FSLabs alluding that they will focus on MSFS going forward

[carlanthony24 577]

12 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

VNAV isn't messed up.

Its never been the best. People have even said that its not the best some who are even type rated on it.

[Ponymetzger 48]

7 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

The issue is making strong statements without giving any sort of explanation, coupled with the fact nobody knows you or your expertise. What you've said so far is that the FBW in the Fenix is bad and the flight model has problems and vaguely alluded to being a pilot, but you can't have a conversation this way, because to everyone else it appears like a random comment from a random person on the internet. I'm personally always very interested in hearing from pilots about sim aircraft.

 

1. The FBW is not snappy enough. Normally the Airbus responds way faster and way smoother than the Fenix FWB. Compared to the FENIX you can fly the real thing more precise. 

2. random pitch up and down moments. The Fenix has the tendency to counteract many speed variations with the pitch, what is correct in the theory but not in this excessive way. 

3. Jumping of speeds, on the fenix the speed jumps from time to time : Vref - 250 - Vref etc. 

4. Flaps: again, random pitch down moments --> tendency to ignore the path for some seconds. 

 

I have my CPL since 2021 and now flying for a LHGroupe airline with under 500h. Thats just my interpretation of the Fenix. Things can vary here, it depends on the pilot, the procedures etc. 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Ponymetzger

[carlanthony24 577]

16 minutes ago, Ponymetzger said:

To prepare our type rating, besides the cbts,OMs etc., they recommended the Xplane for the 32X family and said that the FENIX,Aerosoft and FSLabs would be negative training.

 

 

 

That's funny because others have said the exact opposite. Everything you say just convinces me and probably a few others you are not who you say you are. I guess they say P3D also would be negative training even though its widely used for training...

[Ponymetzger 48]

4 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

That's funny because others have said the exact opposite. Everything you say just convinces me and probably a few others you are not who you say you are. I guess they say P3D also would be negative training even though its widely used for training...

Ok. 

We still use the sim for procedures, CRM etc. and not for its physics. But yeah got it. 

 

And thats the problem: Cause Streamer XYZ said product XYZ is superior, any different opinion is wrong. Thats such a joke. 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Ponymetzger

[threexgreen 3,151]

22 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

Its never been the best. People have even said that its not the best some who are even type rated on it.

I have some understanding of how it works in the real thing and it does what it's supposed to do in the PMDG, minus some polishing that could be done, for example with regards to speed restrictions (it tends to be late) or descent path calculation leveling off early instead of staying higher for longer. I have also participated in discussions including several different type rated pilots that have attested to it working just fine in direct answer to people recycling the statement.

I have also never seen even a single person actually explain what's supposed to be broken in the VNAV simulation, only armchair pilots repeating it as a supposed fact they picked up from somewhere.

[carlanthony24 577]

1 minute ago, Nixoq said:

I have some understanding of how it works in the real thing and it does what it's supposed to do in the PMDG, minus some polishing that could be done, for example with regards to speed restrictions (it tends to be late) or descent path calculation leveling off early instead of staying higher for longer. I have also participated in discussions including several different type rated pilots that have attested to it working just fine in direct answer to people recycling the statement.

I have also never seen even a single person actually explain what's supposed to be broken in the VNAV simulation, only armchair pilots repeating it as a supposed fact they picked up from somewhere.

So like I said its not the best still messed up in places....

Just like always everyone hears different and have different opinions 

[threexgreen 3,151]

28 minutes ago, Ponymetzger said:

1. The FBW is not snappy enough. Normally the Airbus responds way faster and way smoother than the Fenix FWB. Compared to the FENIX you can fly the real thing more precise. 

2. random pitch up and down moments. The Fenix has the tendency to counteract many speed variations with the pitch, what is correct in the theory but not in this excessive way. 

3. Jumping of speeds, on the fenix the speed jumps from time to time : Vref - 250 - Vref etc. 

4. Flaps: again, random pitch down moments --> tendency to ignore the path for some seconds.

The speed jumping from Vref to 250 and back sounds extreme. I've personally never seen that.

What's definitely there is the described pitch behavior. On thrust changes or flaps extension/retraction I do have to work against the resulting forces with the side stick for a few seconds until automatic trimming catches up, sometimes I have to be quite hard on it. Is this what you're talking about? It always felt excessive to me to the point of being slightly annoying but I always assumed automatic trimming is just slow to catch up in the Airbus.

The pitch down moments during flap extension are also rather extreme. The attitude changes rapidly from something like 5 degrees nose up to almost 5 degrees nose down. Again, I assumed this was how it works in the real thing, although I did always feel skeptical about that because I find that hard to believe. It's close to messing up the approach at times.

[threexgreen 3,151]

7 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

So like I said its not the best still messed up in places....

Just like always everyone hears different and have different opinions 

You would think type rated pilots have more than just an opinion about how VNAV is supposed to work. What I'm pushing back against is the notion that it's inherently broken or doesn't work, which is something that armchair pilots like to recycle but is definitely factually false. Other than what I described it works very well.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Nixoq

[Bobsk8 12,814]

1 hour ago, carlanthony24 said:

Its never been the best. People have even said that its not the best some who are even type rated on it.

I think PMDG has even said that it needs work to get it right.

 

[threexgreen 3,151]

25 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I think PMDG has even said that it needs work to get it right.

 

Source?

[Bobsk8 12,814]

21 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

Source?

PMDG forum, I believe. An answer to one of the posts awhile back.

 

[threexgreen 3,151]

27 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

PMDG forum, I believe. An answer to one of the posts awhile back.

 

And that was VNAV? Not LNAV?

[BrammyH 447]

5 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

There are a couple of real life A 320 airline pilots  that make videos using the Fenix A 320, and they seem to always have very  positive statements regarding  the Fenix

The best producer of a320 content I found is V1 Simulations, who is a real a320 captain. I like his content the best, because while 320 Sim Pilot is good, he doesn't have the seat time V1 has in the a320.

A few takewaways from v1's recent streams:

- His only real negative with the Fenix flight model -- outside of every now and then he falls victim to the float -- is "the auto thrust is too aggressive on landing so he does manual thrust.

- He commented a few FBW streams ago that "the NEO lands exactly like the RL NEOs he flies." 

So, the answer for the flight models is both are accurate.

I have the Fenix, and you and I have had some of the same issues, especuially around landing. A few of my own thoughts:

- If PMDG announced 6 months after they released the 737 they were stopping development of the plane to completely rewrite a large portion of the craft, there would be a run on torches and pitchforks. Somehow, Fenix gets a huge pass on this.

- The Fenix is the most complete airliner I have flown: auto insert of missed approaches, secondary flight plans, and armed RNAV approaches are all in the Fenix. 737s don't do armed RNAV (I think), but the PMDG does not do secondary flight plans.

- The PROSIM license doesn't allow the Fenix to fully support some hardware peripherals so users also need to run SPAD to take full advantage.

[Fiorentoni 4,289]

39 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

737s don't do armed RNAV (I think),

They do, it's called IAN.

[Jeff Nielsen 1,394]

3 hours ago, Nixoq said:

The speed jumping from Vref to 250 and back sounds extreme. I've personally never seen that.

 

If you guys are talking about the FNX, that's a known bug and is already fixed for V2 according to Amir.  It's reading a "MAX XXX" speed constraint incorrectly, so if your DECEL is prior to one of those restrictions (if your approach or arrival has one), it will zoom up all the way o to the 'limit' (250).

As far as auto-thrust, I believe they were adding a filter as with PMDG to compensate for MSFS winds, IRRC.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Jeff Nielsen