2 hours ago, jcomm said:

Looking inside the aircraft flight dynamics file reveals a rather "poor" set of parameters,

I am genuinely curious how you define "poor" set of parameters and just what these parameters are and what you define in your development knowledge, what they should be. Also you do realise that various portions of Fenix has it's FM externalised to WASM modules?

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

which suggests that this model was created with systems + Normal Law in the main focus.

How did you determine that lol? Why would anyone build an FM around Normal Law? Also what systems?

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

Alternate Law and even worst Direct Law are certainly week points of the present simulation.

According to whom? The Direct Law implementation has been touted as spot on, which might I add is what you'd implement the FM around, not normal law, why would you ever think it'd be for normal law?

7 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

I am genuinely curious how you define "poor" set of parameters and just what these parameters are and what you define in your development knowledge, what they should be. Also you do realise that various portions of Fenix has it's FM externalised to WASM modules?

How did you determine that lol? Why would anyone build an FM around Normal Law? Also what systems?

According to whom? The Direct Law implementation has been touted as spot on, which might I add is what you'd implement the FM around, not normal law, why would you ever think it'd be for normal law?

He is just an XP Troll doing his thing. 

May I ask is Fenix the new whooping stick in the flight sim community to develop a honest replicate aircraft for its development at a honest price without taking a beating from the armchair community? They seem to get more negativity feedback these days while trying to be more productive and treated less. Hats off to those who try to program these  things to get bashed every second.

Edited August 24, 20232 yr by JBDB-MD80

24 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

He is just an XP Troll doing his thing. 

That's rather poor of you, but ... well... expected...

13 minutes ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

May I ask is Fenix the new whooping stick in the flight sim community to develop a honest replicate aircraft for its development at a honest price without taking a beating from the armchair community? They seem to get more negativity feedback these days while trying to be more productive and treated less. Hats off to those who try to program these  things to get bashed every second.

Its the minority. People who like P3D/X-Plane and then people who just like to video without saying anything good, or not have the reasonable knowledge compared to others.

2 minutes ago, jcomm said:

That's rather poor of you, but ... well... expected...

Just get tired of your whining about everything. 

3 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Just get tired of your whining about everything. 

Ignore button works very well. I got banned (for a week) calling him out 2 years ago.

Edited August 24, 20232 yr by JBDB-MD80

😁

57 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Just get tired of your whining about everything. 

I'm actually not whining since, although "poor"(*) wasn't the best choice on my phrase I use Fenix as the only Airbus in MFS, and you never saw me comparing XP airbuses to MFS. At most you can see references to FSlabs in P3D, which I do believe are very well done too.

I am also aware of B2, and will wait for it because indeed what I do the most when using flight simulator is reproducing extreme situations like bad weather and or system failures, and try to follow the procedures.

I look fwd to see the Alternate and Direct Law implementations of Fenix fine tuned, and I am aware that they're working on totally external engine models, which is indeed the only way to go, in MFS, P3D, XP, if you want accuracy.

Some posts from simmers,me included since I have never flown a real Airbus 320, are worth what they are regarding the evaluation of accuracy and detail on a simulated aircraft in MFS or whatever platform, and sometimes they may even suggest it is simply great, amazing, perfect !!! 

That's why I choose to watch youtube channels run by real world pilots, in this particular case airline pilots, even more if they're type rated on the aircraft being modelled, and I have their feedback as a reference.

The three youtubers and rw pilots, two of them on the type, mentioned above, are positive about Fenix, just as I am, but they also point out areas where it needs attention. It's good for me to see that they all arrive to the same points.

(*) : I should have written "simple" / "linear", in the sense that I believe most of what we see in the Fenix Airbus, at least regarding it's operation in Normal Law, has to be fine tuned outside of the default MFS FDM, but I might be totally wrong...

 

Edited August 24, 20232 yr by jcomm

"Real pilots" don't believe "real pilots" who put their yourube content every other day 🙂

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

Looking inside the aircraft flight dynamics file reveals a rather "poor" set of parameters, which suggests that this model was created with systems + Normal Law in the main focus. Alternate Law and even worst Direct Law are certainly week points of the present simulation.

 

I think various opinions are okay, especially when it comes to qualitative aspects of the airplane like FLARE and whatnot, which we can always work towards, but I am extremely curious about a couple of points in your statement. 

1) What "poor" parameters are you talking about, and by what metrics? There are portions of the FM that are externalised and not immediately obvious to the naked eye - if you take a look at the changelog, these should be articulated slightly further there - but I am always open to discussing parameters with someone who has questions. 

2) The suggestion that the model was created with Normal Law as the main focus is definitely one I find irksome - but more to the point, could you define why you find Direct Law to be a weak point in your experience? The aircraft, flight model, and subsequent fly by wire are built layer by layer. Raw flight model first. Direct law. Then Normal Law. Each step, including Direct Law, is pilot validated before passing to the next stage, but contrary to my prior point, pilots pretty much have only ever flown the airplane in Direct Law in sim sessions, so that is the benchmark. I haven't actually spoken to a pilot that's flown the real thing in Direct Law yet given the absolute rarity of the occasion, but I'm sure they're out there. With all that being said, we got an FFS all to ourselves, and recorded the Direct Law behaviour with various weights, CGs, etc - and the pitch and roll rates in Direct Law, before pilot validation, are matched to the rates achieved in the FFS. 

3 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

"Real pilots" don't believe "real pilots" who put their yourube content every other day 🙂

That's something I have thought about. 

I'm a real glider pilot, although I presently fly pretty much only ( at least in terms of the required 15 landings in 24 months ) required to keep within the requirements  of my EASA GPL, but some of the fellow glider pilots I've been flying with for years are also rw airline pilots... Unfortunately when I try to talk about flightsims they "run away" saying they HATE IT and have enough of it with their checkrides ... 🙂  so I have to admire rw airline pilots who still find the time to play flight simulation on their spare times... and some actually contribute with their feedback for developers of aircraft addons to be able to fix / fine tune some problems...

19 minutes ago, Aamir said:

I think various opinions are okay, especially when it comes to qualitative aspects of the airplane like FLARE and whatnot, which we can always work towards, but I am extremely curious about a couple of points in your statement. 

1) What "poor" parameters are you talking about, and by what metrics? There are portions of the FM that are externalised and not immediately obvious to the naked eye -

Exactly my point Aamir, and it was not a critic, although as I explained above, "poor" was not the best choice for a word...

I meant that I believe a good part has to be fine tuned outside of MFS. It has always been like that since, say, fs9 and the most sophisticated addons... If you look at their CFG or even were ale to decode their AIR files you could find sometimes a rather basic characterization of the aircraft being modelled because the most of it was done using gauge programming or a totally or partially external flight model, now with MFS using even new approaches...

BTW, same applies to other flight simulation platforms...

Quote

2) The suggestion that the model was created with Normal Law as the main focus is definitely one I find irksome -

It's based on some tests I have run after downgrading to Alternate or Direct Law, specially in asymmetric thrust scenarious.

I know you have mentioned before that B2 will bring additional "externalization" of systems, starting with the turbine model. This is why I say I look fwd into B2, and then into the reviews made by these pilots.

As a simmer only when it comes to "flying" an Airbus of any model, and although I did have the chance (many years ago) of trying an A320 full flightsim ( CAE ) I have to base my tests on what I read, and it's sometimes difficult to find good documents, not to mention that sometimes they seem to contradict or at least be rather sparse about some details. 

I have, for instance, been able to induce a series of pitch up/down oscillations in the 320 when reverting to Alternate Law that I wouldn't expect to be possible in the real aircraft. I'll have to try to reproduce it and show what I am talking about...

Edited August 24, 20232 yr by jcomm

30 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I have, for instance, been able to induce a series of pitch up/down oscillations in the 320 when reverting to Alternate Law that I wouldn't expect to be possible in the real aircraft. I'll have to try to reproduce it and show what I am talking about...

Yeah, a video is good - I remember seeing a lot of weird behaviour in alternate law, and worse in Direct Law in the FFS. 

Edited August 24, 20232 yr by Aamir

12 hours ago, rob0203 said:

See here. You just need to use a different format and then it will work:

https://kb.fenixsim.com/invalid-f-pln-uplink-message-when-importing-from-simbrief

Thanks for the link, and I will consider it with future flight plans that may cause problems. In the case of last nights flight plan, I just picked a different route in Simbrief (there were three viable options) and all worked out. Since I had never encountered this problem before, I didn't know, initially, if it was a potential problem with my update or something along those lines. Again, thanks for the help 🙂