4 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

We all know its wrong. Any product you buy is not great from the get go and will always have something wrong. Its not ground breaking you can still fly A-B which is the main purpose for most people. Most of the people who just want to fly A-B and don't do fuel checks etc would not care about this others will. So either way you look at it is a finished product. Can it fly A-B yes it can job done. Obviously for developers its not but for most people it is.

But the information you say is inaccurate saying its unfinished it really is not for most people who don't care about what I have mentioned. Its like saying you buy a game for Xbox its classed has a finished product ready to be sold for most people they just want to play it and could not care about any updates that will come to the game after.

I'm a not so satisfied customer that wants a properly working and finished product, not to mention the landing pitch problem, some roaring audio problems and many other "silly" things. For A-B trips there are Captain Sim things, so stop to say that my info are not accurate.

16 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

I'm a not so satisfied customer that wants a properly working and finished product, not to mention the landing pitch problem, some roaring audio problems and many other "silly" things. For A-B trips there are Captain Sim things, so stop to say that my info are not accurate.

Well stop using it "Fenix" until they fix your problems that seems no other user even RWP like V1 don't have a problem with. You surely seem to have an axe to grind for some reason with this developer did they steal your lunch money or something. Geez.

41 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

I'm a not so satisfied customer that wants a properly working and finished product, not to mention the landing pitch problem, some roaring audio problems and many other "silly" things. For A-B trips there are Captain Sim things, so stop to say that my info are not accurate.

What you "want" is totally irrelevant. You may "want" to use a different product then instead of spreading all the negativity here. Unbelievable childish behaviour. You may "want" to live with the limitations of a computer simulation.

Edited February 15, 20242 yr by techman

16 hours ago, WestAir said:

You'll forgive me for bringing up FSLabs, but I want to make a point that FSLabs will have to utilize the native MSFS engine simulation or make their own. They'll have the same fuel burn problems, the same pitch/drag problems, the same ground handling issues as everyone else trying to build a 1:1 rendition of the aircraft. If FSLabs wants to go the Fenix / A2A route to build an external module to handle all the good parts, you're looking at a time investment that quite frankly has already been made by their competition.

In other words: The best we can see from FSLabs is the exact same thing, and that's never good if you're not first to the market.

I think that is the reason why it's taking FSL so long to come up with something for MSFS. 

But if they prioritize the A320 NEO (or A321 NEO 🥰) over the CEO variants I believe they're all set. I can't see those on the horizon from Fenix yet. Not to speak of an A330 that is rumored to be in development by FSL. 

 

Edited February 15, 20242 yr by thepilot

13 hours ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

Why actually did you bring this up derailing the thread? Fenix, PMDG or the "Youtube Expert" don't need your sympathy.

My comment isn't derailing anything, and it's not about sympathy. It was a tounge-in-cheek comment.

You seem to have a bit of a thing for posting these agitated comments lately. Please quit it.

2 hours ago, techman said:

What you "want" is totally irrelevant. You may "want" to use a different product then instead of spreading all the negativity here. Unbelievable childish behaviour. You may "want" to live with the limitations of a computer simulation.

 

3 hours ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

Well stop using it "Fenix" until they fix your problems that seems no other user even RWP like V1 don't have a problem with. You surely seem to have an axe to grind for some reason with this developer did they steal your lunch money or something. Geez.

Some guys here are crying because it seems that I "want" break their beloved toy, it's unbelievable that legit critics based on real problems affecting the Fenix software are intended as destructive. Also, I'm not using an "axe" against Fenix, just observing that we are using an imperfect and an unfinished product. I can understand that a software requires long developing times, and Fenix isn't the worst from this point of view because they admitted their error when a new version was announced last september (and I produced many critics for this, before and after their announcement). I'm observing the same problems with PMDG and their expensive DC-6, that is an almost abandon ware with few symbolic periodical patches. But the shaming boys don't accept any critics about their toys (and don't produce any valid argument when their axes are lowering on our necks). Sometimes it's very hard to defend our consumer rights.

P.S.: Not to mention when I refused to buy a Flying Iron Me109 or Spitfire for their imaginative and "fantastic" flight model and 3D modeling.

Edited February 15, 20242 yr by Claudius_

"weeks not months"  

7 hours ago, kholt said:

There are good reasons for this for people who have the right priorities regarding realistic workflow (no panning) with multi-monitor support, hardware support and weather.  For those that care about how well dirt, chipping paint and rivets, and passenger seats are modeled, well there’s Fenix.

If you want realistic flows with no panning you should try VR. That would show you that the Fenix is more than dirt and rivets, even with no 2D panels. 

51 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

 

Some guys here are crying because it seems that I "want" break their beloved toy, it's unbelievable that legit critics based on real problems affecting the Fenix software are intended as destructive. Also, I'm not using an "axe" against Fenix, just observing that we are using an imperfect and an unfinished product. I can understand that a software requires long developing times, and Fenix isn't the worst from this point of view because they admitted their error when a new version was announced last september (and I produced many critics for this, before and after their announcement). I'm observing the same problems with PMDG and their expensive DC-6, that is an almost abandon ware with few symbolic periodical patches. But the shaming boys don't accept any critics about their toys (and don't produce any valid argument when their axes are lowering on our necks). Sometimes it's very hard to defend our consumer rights.

P.S.: Not to mention when I refused to buy a Flying Iron Me109 or Spitfire for their imaginative and "fantastic" flight model and 3D modeling.

You didnt even understand the core of my post. 

"Consumer rights". I lol´d.

40 minutes ago, techman said:

You didnt even understand the core of my post. 

"Consumer rights". I lol´d.

Yes, we are "consumers" from the point of view of the developers, don't forget it and don't laugh at it.

9 hours ago, kholt said:

 FSLabs on P3D is a superior simulation of an A320 and airline flying as compared to Fenix on MSFS.  There are good reasons for this for people who have the right priorities regarding realistic workflow (no panning) with multi-monitor support, hardware support and weather.  For those that care about how well dirt, chipping paint and rivets, and passenger seats are modeled, well there’s Fenix.

Lol so you selectively pick on dirt accumulation, chipping paint, passenger seats and hold those up as differentiating factors for those who want the Fenix?? Right ok then 🤣... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those of us who've used both FSL, P3D, Fenix, MSFS prefer the Fenix+MSFS combo because: a) well it's MSFS, b) Fenix V1 already was a very compelling in-depth simulation of the A320 ceo, and now with V2 Block 2 as articulated in this deep dive video just takes it to unprecedented levels that's going to make Fenix V2 + MSFS a far superior combo.
 

Edited February 15, 20242 yr by lwt1971

I'd love to see more "imperfect and unfinished" addon aircraft like the Fenix!

 

And btw: if only perfect and finished software products would be released we would still use typewriters.

 

Edited February 15, 20242 yr by RALF9636

3 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

"weeks not months"  

😁

6 hours ago, Claudius_ said:

I'm a not so satisfied customer that wants a properly working and finished product, not to mention the landing pitch problem, some roaring audio problems and many other "silly" things. For A-B trips there are Captain Sim things, so stop to say that my info are not accurate.

It’s evident you don’t know what you are talking about. Funny roaring audio problems no else has mentioned that. You are the exact same in Discord when you typed in it. Carry on anyway.

3 hours ago, Claudius_ said:

Sometimes it's very hard to defend our consumer rights.

Good luck we all have a working functional plane. Sounds like a skill issue.

Edited February 15, 20242 yr by carlanthony24