9 minutes ago, jcomm said:

while at the same time, sad that I can never find that level of satisfaction with the flight simulators I use 😞  My problem in good part, I'm sure...

Naw sounds like desktop simulation will never satisfy you but maybe flying in the RW more often will remedy that? perhaps.

1 minute ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

Naw sounds like desktop simulation will never satisfy you but maybe flying in the RW more often will remedy that? perhaps.

Nope, the flight model of the LS1c and Phoebus leave a lot to be desired 🤣

Well, the Phoebus I fly was built in 1969, so, when I was just 5 yo... so it's performance isn't as good as it used to be some good years ago, and after a few repairs... not to mention that I struggle to get into the cockpit 🙂

 

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Flying the FSLabs A320 is so much better, in all aspects, than what I get with the Fenix A320 that I have seriously been considering buying a full P3Dv5 license, although I would rather prefer to go P3D v6.

Yes the simulator is outdated, and graphically it can't compete with MFS, but just as if I want to play flying a 744 I go Aerowinx PSX, for an Airbus I really prefer FSLabs ( even more than the alternatives in yet another platform I also use ).

I hope FSLabs can bring that same feel to MFS... That will make the difference, but I have my doubts, unless they make it fully external, like PROSIM. And yes, the Fenix uses PROSIM, but unfortunately when it comes to the flight dynamics, it is tied to MFS's core FDM, and it shows 😕

 

You keep repeating this everywhere from what I've seen, but never provide additional details to these nebulous claims... Apart from ground handling which we all know is sub-par in MSFS, how *exactly* and in what *particular* ways does a FSL aircraft in P3D using its FSX-based aerodynamics engine have better flight dynamics than say a Fenix V2 in MSFS? (I'm not including Fenix's current engine simulation/physics in the flight dynamics discussion and in any case that will be addressed once the Fenix V2 Block 2 arrives). And why exactly do you think a future FSL aircraft in MSFS can't provide equal or better flight dynamics than what they did in P3D? From all what I recall during my time with P3D, the flight dynamics experience is trounced by MSFS, especially the on-rails flying I always hated. Who's to say that FSL can't deliver an equal or better flight dynamics experience with their MSFS Concorde compared to the P3D version?, again especially since P3D's flight dynamics engine is essentially FSX.

I realize it's a go-to narrative for some to keep pushing about MSFS, but hearing from actual experts is always good to cut thru the narratives about flight dynamics in MSFS: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/?do=findComment&comment=4991341 
 

 

Edited August 20, 20232 yr by lwt1971

19 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

You keep repeating this everywhere from what I've seen, but never provide additional details to these nebulous claims... Apart from ground handling which we all know is sub-par in MSFS, how *exactly* and in what *particular* ways does a FSL aircraft in P3D using its FSX-based aerodynamics engine have better flight dynamics than say a Fenix V2 in MSFS? (I'm not including Fenix's current engine simulation/physics in the flight dynamics discussion and in any case that will be addressed once the Fenix V2 Block 2 arrives). And why exactly do you think a future FSL aircraft in MSFS can't provide equal or better flight dynamics than what they did in P3D? From all what I recall during my time with P3D, the flight dynamics experience is trounced by MSFS, especially the on-rails flying I always hated. Who's to say that FSL can't deliver an equal or better flight dynamics experience with their MSFS Concorde compared to the P3D version?, again especially since P3D's flight dynamics engine is essentially FSX.

I realize it's a go-to narrative for some to keep pushing about MSFS, but hearing from actual experts is always good to cut thru the narratives about flight dynamics in MSFS: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/?do=findComment&comment=4991341 
 

 

Fail an engine, follow the recommended procedures, show your conclusions...

19 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Fail an engine, follow the recommended procedures, show your conclusions...

Ok, that is all down to the aircraft implementation and how it's coded to simulate these failure situations, however deeply or not (in the particular case of the Fenix, we'll have to wait and see with V2 Block 2 and their enhanced engine simulation). But what does that have to do with the flight dynamics in P3D vs MSFS? And why couldn't a developer like FSL implement an aircraft in MSFS with these failure simulations properly simulated? If you feel the problem(s) or lack of proper simulation in specific scenarios is not due to something lacking in aircraft implementation but in the core sim platform itself, then please do educate us on what you feel that P3D has that MSFS doesn't (when it comes to aerodynamics), that allows an FSL aircraft on P3D to do something that you feel it cannot in MSFS without "going external".
 

Edited August 20, 20232 yr by lwt1971

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Fail an engine, follow the recommended procedures, show your conclusions...

For the particular failure that you are citing, perhaps FSLabs is better for Fenix. But for overall failures, I think Fenix is probably much better than FSLabs. Fenix has like over 250 failures: https://soarbywire.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/failurelist-v0.2.pdf

FSLabs does not have a list of failures and I have been asking for some time if there is a comprehensive list of failures in FSLabs. The takeaway I get is that FSLabs simulates much fewer failures than Fenix, but this isn't surprising, since Fenix is based off of Prosim.

Edited August 20, 20232 yr by abrams_tank

Today I did something that I sworn would never happen - I (re-)installed P3Dv5.4, but I did it for one primary reason - to get access to the FSL Concorde documentation.
Yes, I bought the Concorde a few days ago, partly to support continued development, partly because there’ll be a discount on the MSFS version, but also to refresh my memory reading the docs while I patiently wait for the MSFS version.

Obviously, having bought it I also fired up P3D to have a look, not a pleasant sight 🙂. Concorde itself looks ok, but I had forgotten what a horror show P3D is. I’m not just talking about the outside world, but there are obviously limits to what can be done with cockpit graphics in an old engine. I might get around to installing ASP3D, Chaseplane, GSX2 and LHR/JFK add-ons to have a go at the tutorial flight, but I doubt it.

1 minute ago, SierraDelta said:

Obviously, having bought it I also fired up P3D to have a look, not a pleasant sight 🙂. Concorde itself looks ok, but I had forgotten what a horror show P3D is. I’m not just talking about the outside world, but there are obviously limits to what can be done with cockpit graphics in an old engine. I might get around to installing ASP3D, Chaseplane, GSX2 and LHR/JFK add-ons to have a go at the tutorial flight, but I doubt it.

Heh, actually did exactly the same recently. With my new PC and massive amounts of space, I figured I'd install 5.4 for the sake of nostalgia and see how it ran on my new computer.

My God, the default look is a visual crime 😅 What an eyesore. However, once you get some of all the payware installed, get the look dialed in, a ReShade going, it still has a certain charm to its look. Especially the "2D clouds", while awful in some ways, being able to display those sharp, crisp clouds and defined tops when sitting on the ground, looks really immersive.

But whoever decided to implement that new water in 5.x, Nvidia Waterworks, ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Sorry, that was a bit of a thread departure. Just a fun identical experience.

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

(...) Flying the FSLabs A320 is so much better, in all aspects, than what I get with the Fenix A320 (...)

Wow, i can't even imagine going back to FSL's 320 after touching the Fenix even in its first iteration. They're just many many miles apart. Fenix is way more a 320 than FSL ever managed to and they're not done with it yet.

6 hours ago, F737MAX said:

Sunk cost fallacy. It's a common problem for businesses.

The sunk cost fallacy is also a problem for consumers -- which explains why some simmers cling to antiquated software when an upgrade to modern technology would greatly enrich their simming experience, and save them money to boot. I'm amused by people who refer to third-party add-ons as "investments." An "investment" is something that you hope will appreciate in value, such as real estate or stock ownership. Do you really think the scenery package or aircraft you purchased years ago for an outdated sim is going up in value? No, it is a sunk cost. Move on. Move upward.

8 hours ago, GCBraun said:

P3D performance is awful compared to MSFS. This aircraft is clearly pushing the limits of what is possible in that tired platform. 

Ockham's Razor. Get familiar.

I have any number of complex, High Fidelity addons that run quite well on P3D.

So (when) I pop for a new add-on, and said add-on runs poorly, though most other addons run well, I now blame the simulator?

EXTREMELY unreasonable.

The proper conclusion is that the ADDON is poorly coded, poorly optimized, or even over-spec'd for the platform.

8 hours ago, Sethos said:

Let's be real, base simulator is also part of blame here. P3D is a woolly old hector that starts to chug even on the very latest hardware, the second you start introducing anything complex into the equation. Hard to really push the envelope as a developer, if the engine you're working on is early Mesozoic era.

But in this case, reading about the Concorde's obscene RAM usage, sounds like FSL hasn't really bothered focusing on optimization or working within any sort of strict constraints.

You prove yourself wrong in your second sentence.

See my previous response - if my other complex addons run well, then a new add-on running poorly is most likely to be the add-on's fault rather than the simulator.

Just now, UrgentSiesta said:

You prove yourself wrong in your second sentence.

See my previous response - if my other complex addons run well, then a new add-on running poorly is most likely to be the add-on's fault rather than the simulator.

Yeah no. P3D runs like hot garbage with most complex addons, everybody who's ever touched P3D knows that.

Slightly off-topic but Concorde related. Does anyone have a link or resources to routes Concorde would typically (including some of the charter flights) do that are available in the latest AIRAC? I think there is a thread on FsLabs forums but it's locked behind the paywall. 

Edited August 20, 20232 yr by Zangoose

7 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Just Flight dipped their toes in XP 12:

 

It looks like it didn't work out for Just Flight in XP 12, they lost money on their portovers to XP 12. Needless to say, Just Flight is pretty smart, they are focusing on MSFS from now on, and probably won't start any new projects for XP 12.

They're doing poorly because they're still selling 2017 addons for $45 - $50 in 2023.

And it's REALLY hard to sell a product that doesn't run on the latest version of the simulator...

And their customers who can't use those same addons (like me), can't in good conscience recommend those products...

RIGHT?

If they can't figure that elementary "problem" out after decades in business...SMH.

Looks like they have ONE business model and can't adapt to other markets. Which isn't a ringing endorsement of their Biz Dev / Exec team.