Before the thread ends, I'll add my 2 cents about the state of the PMDG 737...

I own both this and the Fenix A320, but for the past few months I've been focused almost entirely on GA aircraft. I revisited both of them after Christmas and was disappointed to see that I'm getting seemingly worse performance with the Fenix A320 (after the latest round of SUs). So much so that I've decided not to fly it into/out of large cities/airports for now. But at the same time, the PMDG 737 performance has improved in line with the rest of my smaller GA fleet after SU10 and 11.

Not only that, but not having flown the plane for a long time, I can see a bunch of smaller improvements that have been added. The whole cockpit environment appears to have had an upgrade with low-grade textures improved, added extras such as the sun blinds, and animation improvements across the board. The wing flex is much more realistic now, and there's improved texturing and modelling on cabin windows (including that little hole for ventilation we first saw in the default A32N). I could be wrong, but I think there have also been some big improvements to the modelling and movement of the ailerons and flaps.

It seems to me that PMDG have (silently) noted that the playing field has changed, and that Asobo, Fenix and other players have raised the standards on the new platform and as a result the expectations of their customers, and are now rolling out tons of smaller fixes to improve was what already a good aircraft and raising it to the levels of a great aircraft in the context of this new platform as well.

I won't argue with anyone on the issues surrounding the EFB — I don't know what issues they're facing, and I can believe it's because they're trying to do things the hard way to carry over as much of their existing codebase as they can — and I have said before how I don't appreciate Robert's tone and passive-aggressive blaming of issues on other players, but I'm happy to give credit where it's due. And the 737-700 (the only variant I can speak to) is definitely in a different place now to where it was at release.

12 hours ago, nrunning24 said:

When PMDG first announced their "early access" style release people blasted it saying they would never update it, wouldn't meet the schedule, were frauds etc. etc. etc.  Same time Fenix released a A320 CFM promising IAE and Sharklets to come, included in the price.

Since then PMDG has released ~10 updates, LNAV enhancement.  released the favored -800, a dang cheap -600 and soon to come -900.  FENIX has released 2 updates, no IAE or Sharklets and honestly no ETA for when they will ever appear, let alone finishing the series with A319 and A321.

Yet PMDG seems to still be getting all the flack here still.  Go back and read some of those threads from a year ago.... The only thing they haven't met up to expectations with is the EFB.  Would I like an EFB? Sure, mainly for performance calcs and simbreif profiles.  But otherwise its just a nice to have.  When are we going to shift the hate on the Fenix for not providing what was promised?

NOTE: I am a completely happy simmer with both products, each are great in their own way and I fly both equally.  Just seems like the feedback and complaining is not in line with the actual output.
 

Agreed.  I've said all along that that I didn't understand the attitude that PMDG and Fenix are competitors.  One simulates Boeings, the other the A320 family.  I mean, these things aren't the same.  If you want to simulate a 737, that's PMDG, and if you want to simulate an Airbus, that's Fenix.  Different products entirely.

That said, if you want to compare them in terms of depth of simulation... The Fenix still can't even do a V1 cut, the basic maneuver you'd expect a simulated airliner to be able to accomplish.  I'm not at all saying it's not a good product, but just like the comment I quoted, expectations and anger seem somewhat slanted.

21 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

I've said all along that that I didn't understand the attitude that PMDG and Fenix are competitors.  One simulates Boeings, the other the A320 family.  I mean, these things aren't the same.  If you want to simulate a 737, that's PMDG, and if you want to simulate an Airbus, that's Fenix.  Different products entirely.

I think they are, although the FBW does skew it slightly. They occupy the same price point (roughly), and someone who can only afford one study level aircraft, I imagine there is a lot of comparison between the Fenix and PMDG offerings.

I know I can't afford both, so I use the FBW and bought the PMDG.

34 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

The Fenix still can't even do a V1 cut

By that, you mean select an engine failure that will cut off one engine once the plane reach V1, right?

40 minutes ago, bendead said:

By that, you mean select an engine failure that will cut off one engine once the plane reach V1, right?

He probably means that the Fenix can't take off and fly with only one engine running because it somehow has not enough thrust. Once in the air it does not hold speed and crashes to the ground.

Just now, crimplene said:

He probably means that the Fenix can't take off and fly with only one engine running because it somehow has not enough thrust. Once in the air it does not hold speed and crashes to the ground.

That's quite bad, I never tried engine failure on takeoff on the Fenix before

You can have a correct climb profile on both engines, or overpower them and have better OEI performance. We had better OEI performance, the masses complained the airplane was too powerful, so we reduced the thrust to 1:1 match the climb data when both engines are running. Not enough granularity in the MSFS engine model for us to achieve enough accuracy to satisfy both sides of the aisle, so we satisfied the normal use case whilst developing an external turbofan physics engine to achieve both targets. 

Edited February 6, 20233 yr by Aamir

@Stearmandriver can the PMDG do the v1 Cut ?

14 hours ago, nrunning24 said:

FENIX has released 2 updates

Well, this is categorically incorrect. We've released 7 updates, including large scale FM changes, VNAV being remath'd in its entirety, entire soundscape changes, visual model changes, ground friction changes, and building in new Airbus software functionality, to start. 

So, we are talking about PMDG and finally Fenix appears in all its beauty. 😅

2 hours ago, Maxis said:

@Stearmandriver can the PMDG do the v1 Cut ?

Oh yeah, very well in fact.  I use it to drill the procedure occasionally; single engine climb perf is very accurate.

2 hours ago, crimplene said:

He probably means that the Fenix can't take off and fly with only one engine running because it somehow has not enough thrust. Once in the air it does not hold speed and crashes to the ground.

Yes, correct.

I dunno, the 737 sim climbs correctly on 2 engines and on 1 engine.  🤷‍♂️

33 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

I dunno, the 737 sim climbs correctly on 2 engines and on 1 engine.  🤷‍♂️

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying there are alternative ways to do it. PMDG have already done theirs, we are doing ours. 

8 minutes ago, Aamir said:

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying there are alternative ways to do it. PMDG have already done theirs, we are doing ours. 

And I'm not saying you aren't.  I said in my first post that I wasn't claiming the Fenix is a bad product.  I was just pointing out the incongruity of the inconsequential things people will complain about PMDG for, while seemingly being able to overlook fundamental issues in other products.  It was just an example.

Tribalism is dumb, basically.

3 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Tribalism is dumb, basically.

I agree!