8 hours ago, WestAir said:

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.

I may surprise you but I would 98% agree with you here.

No, it's not 98% within the envelope, far from it if you consider pitch\power curve  (per weight/altitude - the so called "unreliable airspeed" procedure), which is bread and butter stuff. Engine performance is not even ballpark figures and those are just the very basics...

I can only comment on what I have NOW. If they fix the bulk of it at some point ( and TBH some of the gross inaccuracies from the initial release were fixed) , I wouldn't be happier but to date there's still A LOT to be done until the FM is on par with the system simulation.

Where I 100% agree with you is that as opposed to the common concept you'll hear from the cheerleading band, they were dealt a bad hand in the form of the MSFS physics engine. There's only so much they can do given the size of that blanket and your PMDG example demonstrates it nicely.

How come FSLabs  manages to get it 98% right given a supposedly more inferior (albeit much more flexible) physics engine??

I believe you have answered that last question in your post as well! Not unless they are going to go the A2A (or Majestic software) route, dump the glorious MSFS engine and go external will they be able to achieve that level of fidelity. Otherwise, the blanket's just too short.

 

Edited August 26, 20232 yr by ha5mvo

12 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

I believe you have answered that last question in your post as well! Not unless they are going to go the A2A (or Majestic software) route, dump the glorious MSFS engine and go external will they be able to achieve that level of fidelity. Otherwise, the blanket's just too short.

During the release of Accusim Aamir commented on this and stated, and I am giving a rough paraphrase here, that MSFS is fantastic for a base simulation of a wide range of aircraft, but if you want to get 1:1 numbers on any specific aircraft you'll have to go external.

I'll see if I can dig up his quote when I get home from work. It made a lot of sense and really changed my outlook on sim FM's in general.

27 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

I believe you have answered that last question in your post as well! Not unless they are going to go the A2A (or Majestic software) route, dump the glorious MSFS engine and go external will they be able to achieve that level of fidelity. Otherwise, the blanket's just too short.

I have believed less in the "MFS CFD" than I believe now, specially after following some of the "Flight Model Review" videos, who pointed out that not many aircraft developed for MFS 2020 are profiting from the "full CFD with reinjection".

I do believe that MFS 2024 can change all of this to an even better scenario, and I only hope that my 2021 rig can run it at least as smoothly as MFS 2020 presently runs.

When we really start to dig into some of the intricacies of the ASOBO CFD approach, specially with the help of someone  like C172pilot, we are shown a lot more of potential than what a more superficial analysis can render.

OFC it's always going to be arguable just like any other approach.

regarding the use of external flight models, I did have the Majestic Q-400 in fsx and I honestly felt it as too plastic for my liking, specially in it's interaction with weather.

I like the A2A Comanche in MFS, but somehow it felt better to me in FSX, tbh... There are some details which I think need fine tuning, if possible...

I tend to prefer / opt for aircraft developed using the base flight simulator engine.

Edited August 26, 20232 yr by jcomm

1 hour ago, WestAir said:

During the release of Accusim Aamir commented on this and stated, and I am giving a rough paraphrase here, that MSFS is fantastic for a base simulation of a wide range of aircraft, but if you want to get 1:1 numbers on any specific aircraft you'll have to go external.

I'll see if I can dig up his quote when I get home from work. It made a lot of sense and really changed my outlook on sim FM's in general.

 

Yup, here is the thread and where Aamir posted: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/?do=findComment&comment=4990988

1 hour ago, ha5mvo said:

 

How come FSLabs  manages to get it 98% right given a supposedly more inferior (albeit much more flexible) physics engine??

 

 

Wait FSL is not 100%   what happened to the other 2% not being realistic? Did it get block and quarantined by Bit or Windows defender?

Edited August 26, 20232 yr by JBDB-MD80

1 hour ago, WestAir said:

During the release of Accusim Aamir commented on this and stated, and I am giving a rough paraphrase here, that MSFS is fantastic for a base simulation of a wide range of aircraft, but if you want to get 1:1 numbers on any specific aircraft you'll have to go external.

Does it really matter? Even if, for arguments sake, its a fantastic GENERIC engine it still doesn't suffice when it comes to top tier simulations like the Fenix aims to be. It might be good for the likes of Aerosoft or Capt. Sim where the average user wouldn't know any better nor probably care as long as the bitmaps are nice.

Bottom line remains the same - if you can't tweak it enough (and I can go through some of the reasons why but that's for another occasion perhaps) to create a reliable representation then you simply need to dump it, or at least portions of it. This is basically what the Fenix developer said and I don't understand why some still go out of their way insisting otherwise.

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

I tend to prefer / opt for aircraft developed using the base flight simulator engine.

Why? if it flies by the numbers why should it matter how this was attained?

In the real world, we often fly by the seat of the pants. NO simulator, not even full motion level-d sims can replicate that so the next best thing, to me at least, is getting as close to that figures- wise.

49 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Why? if it flies by the numbers why should it matter how this was attained?

In the real world, we often fly by the seat of the pants. NO simulator, not even full motion level-d sims can replicate that so the next best thing, to me at least, is getting as close to that figures- wise.

I see your point, and agree, but unfortunately I am yet to experiment an addon using an external FDM engine that convinces me and / or behaves flawlessly in terms of integration with the base fligth simulator being used mostly for the visuals.

Very recently I tested the most fluid so far visuals simulator for Aerowinx PSX, based on MFS.

The smoothness is by far the best I ever experienced since I use Aerowinx,PS1 with fs9 and fsx and the PSX with XP10 and 11, as well as with P3D and now MFS 2020, but there's still something lacking when it comes to controlling the aircraft and getting the expected responses...

The A2A Comanche is surely a great addon, but I notice the effect of the FM being run outside and honestly would rather prefer to have an aircraft fully modelled within the base FDM engine,even if using irrealistic parameters here / there...

57 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Does it really matter?

I think it does, only because the sim is 3 years old and the people hired to work on the flight physics are exceptionally talented. You can't make a native simulation of a non generic aircraft in 2023, but if the current offering is just a frame work I think rather than throw it all out, patience and investment is the better alternative.

And Asobo is getting lots of investment. I am eagerly hoping the physics team cares as much as we do about these issues. Time will tell.

13 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

How come FSLabs  manages to get it 98% right given a supposedly more inferior (albeit much more flexible) physics engine??

 

Flexibility and 10 years of having a stable platform to work on. MSFS is trying something new - it's going to move (and has moved) the goalposts a few times in the early days. This is the early days. ESP as a platform, and it's FDE hasn't really changed much throughout the iterations. Developers like stationary targets to aim towards. Right now MSFS are adding new parameters, new tuning values, etc etc as they update the sim every couple of months. CFD was released midway through, so on and so forth. 

It's important to note a lot of developers in ESP, toward the latter years, ended up also externalising factors into their control. I'm not sure about FSL, I've never looked into it personally, but second hand I've heard there's some externalisation going on with the FM there too. Even if they haven't - you've hit the nail on the head - it's about two things -

1) Flexibility

2) Maturity

Inferior or superior is always up for debate - but factually the technology is newer and has interesting potential. Whether or not it lives up to it, is a question of both the above factors and how developers cope with growing pains. And the final fact still stands - if you want a perfect recreation of a simulated aircraft, you won't find it on current computing hardware. If you want to get darn close - externalise. Doesn't matter what sim you're in - there's a reason multi million dollar FFS don't all run the same global FDE - it's specific because the only way of getting great results is going to be controlling both input and output as opposed to simply input. 

I can live with the fact that a £50 addon is only 98% accurate in its flight model. Those who can't should consider therapy. 

4 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I can live with the fact that a £50 addon is only 98% accurate in its flight model. Those who can't should consider therapy. 

i be  happy with 70  🙂

22 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

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
 

Thanks for this post!

I think we need more feedback from real life A320 pilots. No offense to some people in this thread, but IMO, feedback from real life A320 pilots is more meaningful to me than those who are not a rated A320 pilot in real life, even if you are a real life pilot but not rated on the A320. For me at least, feedback from real life A320 pilots is 100x more meaningful, provided they have no conflict of interests. 

Here is Blackbox711's video on Fenix V2:

Maybe 320SimPilot will post a review of V2, it would be nice to hear what he has to say too. And I think Into the Blue is also a real life A320 pilot (he is a real life Airbus pilot I think)? If Into the Blue is a real life A320 pilot, would be nice to hear what he thinks too.

Edited August 27, 20232 yr by abrams_tank

On 8/4/2023 at 10:53 AM, btacon said:

Amazing Stuff and News. Thanks Brandon for sharing. 
 

PS. Will it have an EFB? Sorry…had to do it!  😜😜😜

EFB - ? no acronyms unless previously defined n your comment

"everything feels bad" "electronic fuel battery" "each flying bird" "electrical fan band" "eliminate funny batteries" . . . 

Hi,

Regarding V1 recommendation, does he mean he puts reactivity to 0% ? I am at 30 currently.

Pierre

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

Maybe 320SimPilot will post a review of V2, it would be nice to hear what he has to say too. And I think Into the Blue is also a real life A320 pilot (he is a real life Airbus pilot I think)? If Into the Blue is a real life A320 pilot, would be nice to hear what he thinks too.

"Into the Blue Simulations" already recorded at least one video praising the qualities of the Fenix A320:

Now THIS is "Study Level"! | Real Airbus Pilot Reviews the Fenix A320 | Microsoft Flight Simulator - YouTube

but it has more than 1 yr so maybe we could ask him for an update with the V2 B1 features and fine tuning.

Edited August 27, 20232 yr by jcomm