16 minutes ago, JYW said:

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.  

Yes I did and no it does not work perfectly, but it's certainly good enough for most default cases and with human corrections. As others said, this is not about bashing FBW, just telling the differences. If the OP doesn't care about failures or a correct RNAV approach procedure, that's fair enough.

Don't you just love the nearly diametrically opposed opinions from folks who've flown both?  My particular use of planes in MSFS is strictly, 100%, around using A Pilot's Life V2.  I have four airframe class licenses and have no desire to become sufficiently proficient in more than one version of the same plane I can't imagine owning both and flying both.  One's enough and as JYW points out performance is better in FBW and I need every bit of performance to sustain my current performance nirvana.  That's a good part of not doing Fenix, plus the $$ which are modest but not nearly as modest as free is.  And ultimately no matter how others frame it:  they're ultimately pretty close to each other.  A few tweaks to code and all of a sudden RNAV and other stuff words the same--there goes that 2% difference in the blink of an eye.

1 hour ago, Maxis said:

I have not flown it since they introduced the stutters and i am aware that it ( The stuters) was fixed last week

I'm still getting 'stutters' in the Exp version but not the ones the fix addressed--those are gone thankfully.  What I get now which I've mentioned on their D channel is a shimmy/stutter whenever I open the ATC window.  It's tolerable because during taxi, where the stutter is much more visible, I can just leave the ATC window open and avoid it.  I mean to test the Dev version and see if it's in it as well.  I don't recall it being in the Exp version before the recent fix was applied but perhaps it was.

A thing that isn't mentioned is the fact that the Fenix requires an external program, or it won't even start up.

It's a fact that actually made me hesitate in getting the Fenix, because I'm already making a leap of faith in using msfs, and knowing that if the online functionality fails  I could be up the creek without a paddle one day.

This was driven home to me even more starkly because I just now upgraded my complete system, including motherboard, processor,and graphics card, only to find that the Fenix disapproved, and I had to go back to the website to reacquire my license.

This was done quickly and efficiently, but I was nontheless (good thing I remembored my password!) more annoyed than was probably warranted.

I also had to reacquire my windows license.

26 minutes ago, Noel said:

Don't you just love the nearly diametrically opposed opinions from folks who've flown both?  My particular use of planes in MSFS is strictly, 100%, around using A Pilot's Life V2.  I have four airframe class licenses and have no desire to become sufficiently proficient in more than one version of the same plane I can't imagine owning both and flying both.  One's enough and as JYW points out performance is better in FBW and I need every bit of performance to sustain my current performance nirvana.  That's a good part of not doing Fenix, plus the $$ which are modest but not nearly as modest as free is.  And ultimately no matter how others frame it:  they're ultimately pretty close to each other.  A few tweaks to code and all of a sudden RNAV and other stuff words the same--there goes that 2% difference in the blink of an eye.

A lot of reasons to get two versions of the same plane.  An example. You dip your toes with the free ones and decide you really like it.  Then decide to get the fenix in this case for some more advanced features.  Plus the fenix has higher quality graphics in the the VC.  The performance issue is easily managed with fenix settings.  With my specs I don't perceive the fenix as any better or worse than any of the other airplanes I fly.  You also are also speaking as to the difference between the two, but have never actually used the fenix.  So I don't think that is valid.  However I can understand you not wanting to spend more money.  I get that.  

For those looking for a T/O calculator.

Yes, it's generic but what aspect of either Bus in MSFS isn't? Realistically, how many have actually managed to plant either aircraft on take off because of wrong t/o settings? 😆

Regarding the Fenix and the FBW... with the Fenix you "expect" a certain minimum as it is payware. With the FBW you are grateful for the team for providing the community with such an amazing piece of FREEware.

Both teams are doing a great job, IMO.

Edited February 17, 20233 yr by speedyTC

1 hour ago, Noel said:

A few tweaks to code and all of a sudden RNAV and other stuff words the same--there goes that 2% difference in the blink of an eye.

Given that you've never flown the Fenix I'll be kind and call that a fairly uninformed statement ...

1 hour ago, Noel said:

And ultimately no matter how others frame it:  they're ultimately pretty close to each other.  A few tweaks to code and all of a sudden RNAV and other stuff words the same--there goes that 2% difference in the blink of an eye.

I disagree.

There is so much more difference than just a few features not yet implemented in the FBW.

But you will never know unless you see, hear and feel it for yourself.

The VC texture quality alone makes world of difference. Then there are all these little details that just can't all be enumerated. For example the doors getting armed all exactly simultaneously in the FBW whereas it is one after the other on the Fenix. This is just a small detail that might seem insignificant, but it is just one example of a multitude of details which makes the Fenix so much more immersive.

The differences in the feel of the handling of the aircraft in particular when handflying also is something you can't assess from some arguments in a forum. You have to feel it for yourself.

 

It's absolutely fine that you are happy with the FBW - which is a fantastic freeware addon. But you just can't make a valid ultimate comparison as long as you haven't flown the Fenix yourself.

 

2 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

A thing that isn't mentioned is the fact that the Fenix requires an external program, or it won't even start up.

 

Well you make it sound like to had to manually start it. All of this is automatic and you'll never notice. An external program is necessary to surpass the sandbox limits of MSFS, the Maddog has one too now and - to no suprise - the Fenix and the Maddog are the only planes right now that have text ATIS, Metars, CPDLC etc. Another way is to try to workaround within the MSFS limits, which leads to rather unpleasant situations like PMDG working on their EFB for almost a year and frequently mentioning how awfully hard it is to get this to work within the MSFS framework. There are merits to both ways, but the Fenix' and Maddogs way isn't really a negative.
Also fun fact: The FBW needs an external program (Sim Bridge), too, at least if you want something as important as a terrain radar.

12 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Also fun fact: The FBW needs an external program (Sim Bridge), too, at least if you want something as important as a terrain radar.

I'm not interested in simbridge right now, and it doesn't turn off the plane if I don't use it.

12 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Well you make it sound like to had to manually start it. All of this is automatic and you'll never notice.

But I do notice it, especially when it decides to forget my password and I have to look it up again. This reminds me of a certain X-plane software famous for requiring you to reconfirm ownership at what felt like random intervals.

I deleted it.

I also use the in-game marketplace pretty exclusively now, to avoid all the passworded installers that want to clog my system.

Flybywire installer is there under special dispensation from the Pope because for now, its unobtrusive.....

12 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

There are merits to both ways, but the Fenix' and Maddogs way isn't really a negative.

I didn't say it was negative, but I will say I just don't like it. Others milage and tolerance may vary, but my tendency is to smoosh anything that wants to pop up at me on its own schedules or tie up unknown resources that might already be strained, especially given how much stuff people seem to like running in the background of their sims..

FSLTL is quite enough.

This thread makes me want to try the FBW A320 again.

Been flying the default A320 for over a year now, after issues with the earlier FBW builds.

12 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Well you make it sound like to had to manually start it. All of this is automatic and you'll never notice. An external program is necessary to surpass the sandbox limits of MSFS,

Nope, WASM support HTTP requests.

12 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

the Maddog has one too now and - to no suprise - the Fenix and the Maddog are the only planes right now that have text ATIS, Metars, CPDLC etc.

that’s not true either…

12 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Another way is to try to workaround within the MSFS limits, which leads to rather unpleasant situations like PMDG working on their EFB for almost a year and frequently mentioning how awfully hard it is to get this to work within the MSFS framework.
 

it’s already been discussed to death how this is PMDG-specific, not a general issue amongst most devs doing the same thing.

12 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

There are merits to both ways, but the Fenix' and Maddogs way isn't really a negative.
Also fun fact: The FBW needs an external program (Sim Bridge), too, at least if you want something as important as a terrain radar.

I do get what you’re saying, having an external program shouldn’t be a deterrent for Fénix. However, I wouldn’t go as far to say it’s a necessity, just a different path to achieving a particular objective. I wrote SimBridge cause it was just a convenient path to achieve what we needed 

2 hours ago, micstatic said:

A lot of reasons to get two versions of the same plane.  An example. You dip your toes with the free ones and decide you really like it.  Then decide to get the fenix in this case for some more advanced features.  Plus the fenix has higher quality graphics in the the VC.  The performance issue is easily managed with fenix settings.  With my specs I don't perceive the fenix as any better or worse than any of the other airplanes I fly.  You also are also speaking as to the difference between the two, but have never actually used the fenix.  So I don't think that is valid.  However I can understand you not wanting to spend more money.  I get that.  

It's really simple Dave I simply am currently pleased and not wanting of anything.  It's really a nice place to live.  The FBW is fabulous for what it is--I'm happy.  But I understand where your POV comes from I think.  You're just not in my shoes as it were, nor me in yours.

I find this debate nonsense, you have two great add-ones, one is superb payware that costs really not much and the other one is superb freeware that cost nothing. Get them both and enjoy flying both, life is short 😉

1 hour ago, RALF9636 said:

I disagree.

There is so much more difference than just a few features not yet implemented in the FBW.

But you will never know unless you see, hear and feel it for yourself.

The VC texture quality alone makes world of difference. Then there are all these little details that just can't all be enumerated. For example the doors getting armed all exactly simultaneously in the FBW whereas it is one after the other on the Fenix. This is just a small detail that might seem insignificant, but it is just one example of a multitude of details which makes the Fenix so much more immersive.

The differences in the feel of the handling of the aircraft in particular when handflying also is something you can't assess from some arguments in a forum. You have to feel it for yourself.

 

It's absolutely fine that you are happy with the FBW - which is a fantastic freeware addon. But you just can't make a valid ultimate comparison as long as you haven't flown the Fenix yourself.

 

I'm not making an ultimate comparison Ralf,  Is it possible others don't relate the same as you do to VC texture qualilty difference,or door getting armed, etc?  I'm looking at comments from users of both planes who for crytic reasons aren't tilted in the same direction as you or others who think like you.  I'm looking at as you say a fantastic freeware addon.  Yes, comments re Fenix comes from watching YT videos, and also reading threads outside of Avsim and it's not all 100% Fenix when both are owned.  Our very own JTY above spoke to this.   Perhaps there is maybe a 'fun factor' for lack a better idea that allows someone with full exposure to both, to opt to use FBW more.  Ultra importantly are those who own both, and yet fly both, and they exist.  This on no uncertain terms speaks to the value of FBW's plane, else it would flatly be discarded, which I'm sure is by some, but not all.  I can link threads where I read this stuff. I'm not as focused on fidelity as I might be with getting a little better performance, or enjoying the crew announcements and so forth, part of that 'fun factor' perhaps.  There are other differences people seem to enjoy w/ the FBW version.  Die-hards dedicated to full fidelity of course value that above other areas perhaps, and that's of course all good, for them.

I appreciate your comments but at the moment not interested in Fenix.  Who knows what the future brings. If I were Amir or whatever the chap's name is I would absolutely offer a trial period.  It should be obvious, that "VC texture quality alone", to get people trying to happily convert.  In fact, that they don't just makes it look like they don't believe they're better enough to compete for the largest share of the A320 market.