The OP’s « first » time experience ? Or was it somebody with the same alias saying the same thing two years ago in 

This time he added the « its a Xbox game » shtick as some added value ! 

You know what they say, if it walks and quacks like a duck chances are, its a duck 😂

Maybe I tried to run before I could walk. Thank you all for the feedback (and some do the criticism which I deserved!). However, I have a huge amount of experience in using complex airliners with AI traffic so thought I’d jump into MSFS and start from a position I was familiar with. 

Thanks for some of the advice. A couple of assists had been left on, so hopefully disable my these will make the Fenix A320 perform much closer to its realistic envelope. 
 

However, I am concerned about the disappearance of airports because MSFS can only create a certain number of airports. This makes flying with complex AI impossible surely?! Does anyone have a work around for this?

Thanks

27 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

The OP’s « first » time experience ? Or was it somebody with the same alias saying the same thing two years ago 

Yikes. 😬

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Adding an AI airliner environment pushes MSFS beyond a maximum number of objects limit?? Does that not strike anyone as something that needs to be addressed pretty quickly?

Depends on the AI. I can remember AIG being a real headache in P3D and I stayed away from it. Simple traffic and LIve Traffic, and zero problems. I would rather fly than fix. 

47 minutes ago, BWBriscoe said:

because MSFS can only create a certain number of airports. This makes flying with complex AI impossible surely?!

I just flew a perfect EBBR ESGG leg in the Fenix and both airports where there as expected 🙂. Plus the Fenix behaved very well down to an autoland in cross wind

Seriously, never heard of (or realized) that any airport was "not created", even for AI. Always flying Realtime Traffic (+ MP) and all fine

Edited January 9, 20233 yr by DAD
ESGG is the correct arrival

35 minutes ago, BWBriscoe said:

However, I am concerned about the disappearance of airports because MSFS can only create a certain number of airports. This makes flying with complex AI impossible surely?! Does anyone have a work around for this?

I suppose mileage may vary, but since this issue has been introduced I have encountered it only twice, and that was shortly after MSFS SU10 was released. I am using FSLTL (default settings) for AI traffic, GSX which replaces jetways and ground vehicles. I can fly to/from Aerosoft EBBR (which adds a lot of objects including passengers in terminals) without problem. It's certainly an issue that must be resolved by Asobo, but on my end, at least, it occurs only very rarily.

41 minutes ago, BWBriscoe said:

Maybe I tried to run before I could walk. Thank you all for the feedback (and some do the criticism which I deserved!). However, I have a huge amount of experience in using complex airliners with AI traffic so thought I’d jump into MSFS and start from a position I was familiar with. 

Thanks for some of the advice. A couple of assists had been left on, so hopefully disable my these will make the Fenix A320 perform much closer to its realistic envelope. 
 

However, I am concerned about the disappearance of airports because MSFS can only create a certain number of airports. This makes flying with complex AI impossible surely?! Does anyone have a work around for this?

Thanks

Assists generally ruins the performance of flying with MSFS. I have all of mine turned off. What do you mean by Disappearing airports?

 

43 minutes ago, BWBriscoe said:

However, I am concerned about the disappearance of airports because MSFS can only create a certain number of airports. This makes flying with complex AI impossible surely?! Does anyone have a work around for this?

 

Of course there is no limit in the number of airports. This is wrong or at least unprecise information. I use FSLTL and it works like a charm - every airport installed shows up, of course.

More concerning is the pattern of MSFS dismissing posts (as shown by Dominique_K) where you throw in stuff like "awful", "just a game", "terrible flight model" without any further explanation etc. Why not trying to solve configuration problems, misconceptions on your side and bad configuration like leaving assists at "on" and then blaming the allegedly terrible Fenix A320 flight model or Autopilot instead of asking for help?

As others in this thread have said, I moved from P3D to MSFS in May and there is no way I would go back to P3D now. Think I would rather just stop using a sim altogether. 
 

OP - do things gradually. When I moved I just used the FBWA320 and 1 or 2 sceneries to get familiar with everything. Then I started introducing traffic models, FS2Crew etc. Personally I think the camera system is great and saves having to purchase and use a third party program although I know not everyone is a fan of it

20 minutes ago, mrlip said:

As others in this thread have said, I moved from P3D to MSFS in May and there is no way I would go back to P3D now. Think I would rather just stop using a sim altogether. 
 

OP - do things gradually. When I moved I just used the FBWA320 and 1 or 2 sceneries to get familiar with everything. Then I started introducing traffic models, FS2Crew etc. Personally I think the camera system is great and saves having to purchase and use a third party program although I know not everyone is a fan of it

its all good and well parallel 42 bring out the fancy " FLO" ( which I bought lol ) we need chase plane in this sim , there's nothing like it , it was simply the best for P3D IMO !

I have always found some growing pains with new sims, but they don't bother me much because of my outlook. One thing that I have learned throughout my flying career is that people DO NOT like change. It's a real thing and has produced the name "change management". The USAF had some good, but corny concepts for introducing change🤣. I ran the flight standards office and decided how we would introduce change into our flying operations. There was constant change and there was a delicate dance to keep the masses from rising up with torches and pitch forks. I believe in purposeful change and found it imperative to ensure that those involved/impacted fully understood the need for the change. Once people understand the need for the change, they quickly realize that the need out weighs their complaints. I also was a resistor to change for the sake of change. If it didn't improve processes or save more than 15 minutes of time, it's not worth the overhead. I had no problem standing on the boss's desk and fighting those type of changes.

Now as I jump down from the soap box, you may wonder "what does this have to do with flightsim". Well, each sim'r is both the change facilitator and the impacted. As I have told many people, you either embrace change and work it in as best you can or crash through it with a crash and burn painful process. We can sit and complain through it or we can front lead and come up with the change process. You can choose to stay put in your current state and fall behind or facilitate change and take advantage of the future. 

Back in flight standards, I attended meetings and analyzed changes so that I could prepare and give good feedback on how best to bring those changes in. I was able to get in the process and actually make the change easier to implement. I reached out to other bases that had transitioned before me to get lessons learned. In the sim world we have to do the same. Hit up the forums, message strangers and find out the pros and cons. Find out the hills that you need to take in order to smooth out the transition. In the end, MSFS has been great and amazing. I have had a smooth transition because of my change process. The only pain point is waiting on developers and Asobo to roll through development. There is forward movement, but it's slow and steady. 

 

Look at it this way. If you had invested thousands of dollars into a platform (or 2) and come to the realization that most of the industry focus had moved to something else, you might have mixed feelings about moving over. And thus, you might be expecting the new platform to at least equal what you are leaving. So i get it to some degree. But as others have said, go slow. Throwing AIG on day one isn’t the best approach, as that entire exercise imo is terrible. Worst user experience in all of MSFS, and it really goes against the ethos of MSFS. FSLTL is where you need to look imo. In any case stick with it (or don’t). Choice is yours. 

I agree, it's a PITA to set up first. UI is horrible, and controllers are not easy or intuitive to set up, and the view system is horrible, but you do get used to it eventually. 

16 minutes ago, Jude Bradley said:

I agree, it's a PITA to set up first. UI is horrible, and controllers are not easy or intuitive to set up, and the view system is horrible, but you do get used to it eventually. 

Took me a day or two to set everything up. And I didn't have to buy AS 16, EZdok,UT Live, Orbx everywhere I could fly with decent scenery at $50 a pop for regions, etc. etc. 

I went through the same process a couple of months ago, triggered by the release of the MSFS PMDG 737.  I did (and to an extent still do) find it a bit alien but I haven't used P3D once since and the time isn't far away when I un-install it.

If you want to fly at study level, there is a fair bit to do to back out all the MSFS stuff you don't want.  If you search, there's a fair bit of help on specific issues out there, although why people insist on doing a YouTube video when three lines of text would cover it I don't know. 

While PMDG got to the 737-800 release, I bought the Fenix A320.  There's a good example of small conflicts between the addon and the default MSFS : Fenix have set up key bindings to move the throttles directly between the various pre-set positions: Idle, TOGA, Cllimb etc.  They use F2 and F3 which are also the default key bindings for small movements of the throttle in MSFS.  You have to make a bespoke Fenix keyboard configuration to eliminate the conflict.

You mentioned the Fenix autopilot disconnecting in flight and that you use AIG.  There's a long list of deficiencies in the way MSFS handles AI traffic which AIG say prevent their package working as well as it did in P3D.  Those are listed on the start screen.  Will they be fixed?  To date, MSFS have certainly resolutely refused to modify its weather engine to allow weather radar to work properly so that's not a good sign.  What I have found is that AIG doesn't seem to like you hopping in and out of the sim.  If you start it, take-off and land all in one sitting, it usually stays running but it seems not to like you popping out to look at the sports scores or whatever.

I have several times left the A320 running and come back to find the autopilot disconnected.  I have observed that one reason it does that is because you've come too close to AI traffic and not taken evasive action.  In P3D, traffic conflicts were quite rare but there are more in MSFS because it doesn't let AI traffic fly fast enough. Is it some confusion about airspeed and ground speed at airline altitudes?  Since a lot of AIG traffic follows the same airways you're using, you too often overtake aircraft going in the same direction.  Obviously that doesn't happen in real life since airspeed differentials are small and it didn't happen in P3D.

Lastly, having used the Fenix A320 for several months, I've recently started using the PMDG 737-800.  Firstly, you do need to set your control sensitivities for the A320, otherwise it does an impression of an F16.  Even having done that, I found it very hard to make half decent landings or indeed any landing at all, either by hand or on autoland.  PMDG have received a lot of stick for delays in providing an EFB and other bits & bobs.  What they do claim is that wind shifts in MSFS are totally unrealistic, especially near the ground  and that they've spent a lot of time fin-tuning their flight model to manage this.  Whilst the Fenix is prettier in the cockpit in my opinion and the EFB and system modelling is great, the PMDG 737 is much less erratic in the landing phase and also a bit lighter on frame rates.

There are obstacles to be overcome in moving to MSFS.  Some of those are inherent in the sim but most are just the learning curve you'd get in any such transition.  It looks a lot, lot better than P3D, particularly in the level of terrain detail available at an acceptable framerate and clouds.. none of those garish colours or griddle patterns.  I'd persevere if I was you.