43 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

the 737-600 is a silly example to use its not common for passenger variants anymore let alone airlines that people know. https://www.planespotters.net/aircraft/operators/boeing-737-600

Not everyone wants the 700 especially since most operators own the 800 which is way more common for passenger operations that people want to do with airlines they know. The 320 is most common with passenger operations that people want to do with certain airlines they know same with the 319/21 Hence why they buy the 800/319,20,21  Not everyone wants a 600 especially since hardly anyone uses it no wonder its cheaper, because if it was more expensive it wouldn't sell well if well with the price it currently is. So if you want to go down that route the 319,20,21 most likely sell way more than the 737 put together because only really one variant is the common one, actually a cheaper price in the UK. @F737MAX is spot on you are paying less with Fenix for 2 variants together than you are with PMDG that is only if people want to fly commerical passenger operations.

No, what's silly is your ASSumption that only current airframes on current routes is of interest or value.

I don't care one bit about what's most common out there IRL, because generally speaking the experience in the cockpit is nearly identical (per IRL design intent).

And finally, in case you missed it, I don't want ALL the variants.

My actual preference would be the 318 as I was able to travel BAs transat once upon a time 

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta

7 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

I don't get why people are complaining about the price so much. Read the blog carefully and you would understand. Let me know what other companies do the same practice Fenix does.

I think it’s very fairly priced , you pay a lot more for PMDG planes just the 777-300ER is not much cheaper and it’s just 1 x version.

Also being Fenix they are the leaders above PMDG who ports P3D planes to MSFS and charges an arm and leg for it

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by jason74

7 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

No, what's silly is your ASSumption that only current airframes on current routes is of interest or value.

I don't care one bit about what's most common out there IRL, because generally speaking the experience in the cockpit is nearly identical (per IRL design intent).

And finally, in case you missed it, I don't want ALL the variants.

My actual preference would be the 318 as I was able to travel BAs transat once upon a time 

Please look at the likes of Vatspy even Volanta most days if not every day you don't see over 50 people flying the 600,700 it barely breaks 20. its full of 800 some 900s so it really shows what is interest/value. Every day though you can see people using the whole 320 family. Its not about the cockpit its more about the routes that companies fly, only some routes allow 319 for example. You are only speaking for yourself generally most want them all. 

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by carlanthony24

Fenix is the best out there- pure and simple.  Each of these airframes are unique and they absolutely nailed them all.  That deserves incredible respect!

The takeoff calculator needs a bit of work for sure on the A321. Tried to take off at Phoenix just now and ran out of room on the runway 15 knots before rotate speed.

Calculator had me flex take off despite it being 43C outside.

4 minutes ago, nikolajz1 said:

The takeoff calculator needs a bit of work for sure on the A321. Tried to take off at Phoenix just now and ran out of room on the runway 15 knots before rotate speed.

Calculator had me flex take off despite it being 43C outside.

Maybe to heavy with the temperature you was at. 

Edited August 20, 20241 yr by carlanthony24

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

... your ASSumption...

My actual preference would be the 318 as I was able to travel BAs transat once upon a time 

Thoroughly unnecessary, are you trying to get this thread locked?

While I agree with you that I'd like to see an A318, I can understand it would be a niche product, and it's annoying, inane discourse to revert to half-clever insults in your post because you disagree with someone.

11 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

Maybe to heavy with the temperature you was at. 

It definitely was. The a320 calculator rejected takeoffs in the past if this was the case and definitely didn't give a flex temperature 

My question, why does Fenix include European taxes in the listed total price (approx $17.32 US), us Americans should be paying this? The taxes are not included at Aerosoft.

Darryl

5 hours ago, Greazer said:

Left Hook .... Right Hook .... (Thud) ..... FS Labs Knocked Out.

Ehh I wouldnt go that far, the inner workings of the FMS on the fslabs is still much better.  Ive found quite a few issues with the fenix today after flying the a321 and digging deeper into different areas mainly regarding managed speeds, and the now well known vnav issues. I know fenix will work it out, but there is a lot more that is wrong than I originally thought unfortunately.  That being said, fs labs have indeed missed out on a huge share of the market because most people dont care about this stuff the way I do.  As long as the cabin is pretty!  Thats what sells addons these days. 

2 hours ago, jason74 said:

Also being Fenix they are the leaders above PMDG who ports P3D planes to MSFS and charges an arm and leg for it

I’ve gotta disagree with you there. Fenix does have a fantastic marketing campaign, they do extraordinary modeling and texturing, but systems wise — there have been issues from the beginning. Simple stuff like controllability in the flare, engine out performance/capability, FPS issues, the list goes on. I’m not bashing them as I’m very glad they’re developing for the community and their products are great, with issues fixed over time. 
 

That said, when I get a PMDG plane, I know it’ll function as it’s intended (with no magic or secrets) right out of the box. This idea that Fenix is the “golden child” is fantasy in my view. I do wish PMDG would give up the console market, or have two different products so that they could really fine tune some aspects of their aircraft for PC, but I understand their thinking. I also wish their texturing and modeling was up to Fenix’s standards (specifically the 73). However, saying they’re just a P3D port really isn’t fair. 

2 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

Please look at the likes of Vatspy even Volanta most days if not every day you don't see over 50 people flying the 600,700 it barely breaks 20. its full of 800 some 900s so it really shows what is interest/value. Every day though you can see people using the whole 320 family. Its not about the cockpit its more about the routes that companies fly, only some routes allow 319 for example. You are only speaking for yourself generally most want them all. 

You might have a terminal case of selection bias.

Might want to get that checked out and corrected.

8 minutes ago, V1ROTA7E said:

I’ve gotta disagree with you there. Fenix does have a fantastic marketing campaign, they do extraordinary modeling and texturing, but systems wise — there have been issues from the beginning. Simple stuff like controllability in the flare, engine out performance/capability, FPS issues, the list goes on. I’m not bashing them as I’m very glad they’re developing for the community and their products are great, with issues fixed over time. 
 

That said, when I get a PMDG plane, I know it’ll function as it’s intended (with no magic or secrets) right out of the box. This idea that Fenix is the “golden child” is fantasy in my view. I do wish PMDG would give up the console market, or have two different products so that they could really fine tune some aspects of their aircraft for PC, but I understand their thinking. I also wish their texturing and modeling was up to Fenix’s standards (specifically the 73). However, saying they’re just a P3D port really isn’t fair. 

PMDG has its issues too, but where pmdg excels is aircraft handling and VNAV specifically.  I flew the 777 yesterday, entered an accurate wind forecast, and did a normal descent into KSFO.  It flew that descent so perfectly in VNAV the whole way down from FL 360 to 1000ft at idle thrust.  It met every single speed and altitude constraint on the arrival and I didnt need to touch the speedbrakes once, and it handflew like an absolute dream.  I wish they would work on their engine models to make them more accurate like fenix, but I think they have the best VNAV simulation out there.

Edited August 20, 20241 yr by Pilot53

1 minute ago, Pilot53 said:

PMDG has its issues too, but where pmdg excels is aircraft handling and VNAV specifically.  I flew the 777 yesterday, entered an accurate wind forecast, and did a normal descent into KSFO.  It flew that descent so perfectly in VNAV the whole way down from FL 360 to 1000ft at idle thrust.  It met every single speed and altitude constraint and I didnt need to touch the speedbrakes once, and it handflew like an absolute dream.  I wish they would work on their engine models to make them more accurate like fenix, but I think they have the best VNAV simulation out there.

Aren’t you supposed to use the speed brakes to help manage your decent? 

2 hours ago, jason74 said:

Also being Fenix they are the leaders above PMDG who ports P3D planes to MSFS and charges an arm and leg for

😂 "...ports planes..." Says the guy who's obviously never written a line of code.

I could make just as ridiculous an assertion by saying that Fenix hasn't done anything but create some 3D art because they just re-use the ProSim software.

But I'd never do that because I realize the herculean efforts they've put into their add-ons, and I applaud their success.