Fenix A320 Version 2 progress update

[Krakin 5,012]

Quote

Happy Friday all!

Seeing as we've been a bit quiet lately and that has resulted in a lot of people assuming we're dead rather than just busy working, I figured a small update was in order to stave off the life insurance phonecalls for a bit longer. For the most part there's nothing new to announce/show, except that we're much further along on all fronts mentioned in the last update, and so far keeping right on our revised schedule per our current internal development roadmap. The V2 update is an expectedly huge undertaking, rivalling the amount of work required for the original development. The external engine model is in the final phases before pushing into testing, dealing with edge-cases (e.g. what happens to the oil pressure, temperature or vibration when you start an engine in -30C and then immediately firewall the throttles), and startup/shutdown transient states, thermal transients, etc. Flight model & fly-by-wire refinements have continued with a focus on crosswind take-off and landing performance; there are some rather nasty 'sim-isms' that cannot be worked around here, but it's a heck of a lot better than before. System tweaks and improvements have also been made over the last few months. Performance benchmarks of the new display system show a significant uplift in performance, and the visual rework, from displays to the 3D model, is looking very nice with a few "never seen before in MSFS" goodies, all whilst consuming less resources. As before, nothing we're quite ready to show as there's a lot to be brought together into one cohesive package, but I'm personally extremely happy with the progress being made on all fronts. We'll be back with more when we have something to show - sorry there wasn't much of substance here but as before, there's not a whole lot to say other than we're still alive and working hard. Thanks for being patient with us, it'll be worth it and some.

-Aamir

Sounds like the Fenix team are going to break the internet again.

[MikeH99 124]

1 minute ago, Krakin said:

Sounds like the Fenix team are going to break the internet again.

No they promised IAE and Winglets.

[JBDB-MD80 1,285]

Fenix will deliver when they have the time to do so, can't fault them they are dealing with a conflict in "Real world Matters" with some of their main developers in conflict. The Me " where is my IAE they promised cult " needs to sit back and watch and see news every once and a while your problem is a first world problem. This flight sim game is secondary.

Edited February 25 by jbdbow1970

[lwt1971 6,057]

Looks to be a big update and branded as v2 as well! Especially looking forward to the deeper engine simulation, and flight model refinements w.r.t cross-wind takeoffs and landings.

For those who missed it, Aamir posted some great details on the upcoming engine simulation rework on another thread https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/630785-still-waiting/?do=findComment&comment=4924340:
 

Early into the project I had a decision to make, which was namely - do the IAEs quickly or do the IAEs properly. There wasn't an option to go in-between - I mean, we could have thrown it into the MSFS FDE and hammered it into something "acceptable", in that it looks like an IAE, the values would be close-ish, but it would more or less stop there. There would not be a lot more depth, the startups would run on a script to emulate the rough character of an IAE start, we'd script in some timings for spool etc to make it all tick over and call it a day, fuel flow etc would be okay-ish, much like the CFMs, perhaps within 10% of a margin. After all, most had already purchased the product and commercially it makes little sense to go out and try and push the boundary because.. well, frankly we weren't going to get paid for it. So doing the bare minimum was probably the most efficient, commercially rewarding option. With that being said I also recognised that people pay us to go out and find that last tenth. I daresay that's what our customers would expect. So I made the call to go for the hard option. Do it properly. As much as being the director of the company forced me into considering the commercial impact of this, there's something to be said for taking appropriate care and responsibility in maturing a product that, ultimately, customers are invested in. Maturing a product in software takes time, it doesn't matter how many resources you throw at it. An experienced project manager will probably tell you adding too many resources and just throwing bodies at the problem is likely to exacerbate the problem more than speed anything up, too. We've not yet even crested the 1st anniversary of our very first product being out in the market. PMDG, for example, launched their first iteration of 737 in 2003, they'll be celebrating 20 years of that thing being out there in some form or the other, before we celebrate our first - as an example. That's a lot of time to refine, renew, rewrite, etc - and as you can see it's a superb, mature product for it. 

That latest post that quoted was from a couple of months ago, and since then we've prototyped the engine model in it's steady state, it's working fine and flying around, we're reasonably happy with the fuel flow and what not. That's the easy part. The real challenge lies with modelling transient states of a turbofan. For example, programming a startup is less script and more physics based. For example a thermal model for EGT cooldown and rise during shutdown and startup is crucial given the IAEs motor the engine if EGT > 250 degrees when start is commanded, so you need to model the air mass effects of the motoring and how the air driven by the fan blade spinning cools the engine, to add to that, you need to accurately place the EGT probe for the actual sensor as the sensor itself isn't in the engine core, so if you stop motoring the engine the temperature fluctuates accordingly as heat transfer changes depending on airflow. If you dry crank a hot engine (right after shutdown), due to where the EGT sensor is (hint: the exhaust), the core will actually blow hot air from the core outwards and backwards over the EGT probes so you end up cranking the engine and the EGT rising for a very short period of time, before cooling. Those EGT probes are over by the exhaust strut, quite far from the core, so on shutdown the EGT reading actually shows it being quite fast to cool as a result, too, however not before slightly rising as the N1 fan and N2 rotor stop spinning and thus providing some airflow over the probes, so there's a little temporary spike. You cannot get these details right on a simple simulation.

This is before you start thinking about starting or shutting down an engine mid flight, as the fan windmills at 24,000ft. A whole different ballgame there, but there are a number of startup modes in that case, assisted starts, unassisted starts, depending on the N1, which depends on speed, alt, pressure, etc, which then in turn affects how the engine behaves for all parameters on a start.

Even down to the oil. IAE engines do this signature oil "gulp" when they start. Oil goes down then back up during a start. We know that, but why, and how much? We can't just fake up data and call it a day. We need to understand why and model it's effects otherwise the model will fall apart. This effect comes into place because the oil pump is attached to a gearbox which is N2 driven, as it all starts turning on a startup the quantity of the oil tank starts decreasing for a little while because the scavenge flow from the bearings must travel through several pipes and then back into the tank. Related to N2, so the effects on N2 on a start will affect this also.

All of this without modelling the pesky EEC and things like the IAE's Keep Out Zones, where the FADEC will flat out refuse to stablise the engine at between 60 and 74% N1 due to fan flutter, which is a whole other kettle of fish. 

All of this data, absolutely all of it, we've gathered on the real deal. A level-D doesn't give us this much insight and data into what/why/when/how. We needed the real engine to show us what we needed to know. This goes beyond most pilot's comprehension of their equipment, so it's not like it's knocking around in anyone's head either. This is a tiny, small slice of insight into what building a model like this entails. There's dozens upon dozens of little snippets like this that make up the entire thing, and it's safe to say building it is an incredible challenge, even just from a data acquisition, management and organisation front, forget about the actual legwork of coding the thing after the fact. 

I hope from the little extract above, you can gather why this is taking months of work. But when it happens, it'll be worth it. We wanted to build it because it's frankly just flippin' cool. Forget all the commercial implications, at the end of the day it's satisfying building something you can sit back in your chair and go: "Dang..", after all, we're enthusiasts all said and done too..  
 

[Bobsk8 11,903]

16 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Looks to be a big update and branded as v2 as well! Especially looking forward to the deeper engine simulation, and flight model refinements w.r.t cross-wind takeoffs and landings.

For those who missed it, Aamir posted some great details on the upcoming engine simulation rework on another thread https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/630785-still-waiting/?do=findComment&comment=4924340:
 

 

I hope they figure out why some are getting erratic landings. Since I switched to the PMDG 737, my average landing rate has dropped around 200 FPM. 

Edited February 25 by Bobsk8

[Silicus 823]

Other developers take note: Take your time and deliver a quality product! Keep up the good work, Fenix!

[carlanthony24 316]

9 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I hope they figure out why some are getting erratic landings. Since I switched to the PMDG 737, my average landing rate has dropped around 200 FPM. 

Don’t think they need too. I thought Aamir even said too you that everything is fine.

[Darcy 63]

I am most looking forward to performance improvements as it is quite hard on fps compared to the PMDG.

[F737MAX 4,799]

35 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

I hope from the little extract above, you can gather why this is taking months of work. But when it happens, it'll be worth it. We wanted to build it because it's frankly just flippin' cool.

@Aamir I missed your original post. It was an excellent read.

I'm not a particularly patient person, however, seeing what the Fenix team has already achieved and what you are looking to accomplish, I know the wait will be well worth it.

[Fiorentoni 3,352]

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

I hope they figure out why some are getting erratic landings. Since I switched to the PMDG 737, my average landing rate has dropped around 200 FPM. 

You mean since you switched to the 737 your Fenix landing are worse? Or that your 737 landings are at 200 FPM?
It's most likely a practice issue for the Fenix (it sure was for me), it's different from any other airplane. Be sure to not exceed 700 FPM rate of descent before the flare, it's much harder to nail the flare with a higher rate of descent. Do a little pitch up movement at 100 RA to reduce the ROD if necessary, FBW helps a lot with those small corrections.

[Bobsk8 11,903]

Just now, Fiorentoni said:

You mean since you switched to the 737 your Fenix landing are worse? Or that your 737 landings are at 200 FPM?
It's most likely a practice issue for the Fenix (it sure was for me), it's different from any other airplane. Be sure to not exceed 700 FPM rate of descent before the flare, it's much harder to nail the flare with a higher rate of descent. Do a little pitch up movement at 100 RA to reduce the ROD if necessary, FBW helps a lot with those small corrections.

My landings in the 737 are 200 FPM ;lower than my average Fenix landings.  I am now usually averaging around 150 FPM in the 737. In the Fenix, my landings were all over the place. In P3D I flew the PMDG for years, and it was the same, had no problem getting smooth landings every time. 

[carlanthony24 316]

Imagine talking about landing rates when all pilots think about is getting it down within the touchdown zone.

[Bobsk8 11,903]

1 minute ago, carlanthony24 said:

Imagine talking about landing rates when all pilots think about is getting it down within the touchdown zone.

Well that was the other issue, watching the touchdown zone disappear under me as the Fenix decided it wanted to keep flying rather than land. 😉

[carlanthony24 316]

Welcome to MSFS ground effect been an issue for a while. Plenty of people have said about it which includes other aircrafts. Have no problem getting it within the touch down zone on my end. If anything have more trouble with the 737

Edited February 25 by carlanthony24

[Bobsk8 11,903]

3 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

Welcome to MSFS ground effect been an issue for a while. Plenty of people have said about it which includes other aircrafts. Have no problem getting it within the touch down zone on my end. If anything have more trouble with the 737

I don't have problems in any other aircraft I fly, Fenix, C310, 737, Kodiak. I have seen videos on Youtube with real A 320 pilots, overshoot the touchdown zone in the Fenix, 

Edited February 25 by Bobsk8