3 hours ago, El Diablito said:

Thanks for all the input here, guys. I guess I was looking for more differences than seem to be available in terms of cockpit functions etc or at least I was expecting more based on the comments I've heard online and in other areas, I was given the impression that the differences were stark. Most of the differences in terms of how "it feels" etc seem to be subjective which is fine.

I bet if I was new to the sim I would probably go with the Fenix based on the above posts but since I've flown the FBW so much it doesn't seem like the investment would be worth it.

The differences in fuctions are stark, at least on a higher level - the Fenix has circuit breakers modelled with realistic effects on pulling them, the Fenix has failures, the Fenix has fully working RNAV approaches and a well working VNAV (FBW's VNAV is still in alpha state). There's pretty much every function modelled and every switch functional in the Fenix.

Fenix day and night. 50$ is just nothing for what it offer. really really close to the real thing. Systems from PROSIM. The community should thank fenix to bringing us for just 50$ that level of simulation. I repeat Prosim Systems, flight dynamics and son on. And what i see&read around the forum?.....well.....get the FBW bus and then pmdg as if the FBW is at level - right now -  of fenix and nothing u gonna miss from FENIX. Hell no! U miss ALL the deep, accurancy and simulation. we all should give respect to the guys. I often see belittling Fenix Airbus and he doesn't deserve it.

FBW is a great product to be free and will improve and improve more and more but take years to reach the maturity of pmdg and Prosim.

my advise is: PMDG and Fenix if you can afford both otherwise PMDG and FWB (if you like more boeing philosophy then Airbus)

Aerosoft will release their A330 this year but it won't study level like the Fenix.

iFly (another great company) will release this year the 737 MAX study level

10 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

The differences in fuctions are stark, at least on a higher level - the Fenix has circuit breakers modelled with realistic effects on pulling them, the Fenix has failures, the Fenix has fully working RNAV approaches and a well working VNAV (FBW's VNAV is still in alpha state). There's pretty much every function modelled and every switch functional in the Fenix.

This separates some users from others:  can't use failures as APL can't accommodate them w/o restarting flights.   Couldn't care less if circuit breakers when pulled create realistic effects, and fortunately alpha VNAV has worked perfectly every time for me.  RNAV approaches in decent weather are coped with by just entering a low enough altitude.  But yes, the argument can be made, sort of, for 'stark', which of course is completely subjective and relative.  In fact, if you enumerated ALL of the feature set in FBW v Fenix I think you would find FBW essentially does 98% of what Fenix does or so is my guess.

49 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

the Fenix has circuit breakers modelled with realistic effects on pulling them

And that's all (very) cool, if you have any intentions of pulling one of them, which I have low interest in doing, so..... (Kind of like I feel about my real life car fuses)

49 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

the Fenix has failures

So does the FBW. Which as I said, is nice to know. I might actually fiddle with them some day; but for right now, knowing they are there is just a random fun fact.

49 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

the Fenix has fully working RNAV approaches and a well working VNAV (FBW's VNAV is still in alpha state)

Yes. For the FBW, people who are interested in that should stick to the experimental version.

For me, part of the feeling of greater completeness to the Fenix is how confidently it does all of this/that.

You can do it in the FBW too, but yes, you can also feel how the FBW is just slightly less mature in that area.

For myself, I find them roughly equivalent. You could easily be happy with either, except if you develop a nagging feeling that you might be missing something if you don't have the Fenix.

Edited February 17, 20233 yr by HiFlyer

FWIW, I currently don’t have either of them but will shortly be starting with one of them. As I have zero interest in failures or circuit breakers, I plan on starting with the FBW.

1 hour ago, Noel said:

This separates some users from others:  can't use failures as APL can't accommodate them w/o restarting flights.   Couldn't care less if circuit breakers when pulled create realistic effects, and fortunately alpha VNAV has worked perfectly every time for me.  RNAV approaches in decent weather are coped with by just entering a low enough altitude.  But yes, the argument can be made, sort of, for 'stark', which of course is completely subjective and relative.  In fact, if you enumerated ALL of the feature set in FBW v Fenix I think you would find FBW essentially does 98% of what Fenix does or so is my guess.

Strongly disagree here sorry. If you feel its ok to put in angles or  put the AC in Managed mode to approximate an RNAV .. especially an RNP AR approach then you simply aren't doing RNAV at that point (At least clearly not the vertical component).

Not to mention having to really babysit the tennis ball  and speed to make sure i don't bust speed and alt constraints in the star and on approach; Many a time with the AC simply blowing through it and not descending on the profile leaving me high and fast if left alone for too long.    I'm not trying to be unreasonable here we all know that in certain cases your going to need to be working the speedbrakes but for me  the FBW VNAV is still unrefined. May work for you but PMDG and FENIX have demonstrated to me what it should actually look like ( with the MCDU or FMC actually prewarning you with a notice  when a constraint wont be met or needs a little helping hand ( Add Drag notice) ) I don't remember FBW having this yet.. ( Someone correct me if im wrong and they have implemented these items) 

Make no mistake this isn't a FBW bashing post. You cant beat free and what they have done with the base Asobo Neo is tremendous but i cannot state that its 98% to the Fenix stuff ...  that is not the case and they still have some ground to cover. 

 

Edited February 17, 20233 yr by Maxis

Just now, B777ER said:

FWIW, I currently don’t have either of them but will shortly be starting with one of them. As I have zero interest in failures or circuit breakers, I plan on starting with the FBW.

Its a great place to start

14 minutes ago, Maxis said:

but i cannot state that its 98% to the Fenix stuff

That's right--VNAV/RNAV are unrefined.  I fly it nearly daily, have no troubles whatsoever with ILS or RNAV approaches and landings.  I d/c the AP at about 500' AGL and it lands beautifully.  Enumerate every single element of the plane and FBW is clearly 98% of Fenix. I think you're giving refinement of VNAV/RNAV way more than the few percent it deserves--it's a big plane with a huge amount of functioning elements.  At some point very likely those elements will be refined and even if they weren't it's a joy to use.

15 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Strongly disagree here sorry. If you feel its ok to put in angles or  put the AC in Managed mode to approximate an RNAV .. especially an RNP AR approach then you simply aren't doing RNAV at that point.

Agree, RNAV is kind of blocked due to the level of information on the MSFS navdata, and it's not enough to approximate it from the RA. Hopefully it'll be implemented with the move to cFMS v2 or expanded navdata api in SU12.

15 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Not to mention having to really babysit the tennis ball  and speed to make sure i don't bust speed and alt constraints in the star and on approach; Many a time with the AC simply blowing through it and not descending on the profile leaving me high and fast if left alone for two long.

Could I ask when's the last time you've flown the FBW? It's kind of unfair to make judgement on the VNAV that is consisently changing on a daily basis, hence it being on experimental, especially if it's been a while since you've flown it. However, the last recent anecdote of the VNAV, that was not from the devs themselves, was from V1-Simulation, where he said that the entire flight including VNAV, LNAV and Autoland was, "By the book" including all the quirks from the real aircraft.

 

6 minutes ago, Noel said:

That's right--VNAV/RNAV are unrefined.  I fly it nearly daily, have no troubles whatsoever with ILS or RNAV approaches and landings.  I d/c the AP at about 500' AGL and it lands beautifully.  Enumerate every single element of the plane and FBW is clearly 98% of Fenix. I think you're giving refinement of VNAV/RNAV way more than the few percent it deserves--it's a big plane with a huge amount of functioning elements.  At some point very likely those elements will be refined and even if they weren't it's a joy to use.

I don't use ILS unless i have to ..  the world is moving to GPS approaches ... This is the future and where the focus of the implementation should be. FBW already have ILS Down. This isnt about that.

So Tell me In the RNAV approach that youre flying when do you hit the Approach  button  so the AC takes up the RNAV profile and allows you to put in the missed approach ALT ?

Tell me how are you handling missed approaches ? Is that information now loading into the MCDU ?

Do we now have access to the secondary flight plan ?

Edited February 17, 20233 yr by Maxis

We are so lucky to have both A320s available now in MSFS. If you have only flown Boeings to date, it makes much sense to start your Airbus experience with the free FBW bird and see if you like the methods and logic of flying the Airbus. If you enjoy it as much as I do, then I heartily recommend you buy the Fenix and fly both. The Fenix is more mature at this point, although the FBW bus continues to make strides and is certainly attractive in its own right. But just get both and stop squabbling.  The Fenix and the FBW Neo are different variants with distinct flight profiles and appearance. Basically, buy the Fenix, toss in the FBW for free, and you have a great two-fer. And the Fenix after all is a steal for what you get. The Fenix is nearly as robust and “immersive” as the FSL variant from P3D days, but the FSL price was off the charts. You don’t need a 2nd mortgage to get the Fenix and it is indeed worth every penny.

Rich

6 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Agree, RNAV is kind of blocked due to the level of information on the MSFS navdata, and it's not enough to approximate it from the RA. Hopefully it'll be implemented with the move to cFMS v2 or expanded navdata api in SU12.

Could I ask when's the last time you've flown the FBW? It's kind of unfair to make judgement on the VNAV that is consisently changing on a daily basis, hence it being on experimental, especially if it's been a while since you've flown it. However, the last recent anecdote of the VNAV, that was not from the devs themselves, was from V1-Simulation, where he said that the entire flight including VNAV, LNAV and Autoland was, "By the book" including all the quirks from the real aircraft.

 

Hi lucky im aware that the revisions are fast .. especially with the experimental. I have not flown it since they introduced the stutters and i am aware that it ( The stuters) was fixed last week however as i stated before most of my simming does city pairs that have RNP approaches and i seek those out. I will give the Vertical performance  and constraint respect aspect of the FBW another go but until they actually put the real RNAV implementation into the frame its not my preferred AC to fly  .. But again not trying to be unreasonable or unfair .. ill take it out of the hangar and give it an ILS spin.

14 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Hi lucky im aware that the revisions are fast .. especially with the experimental. I have not flown it since they introduced the stutters and i am aware that it ( The stuters) was fixed last week however as i stated before most of my simming does city pairs that have RNP approaches and i seek those out. I will give the Vertical performance  and constraint respect aspect of the FBW another go but until they actually put the real RNAV implementation into the frame its not my preferred AC to fly  .. But again not trying to be unreasonable or unfair .. ill take it out of the hangar and give it an ILS spin.

Yep, that’s entirely fair take. There’s a number of users just waiting for FINAL APP, it’s coming especially with advent of the monorepo move we’re getting close to cFMS v2

Have both (bought Fenix the day of release) and my A320 time has always been 80% FBW.  Since the latest FBW update (which fixed the stutter), it is now 100% FBW.   

I prefer the cockpit textures, EFB, sounds and .... PERFORMANCE! I get 50 smooth FPS in the FBW, and a stuttery 25 FPS in the Fenix.    FBW re-textured the A320s cockpit a little while ago and the quality to me, is now a lot higher than the slightly lacklustre cockpit textures in the Fenix (I appreciate it's simulating a much older aircraft).

There's just not a single reason any more to waste any time turning down settings, and trying to get the Fenix to run smoothly, when the FBW is now as immersive and mature as it is.

I wish I'd saved my £50.

Edited February 17, 20233 yr by JYW

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

the Fenix has fully working RNAV approaches and a well working VNAV (FBW's VNAV is still in alpha state).

Have you flown the FBW Exp lately?   The VNAV functions perfectly for me, not perceptably different to the Fenix's VNAV.

In which case the fact that "VNAV is in alpha in the FBW" doesn't make any tanglible difference if it works.