Fenix v2 Rollout and Future Plans (A319, A321, Sharklets)

[rob0203 697]

18 minutes ago, btacon said:

That’s the current plan as of last Friday when announced. 

Can’t wait!

[sonny147 586]

didnt know any of this lol great news

[Wise87 1,286]

I'm surprised they even said sometime this week in the announcement. Watching Discord they are getting bombarded with people asking "when will it release" due to the week long window they gave. I'm sure they have a pretty good idea on when it will be ready but planting a 7 day window doesn't help them if they have to keep answering question. I'm excited but I'm also realistic and know things happen. If by Sunday nothing happens I'm sure will get an update. Until then I'll keep enjoying v1. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Wise87

[Bobsk8 12,867]

8 minutes ago, Wise87 said:

I'm surprised they even said sometime this week in the announcement. Watching Discord they are getting bombarded with people asking "when will it release" due to the week long window they gave. I'm sure they have a pretty good idea on when it will be ready but planting a 7 day window doesn't help them if they have to keep answering question on when it will be released. I'm excited about the release but I'm also realistic and know things happen. If by Sunday nothing happens I'm sure will get an update. Until then I'll keep enjoying v1. 

They should at least have a 10 minute window...😉

[badgenes 125]

"Open, open, open....."

[Bobsk8 12,867]

Reading on Discord, looks like V2 will drop tomorrow. 

[vrdubin6 184]

New blog post: https://fenixsim.com/blog/

Update rolling out in about an hour from now.

[edemeijer 19]

Hi all, do I need Navigraph to use the Fenix? Or will it work with default NavData as well? Same for a flightplan generated via the world map, will it import in the MCDU just like with the FBW A32nx?

[CO2Neutral 278]

On 8/4/2023 at 9:00 PM, abrams_tank said:

MSFS high fidelity add-ons, as per what Fenix just announced. An A319 and A321 add-on, plus sharklets, all for the price of £39.99

We define "high fidelity" differently.

[WestAir 2,530]

14 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

We define "high fidelity" differently.

You both believe the Fenix isn't high fidelity and that MSFS isn't lucrative for developers. Your opinion is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

[rick celik 1,252]

58 minutes ago, WestAir said:

You both believe the Fenix isn't high fidelity and that MSFS isn't lucrative for developers. Your opinion is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

Just ask him why most devs announced the move over 12-16 months after release with zero interest in older products lol this includes x plane devs diving into msfs. Also fenix uses the pro sim suite, which is extremely high fidelity.

I agree with that last sentence 🤣 

[ha5mvo 261]

1 hour ago, WestAir said:

You both believe the Fenix isn't high fidelity and that MSFS isn't lucrative for developers. Your opinion is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

It’s high fidelity in system simulation (prosim) but a tier below with everything else, so yes, it is a question of definition.

Great if you want to do standard operations with AP on for most part. If you want to go for abnormals you might find yourself in trouble for the plane won’t behave as expected.

High fidelity should apply for both systems and dynamics, checking just one box isn’t enough in my book. Might be alright for you and that’s just fine.

[WestAir 2,530]

30 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

It’s high fidelity in system simulation (prosim) but a tier below with everything else, so yes, it is a question of definition.

I'm mixed on this. Aamir has been very open with the difficulties in perfecting performance data. Getting an Airbus to be "on the numbers" in pitch, yaw, and roll with every attainable weight, speed, and altitude, in all configurations, winds, pressures, and temperatures isn't possible in MSFS. Compromises have to be made. There will simply be a point where correct pitch has incorrect drag, or correct single engine performance means incorrect multi engine performance. It's a problem everyone besides A2A is encountering, and why PMDG recently rolled back its high altitude restart simulation in favor of more accurate low RPM simulation.

Throw in other problems, like unrealistic friction models and points for wheels instead of volume, and crosswind / weathervaning inaccuracies, and there's a point where simulation meets limitation.

Now Aamir confirmed that some things like Flaps 3 drag and pitch will soon become externalized, much like next months external engine model. I'd also like to imagine with MSFS 2024 we will finally have proper ground handling. After that, I'm not quite sure where improvements can be made with regards to the FM. It's already spot on in 98% of the flight envelope, and within 5 knots and 5 degrees of pitch outside of it (when not discussing single engine operations, ground friction, fuel burn, etc that's being worked on.)

I get that high fidelity is of personal opinion, but I find it bad faith to suggest the Fenix doesn't reach it.

[jcomm 6,018]

I spent some time yesterday putting the latest incarnation of the Fénix to test in Alternate and Direct Law, comparing with a few videos of full flight simulator sessions, Airbus documentation, youtubes by A320Pilot testing the same scenarios using a Toliss A321 in X-Plane 11, etc...

My objective was at start to find out the inaccuracies I remembered having glimpsed in previous versions from some months ago, recording it, and waiting for better days, but the session ended up providing very consistent results and considerably changing my opinion about the Fénix A320, the only airbus simulator I presently use in MFS, towards an even more positive one !

Yes, having never flown a real Airbus, and honestly not quite remembering what I experienced in the 2001 full flight simulator session ( CAE simulator ), I do agree with 737NG that probably there should be a tad more need to pull in the stick during flare, without any downgraded laws, but I still have to find the sweet spot in terms of T16000 calibration because I can't exclude the possibility of the problem being there.

Contrarily to previous tests I had run some months ago when I was up to testing the Fénix for the last time, I did find, for instance but not only, the controllability in Alternate and Direct Law, without any serious hydraulic, electrical or other control surface impacting failures playing their tricks, very plausible and in good agreement with what is described in the documentation and several youtubes of both desktop with high grade addons and full flightsim sessions.

There were some tiny discrepancies with available Airbus CBT, like the one linked bellow where PFD symbology differences between Normal and Alternate Law are mentioned and exemplified, but I wasn't able to see it in the Fénix A320 (not sure if it's version/ FMGC-specific for the model used as a base for the Fénix developement):

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by jcomm

[lwt1971 7,460]

Posted on the other thread that's since moved past the first page given the pace of posting on this forum lol, here's IRL 320 captain V1-Simulations' comment below on his YT video (now pinned at top) re: updated thoughts on landing/flare. Would be good to get 320 Sim Pilot's thoughts on Fenix V2 Block1 too but doesn't seem to have posted anything in over a month. Will def be watching all these IRL 320 pilots' opinions on V2 Block2 once Fenix releases it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcbMkwDibTI

Updated thoughts on FLARE

After several extensive tests (excess of 10 landings) and jumping back and forth between sims I have now come to my conclusion.

I think its pretty dam*n good.

But why then does it sometimes end up feeling "off" in msfs? I think I know the answer. The problem herein lies with the vast majority of glideslopes being misalgined and papis being incredibly stupid to follow in msfs. These anomalies cause the pilot to react, thus "destabilizing" the aircraft. More often than not this leads to a nose low or low pitch across the numbers, throwing the flare feeling "off" but not necessarily wrong. If you are destabilized at 50' (which should theoretically be across the threshold) your entire landing profile is going to be non standard. This leads to the two most common new airbus pilot types of landing.

-nose low, flare law activates, pilot goes oh word not allowed and and flares too abruptly causing either a balloon/float or driving the mains into the ground (ouch)
-nose high, flare activates, which triggers pilot to commence flare at higher AoA than optimal thus total AoA is above "standard" causing more drag and a rapid IAS speed bleed off, sometimes bleeding well below Vapp into Vls.

Side note about landing in Vls, in the real airbus 90% if you are in Vls and start the flare, it aint gonna work out for you lol you just lack the energy to arrest the descent rate adequately so most of the time they will be firm. You also run the risk of getting into an unemployment attitdue (11.7 degrees Tailstrike)

Unfortunately the visual approach guidance systems we have in MSFS do not work correctly all the time, in fact I think most of the time they are slightly off.

I also prefer removing the reactivity. With the latest update I dont suffer from that nose up the previous version had. I might bring it in just a bit but so far the linear feels about as good as it gets in normal conditions