and ToLiss airliners for feature list comparisons to enrich our A320 add-on of choice.

1 minute ago, F737MAX said:

And at the end of the day, the Fenix and the FSL A320 are both the best recreation of the airliner on their respective flight sim platforms.

The only usefulness this topic can generate is a list of features that one add-on contains vs the the other does not, thereby adding to a customer wishlist for future updates, rather than arguing over which is better. At that point, I think we should probably also discuss the Flight Factor and ToLiss airliners for feature list comparisons to enrich our A320 add-on of choice.

And don't forget CAE if you have a spare $25 million laying around. 

8 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Ok because going by what I asked, that long list is a bit misleading. We're also not considering what the Fenix gets right that the FSLabs does not so I still have no idea how things really stack up.

A super fair point. I think the reason you haven't seen this answered directly is because it's simply impossible to format. The aircraft is really complex, with a lot of systems, and all of those systems interact with other systems. A dedicated person with both sims and no full time job could spend a few days going through every single button and sensor and light for both aircraft and compare all the functionality in all the different stages of flight and configurations and modes, and then do that again and again with different components inoperative or faulty.

But just formatting that and posting it would exceed the post count of an entire page.

And so the much easier, and perhaps fairer way to compare the two is just the way that pilots and engineers have done: A quick "FSLabs has better systems accuracy, but probably not for long" snippet. The citation needed to back that up just isn't feasible.

But I understand your frustration. It seems like a cop out, and it is.

36 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

DCS F-14 (& C-101) would probably want a word as well...

You could also add

DCS A-10CII, F/A-18C

to name just 2,

Both make the FSL/Fenix as hard to learn as a 172

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by Nyxx

3 hours ago, Iadbound said:

For those want to know what failures are in the FSLabs A320, I typed out this list taken directly from the Failures menu in the MCDU:

FSLABS A320 FAILURE LIST TAKEN FROM A320-232 (IAE)
1.    ATA 21    FUSELAGE LEAKAGE
2.    ATA 21    OUTFLOW VALVE
3.    ATA 22    FCU FAULT 1
4.    ATA 22    FCU FAULT 2
5.    ATA 24    AC BUS 1 FAULT
6.    ATA 24    AC BUS 2 FAULT
7.    ATA 24    DC BUS 1 FAULT
8.    ATA 24    DC BUS 2 FAULT
9.    ATA 24    DC BUS ESS FAULT
10.  ATA 24    GEN 1 FAULT
11.  ATA 24    GEN 2 FAULT
12.  ATA 24    TR 1 FAULT
13.  ATA 24    TR 2 FAULT
14.  ATA 24    TR ESS FAULT
15.  ATA 26    CARGO SMOKE AFT
16.  ATA 26    CARGO SMOKE FWD
17.  ATA 27    FLAPS LOCKED
18.  ATA 27    SLATS LOCKED
19.  ATA 28    TANK LEAK CENTER
20.  ATA 28    TANK LEAK L INNER
21.  ATA 28     TANK LEAK L OUTER
22.  ATA 28    TANK LEAK R INNER
23.  ATA 28    TANK LEAK R OUTER
24.  ATA 29    ELEC PUMP FLT B
25.  ATA 29    ELEC PUMP FLT Y
26.  ATA 29    ENG PUMP LO PR G
27.  ATA 29    ENG PUMP LO PR Y
28.  ATA 29    PTU FAULT
29.  ATA 29    RSVR LEAK B
30.  ATA 29    RSVR LEAK G
31.  ATA 29    RSVR LEAK Y
32.  ATA 29    RSVR LO PR B
33.  ATA 29    RSVR LO PR G
34.  ATA 29    RSVR LO PR Y
35.  ATA 29    RSVR LO QTY B
36.  ATA 29    RSVR LO QTY G
37.  ATA 29    RSVR LO QTY Y
38.  ATA 31    DMC 1 FAULT
39.  ATA 31    DMC 2 FAULT
40.  ATA 31    DMC 3 FAULT
41.  ATA 31    DU FAULT 1 PFD CAPT
42.  ATA 31    DU FAULT 2 ND CAPT
43.  ATA 31    DU FAULT 3 UP ECAM
44.  ATA 31    DU FAULT 4 LR ECAM
45.  ATA 31    DU FAULT 5 ND FO
46.  ATA 31    DU FAULT 6 PFD FO
47.  ATA 32    L/G DOOR NOT CLOSED - L
48.  ATA 32    L/G DOOR NOT CLOSED - N
49.  ATA 32    L/G DOOR NOT CLOSED - R
50.  ATA 34    ADR 1 FAULT
51.  ATA 34    ADR 2 FAULT
52.  ATA 34    ADR 3 FAULT
53.  ATA 34    ERRONEOUS RA
54.  ATA 34    GPWS FAULT
55.  ATA 34    IR 1 FAULT
56.  ATA 34    IR 2 FAULT
57.  ATA 34    IR 3 FAULT
58.  ATA 34    RA 1 FAULT
59.  ATA 34    RA 2 FAULT
60.  ATA 36    ENG 1 SAV FAIL OPEN
61.  ATA 36    ENG 2 SAV FAIL OPEN
62.  ATA 49    APU FAULT
63.  ATA 49    APU FIRE
64.  ATA 49    APU FLAP FAULT
65.  ATA 70    ENG 1 BIRD STRIKE
66.  ATA 70    ENG 1 FAIL (DAMAGE)
67.  ATA 70    ENG 1 FAIL (NO DAMAGE)
68.  ATA 70    ENG 1 FIRE
69.  ATA 70    ENG 1 IGN A
70.  ATA 70    ENG 1 IGN B
71.  ATA 70    ENG 1 SURGE
72.  ATA 70    ENG 2 BIRD STRIKE
73.  ATA 70    ENG 2 FAIL (DAMAGE)
74.  ATA 70    ENG 2 FAIL (NO DAMAGE)
75.  ATA 70    ENG 2 FIRE
76.  ATA 70    ENG 2 IGN A
77.  ATA 70    ENG 2 IGN B
78.  ATA 70    ENG 2 SURGE
79.  ATA 70    ENG 1 P2T2 SENSOR
80.  ATA 70    ENG 2 P2T2 SENSOR
 

Enjoy.

Thanks! 

80 failures is good, but it’s about 1/3 of Fenix A320 failures. For failures, I think the Fenix A320 is the clear winner, IMO.

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by abrams_tank

I said it already a couple of times and I'll say it again: What really shows the depth of systems is how multiple failures interact one with another. Fenix, thanks to ProSim, does this very well. FSL and PMDG do not for the most part, because of some boolean systems (boolean = system/failure etc. can only be ON or OFF, not in between).
Granted you'll never notice this in the normal use of those addons.

1 hour ago, WestAir said:

Some. FSLabs also has proper fuel burns, proper decals / fonts / alignments, a few more accuracies in some of the systems, and a few more bells and whistles like St. Elmo's fire, proper icing simulation, blown tires and brake degradation.

In a few patches, though, the list of things FSLabs does that the Fenix does not will get smaller and smaller. If someone were to ask which product to buy, my recommendation would be the Fenix. They're just a better investment.

Some of the things you are describing is sim limitation though.

47 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

Some of the things you are describing is sim limitation though.

They are, but the OP asked for differences he could expect if he were to transition to MSFS.

It's a little tough to compare at the moment because the FNX is still up against some sim limitations and hasn't had all the QOL goodies implemented that the FSL has right now.  It kind of comes down to what you need or want.

What FNX does seem to have; is a faster pace of development and developing for 1 platform.  They also have better navigation capabilities.  The QOL stuff (better GSX integration, sharkies, IEAs, etc., will most likely come in short order as well as any sim limitations that get fixed by ASOBO (which again, also, has a much faster development pace).

For me, the FNX seems to be the better option.

I hope FSL can make to MSFS, but it sure seems quite a ways off.

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by Jeff Nielsen

8 minutes ago, WestAir said:

They are, but the OP asked for differences he could expect if he were to transition to MSFS.

I get that but from what I was reading you maybe could have referenced what Fenix are doing what are the sim limitations.

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

I said it already a couple of times and I'll say it again: What really shows the depth of systems is how multiple failures interact one with another. Fenix, thanks to ProSim, does this very well. FSL and PMDG do not for the most part, because of some boolean systems (boolean = system/failure etc. can only be ON or OFF, not in between).
Granted you'll never notice this in the normal use of those addons.

So with the FSL A320, multiple failures isn’t simulated very well and the failures don’t interact very well with each other? If that is true, that is a huge weakness of the FSL A320, compared to the Fenix A320.

 

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by abrams_tank