Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ricardo41

The Fenixsim A320 Is A Work Of Art...

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

Actually, according to EUR Doc 011,

Guard bands: For 121.500: Channels 121.475, and 121.525, are not assignable; and For 123.100: Channels 123.065, 123.075, 123.080, 123.085, 123.115, 123.125, 123.130, and 123.135 are not assignable, except for ATIS on channels 123.080 and 123.130.

Yes, it is the ATIS of EDDN.

  • Like 1

Paul Schmidt

We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

In Europe, where 8.33 KHz spacing is permitted, you can have 123.083 MHz. Depending on the COM control head, that might display as 123.080. The extra 300 Hz in the least significant digit won’t really matter. Here in the US, 8.33 KHz spacing is not used (yet) but my company aircraft have 8.33 KHz capability. I’ll set one of the COMs to 8.33 KHz spacing and see if it displays 123.080 or 123.083.

The real-life stuff is different anyway. In MSFS, we need to tune the frequencies exactly or it does not work. Again, this is not an urgent problem. You can use the MSFS ATC menu and select the ATIS.


Paul Schmidt

We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jcomm said:

Bummer 😕  

I don't use Discord, so, I'll never know the why 🙂

But it's wrong, and as far as I remember, the FSLABS 320 and 319 did it correctly?

FSLabs did not I don't know if the re changed it after

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

I’ll set one of the COMs to 8.33 KHz spacing and see if it displays 123.080 or 123.083

It will display 123,080.

As reference, the only frequencies unavailable on our 8.33 radios are "123.x20", "123,x45", "123,x70" and "123,x95" so twisting the knob means 5khz spacing on the display, save for the frequencies mentioned.

Edited by SAS443
  • Like 1

EASA PPL SEPL ( NQ , EFIS, Variable Pitch, SLPC, Retractable undercarriage)
B23 / PA32R / PA28 / DA40 / C172S 

MSFS | X-Plane 12 |

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fenix is a nice addon for sure, but it's rather limited in some aspects that really mater to me.

An example is the reaction to engine failure ( asymmetric ) both after V1 and in cruise.

In cruise it's like nothing has happened, other than the speed loss. On Autoflight rudder and rudder trim compensation as well as roll spoiler / aileron compensation is NILL, and the aircraft, even if you disconnect the A/P and reset the few units of rudder trim, continues to fly straight ahead with one engine at MCT the other shutdown 😕

I don't think MFS is should be blamed on this because default airliners (Boeing) or the PMDG 737 behave a lot more believably...

Edited by jcomm

Main Simulation Rig:

Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti, 1 TB & 500 GB M.2 nvme drives, Win11.

Glider pilot since 1980...

Avid simmer since 1992...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2023 at 4:53 PM, Nuno Pinto said:

A likely reason is that the aircraft doesn't even have a (properly) working VNAV. And LNAV. And predictions of any kind which can be trusted. And the engine model is wrong if i want to start picking on visual things. Oh and the cockpit 😑

I don't like talking about FBW's 320 because it's like opening a can of worms, people love the aircraft because it has an electronic flight bag and it's free, and will completely go out of their way to defend it, it's like pushing a boat with a rope, i already regret it.

Hopefully the A380 will be something to remember, we'll see.

Out of curiosity, what's wrong with the LNAV? While I'm obviously biased as having developed large parts of it, last time I checked it is one of the only LNAV systems that properly model the real life capabilities and limitations of the FMS - other sim aircraft trying to fix every path no matter how broken an inserted flight plan is - which does not occur in real life on an Airbus.

The only flaw I can think about right now is the excessive TAD value during path capture turn generation on some leg pairs.

Other than that, I have myself compared it with the real plane and they both mess up in the exact same spots.

Edited by holland786
  • Like 5

Developer - FlyByWire Simulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fenix Airbus is the most sophisticated piece of software art ever developed 🙂

It is the epitome of digital art.

 

Edited by JetCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...