7 minutes ago, Farlis said:

They are indeed. If you don't speed up the process you will never see anything go wrong in your lifetime, because no one flies a single livery, let alone sims as many flights as you do in real life with one aircraft.

And those failures are still random failures and not serviced based failures. 
 

But its okay. Faboys and so on, nothing new here. 

Edited December 10, 20241 yr by MaximumN2

Good for Fslabs - But I am going to pass this one and wait for A321 Neo instead. Neo would be day one purchase for me! 

But, wait, does this really use the legacy flight model? Is there any other aircraft that uses that? Does it even exist in 2024?

Forget the FSL and Fenix comparisons they will both be great products to use and to not make a big fuss about but FSL's just work on the high fidelity A330 and Concorde and release it as soon as possible is that too much to ask?. No more A321's NEO's etc. We have almost just as much Airbus A320's than we have G.A. planes with the same avionics in MSFS LOL.

Edited December 10, 20241 yr by JBDB-MD80

1 hour ago, MOD said:

I had to laugh at the wording of this..... 'MSFS is not yet compatible with FSL products'. Over to you Asobo - better update MSFS quick to make it compatible with FSL products! Tail wagging the dog? 

Already tells you the attitude of FSL 😁

41 minutes ago, Farlis said:

They are indeed. If you don't speed up the process you will never see anything go wrong in your lifetime, because no one flies a single livery, let alone sims as many flights as you do in real life with one aircraft.

That's why I prefer the MEL over this, is so much more fun and gives far more realistic depth in the daily operations...  

39 minutes ago, MaximumN2 said:

Faboys and so on, nothing new here. 

Sure... I'm not the one who bought a totally unecessary product, just because the developer delivered once on a previous platform.

Who is the word not allowed now?

2 hours ago, Irisha said:

I think it’s because they hack memory dynamically to bypass what MSFS computes on a few aerodynamics vars like they did on P3D.

That’s why they are opted for legacy and not modern FM: they kept the same aero model.

As soon as MSFS is updated the adresses change and they have update the hack. 

As long as it works, am fine with that but yeah… not the most elegant path vis a vis Asobo.

Messy…

I keep hearing about all these supposed benefits of the FSL but it sounds like a dated addon with implementation issues and an unattractive price point. And I say this as someone who has given them a lot of money…

2 minutes ago, Farlis said:

 

Who is the word not allowed now?

Just look at poster previous posts you just quoted  and tell me what you think, that is all you need to know. You can't take many people who rarely post here that serious.

10 minutes ago, virtualstuff said:

That's why I prefer the MEL over this, is so much more fun and gives far more realistic depth in the daily operations...  

Wonder if it will catch on with other devs or be seen by flight simmers as a bit of a gimmick / a source of frustration when items are regularly unavailable?

I think it's an interesting feature.

3 minutes ago, mspencer said:

Messy…

I keep hearing about all these supposed benefits of the FSL but it sounds like a dated addon with implementation issues and an unattractive price point. And I say this as someone who has given them a lot of money…

If you want an external flight model you can just implement it in a WASM module as FlyInside and A2A have demonstrated so as you say dynamically hacking internal variables seems somewhat ridiculous (and open to breaking any time Asobo change anything in the internals)

4 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

dynamically hacking internal variables

Is this confirmed? And it’ll be locked every update? 
 

I wasn’t going to buy this for 2020 anyway since I’m mostly 100% in 2024, but if this is true and it continues into 2024, this is a big dealbreaker for me. 
 

2024 is designed to be frequently and easily updated. 
 

 

18 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Sure... I'm not the one who bought a totally unecessary product, just because the developer delivered once on a previous platform.

Who is the word not allowed now?

So that's your argument now? By the way, I did not buy the FSLabs, but I can't stand the fanboyism about a virtual product like the Fenix and the spreading of false information, such as service-based failures and so on.

Does MS update Defender with every FSL release? 😄

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

They are indeed. If you don't speed up the process you will never see anything go wrong in your lifetime, because no one flies a single livery, let alone sims as many flights as you do in real life with one aircraft.

to get the record straight and the options are flexible (far more options not mentioned below)

Service-based Failures / Maintenance Items
Service-based failures will be triggered according to how
often these components fail on the real aircraft during
operations and are based on an airframe’s age.
● Consequences for Actions during Aircraft Operations
Your own actions can cause things to malfunction just like
on a real aircraft. Deviate from standard operation
procedures too much and you risk damage to your aircraft.
● Failures and faults as a result of outside influence.
No matter how flawless your aircraft operation skills,
outside influence to the aircraft which are beyond your
control can cause system faults and failures.
● Manually scheduled and triggered failures
Trigger failures instantly or have them occur at a specified
time, altitude or speed. This is the best choice for
experiencing or training for very specific failure scenarios.

Service Based Failures are enabled by default. These can include system faults that are
documented in the Tech Log, but also malfunctions that can occur during a flight.
The following settings are available under the ‘Service Based Failures’ tab in the failures
menu mentioned above:
● FAILURE RATE
NONE - No failures will occur that would have otherwise been triggered according to
MTBF statistics or at a specified rate.
MTBF - System failures occur according to real airline maintenance statistics. You
experience the same types of failures that an airline pilot would when operating an
aircraft in airline service. This also means older airframes can experience higher
failure rates.
LOW - 1 system failure in 50 flights that average 130 minutes.
MED - 1 system failure in 25 flights with the same average duration.
HIGH - 1 system failure in 5 flights with the same average duration.
Therefore, a setting ‘HIGH’ equates to a 20% chance of a failure occurring on an average length of an A320-family flight.
● FAILURE MODE
NONE - No system failures will be activated. However, the Tech Log maintenance simulation will still run if the failure rate is set
to anything other than ‘NONE’.
MINOR - No flight-ending or flight-prohibiting failures will occur. You will still encounter plenty of different potential failures.
However, none of these will be catastrophic such as engine failures or rapid cabin decompressions.
ALL - You may encounter the full spectrum of failures which could be experienced in airline operations. This could be anything
from a mundane tech log entry that won’t affect flying the airplane in any way to something that will test every bit of your skills
to get the aircraft safely on the ground. Anything is possible within the occurrence probability set under the Failure Rate above.
● PCT CLR ON RST
Some system malfunctions can be cleared by resetting the affected system. You can specify the chance of success for such a
reset.