2 hours ago, Jazz said:

 

How do the FPS compare to the Fenix? 

Early initial impression - very much the same as far as performance goes.

Fenix has a definite edge on cosmetics + a cabin one can access without going to external view, if you find that important.

FM is better on the FSL. It definitely lands more realistically. I didn’t have the time to run the entire battery of tests yet (airspeed unreliable, roll rate etc.) so I hope it won’t give any unpleasant surprises there. I does “feel” right though- for what that’s worth…

It also has some nice features like the “live” airframe with the mel items and all. The Icing which is well modeled and I’m sure there are more than a couple of easter eggs there as well ( the aging of screens is one that came up already).

Worth paying the price of a top tier addon for that tradeoff? That’s a very individual call! 
It was a yes for me. Your mileage may vary…

Not a must if you have the fenix, but something to consider if you want (probably) more accurate dynamics, curious about the new features and don’t find spending 70 bucks a huge deal.

Edited December 12, 20241 yr by ha5mvo

29 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

FM is better on the FSL. It definitely lands more realistically.

Don't want to argue cause i do not have FSL and i am not a real pilot, but there is one Airbus active pilot ( V1-Simulations ) who says that Fenix is absolutely spot on.

He is flying Fenix almost on daily basis and has a lot of very informative videos.

FPS I found I to have no issues, although I do have a beefy rig with a 4080 Super/7800X3D. It’s on a par with the rest. I didn’t actually check for a cabin but now remember that I couldn’t open the cockpit door. After the surprisingly entertaining trips I’ve made to the iFly 737s galley to play around with the lighting controls mid flight, this is a rather large omission. 

1 hour ago, Beardyman said:

Don't want to argue cause i do not have FSL and i am not a real pilot, but there is one Airbus active pilot ( V1-Simulations ) who says that Fenix is absolutely spot on.

He is flying Fenix almost on daily basis and has a lot of very informative videos.

Isn't he's the one who also saif the Fenix Version 1 (upon release) flight dynamics were "great"? (obviously back than they were way off!). Admittedly, since Version 1 , Fenix had made great strides and although its quite good  its still a bit rough around the edges in some aspects as far as FM goes. I can get into the specifics but it will probably derail the thread into directions we both don't want to go.

Not even a multimillion level D simulator is "absolutely spot on". You can quantify what you can, the rest is a matter of opinion based on ones peripherals, the individual level of scrutiny and what not. Opinions are...well... like other things... - Everyone has one.  

If you come across a broad statement that's overly superlative, I suggest it might be taken with the same degree of suspicion as an addon with a "tested by real pilots" endorsement....

Edited December 12, 20241 yr by ha5mvo

It’s the problem of fanboyism and pseudo pilots reviewing. Most of the streamers are linked to editors so definitely biased.

You  read too often one sim has systems far more superior compared to  the other. Sorry it’s not sufficient and a sign of non professionalism. Most of these guys are just streamers and/or unemployed pilots.
 

To be valid présent your arguments with facts and figures, demonstrate what makes one model more realistic, what makes the other less realistic. Make demonstration like a true test pilot..
 

Same goes with flight model. It’s funny on this point because guys pretends one is floating or « flaring » too much, the other is perfect. All this is pure marketing and blabla. Just compare models with known figures instead of flying under AP while eating burritos. Airbus Fbw is well documented in terms of gload at high speed and pitch/roll rate at low speed. Easy to test with MSFS debug tools. 
Performance are now all over the place and anyone can grab an FCOM and replicates real situation. Same goes for MTOW with EFATO at v1 regarding TO dist… pilots with EFB can pull the figures and do actual tests. Stalls are very interesting in direct law as well…

V1 made a very interesting comparison but sometimes not enough scientifically. Maybe the other streamers affiliated to FSL can show more. 

1 hour ago, ha5mvo said:

Isn't he's the one who also saif the Fenix Version 1 (upon release) flight dynamics were "great"? (obviously back than they were way off!). Admittedly, since Version 1 , Fenix had made great strides and although its quite good  its still a bit rough around the edges in some aspects as far as FM goes. I can get into the specifics but it will probably derail the thread into directions we both don't want to go.

Not even a multimillion level D simulator is "absolutely spot on". You can quantify what you can, the rest is a matter of opinion based on ones peripherals, the individual level of scrutiny and what not. Opinions are...well... like other things... - Everyone has one.  

If you come across a broad statement that's overly superlative, I suggest it might be taken with the same degree of suspicion as an addon with a "tested by real pilots" endorsement....

V1 is a professional airbus pilot and also one who appears to have the least amount of "special interest" bias.  He flies all sims and planes.  If anybody gets a pass, it would be him.  

21 minutes ago, micstatic said:

V1 is a professional airbus pilot and also one who appears to have the least amount of "special interest" bias.  He flies all sims and planes.  If anybody gets a pass, it would be him.  

He may very well be! but at his capacity as an entertainer-streamer other considerations may come to mind. You tell me, what would keep more crowds glued to the screens? A series of tedious pitch/power tests at various weights and altitudes OR something along the lines of " WOW!! This is absolutely spot on!!!"

As a sidenote, the nearest to "spot on" that I can recall, is the Majestic Dash-8 in P3D and it used its own physics engine but I digress...

Edited December 12, 20241 yr by ha5mvo

12 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

He may very well be! but at his capacity as an entertainer-streamer other considerations may come to mind. You tell me, what would keep more crowds glued to the screens? A series of tedious pitch/power tests at various weights and altitudes OR something along the lines of " WOW!! This is absolutely spot on!!!"

As a sidenote, the nearest to "spot on" that I can recall, is the Majestic Dash-8 in P3D and it used its own physics engine but I digress...

I'm somebody who doesn't even get that down with the whole streamer thing.  But the flight sim community has always had an extreme obsession with what is realistic vs not realistic.  Yet over 95% of the folks have 0 hours logged in airliner equipment.  

Notice how people always minimalize a YouTuber or Streamer when their opinions do not align.

Edited December 12, 20241 yr by Sethos

I have already said it more than once, I no longer pay attention to the streemers since V1 of Fenix came out, everything was wonderful for all of them, then came v2.

2 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

Isn't he's the one who also saif the Fenix Version 1 (upon release) flight dynamics were "great"?

 

He did not say that and actually he said the freeware FBW A320NX had better flight dynamics than than the Fenix in version1. But believe what you want and if he seriously meant that but that is what he said. He was seriously talking about system depth.

Maddog X is still the best in my opinion though for MSFS but not on the level of a few developers over on the XP world of things.

Edited December 12, 20241 yr by JBDB-MD80

35 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Notice how people always minimalize a YouTuber or Streamer when their opinions do not align.

Conversely, when they do align, they're taken as gospel (by some).
Neither is a healthy response.
 

42 minutes ago, micstatic said:

Yet over 95% of the folks have 0 hours logged in airliner equipment. 

Yup. I've been lucky enough to have had an hour on a Level-D 737NG simulator over a decade ago. That's the closest I'm ever going to get and my half-decent yoke and PMDG / iFly 737 add-ons are, at best, a facsimile (albeit the view through my virtual cockpit window is light years ahead of what was projected on the screen in front of me in the trainer).

I find that the Fenix doesn't float on landing like some people like to complain about. But then I've set my reactivity settings and sensitivity curves in the MSFS controls page to be a lot less reactive than for other Airbus add-ons. Which controller is being used also plays a huge factor in feel.

 

Back onto FSLab's A321. If they've managed to deliver the best flight model of an A321, then kudos to them. It will hopefully elicit a response from Fenix.
As I've said previously, the MEL and icing depiction are interesting concepts that I'd like other devs to think about.

I think we'll have to wait until the FSL A321neo releases before a much wider audience picks it up and we have more user reviews. Then we can argue over who's right and wrong all over again!

Just to add Fenix adjust their controls on professional controllers and not on the average Joe TCA sidestick uses for the average simmer. If people don't know how to adjust the controls properly than how can they fly any plane in the sim/game properly. I have mastered the Fenix landings BTW with a 100$ Joystick.

Edited December 12, 20241 yr by JBDB-MD80

10 hours ago, F737MAX said:

I think we'll have to wait until the FSL A321neo releases before a much wider audience picks it up and we have more user reviews.

Unless they implement P3D strategy where you need to buy A320 to be able to use A321 - then price is getting really high.

Edited December 13, 20241 yr by Beardyman

On 12/12/2024 at 6:51 AM, GCBraun said:

After a couple more flights, there are some positives to report for sure: GSX integration and flight-model/flare behavior are very nice, edging out the Fenix. 

Nevertheless, this is clearly a port. I was quite shocked to see that the external parts of the aircraft are not fully modeled when trying to configure wing views from the flight-deck. This P3D way of doing things is not what MSFS users expect. 

It actually isn't a port native MSFS latest SDK, the cabin/wing views will change when the high def cabin will be available...
Those parts are only for shadows you are not mend to be in that part, it's not intended for that purpose as of now 😉