48 minutes ago, Aamir said:

Hello!

Strictly speaking there is only DFDR "data", "FOQA data" I guess would be the wrong way to refer to this? Where it comes from (the QAR - which I guess can be interchangably with FOQA?) is the difference, given the digital nature - and of course we do not access the FDR for this, it is probably too low resolution anyway. The QAR/FOQA logging is typically both higher resolution and more informative. I am happy to change this in the original post if you feel it to be misleading 🙂

Thanks,

@Aamir Does the usage of the LIDO charts mean the aircraft will be able to use the Nav data natively in MSFS? not requiring Navigraph?

@Aamir Totally off topic but any chance of a future A330?

2 hours ago, Aamir said:

Hello!

Strictly speaking there is only DFDR "data", "FOQA data" I guess would be the wrong way to refer to this? Where it comes from (the QAR - which I guess can be interchangably with FOQA?) is the difference, given the digital nature - and of course we do not access the FDR for this, it is probably too low resolution anyway. The QAR/FOQA logging is typically both higher resolution and more informative. I am happy to change this in the original post if you feel it to be misleading 🙂

Thanks,

Excellent, thank you.  What you're talking about is FOQA data; it should be the only data commercially available so it makes sense you wouldn't be aware of the other type.  They are different recording suites but again, no reason you would be familiar with it.  I was sure that was the case but, you know, gotta ask.  No reason to correct your verbiage; I'm probably the only one who would ever catch it 😁.

I should clarify for everyone reading, I never had any suspicions of Fenix doing something unethical.  They need data, they find the data available, they buy the data... They'd never have any reason to question it.  My curiosity was about who might actually be collecting and disseminating a branch of data that should not be collected or disseminated.  I was pretty sure no one was but, like I said, I'm one of the guys who would read this and have to ask 😉.  But, all good.

For everyone else, thank you so very much for the support! It is certainly not lost on us, there is just a tidal wave of messaging after an announcement like this - the team and I have read and appreciated every single one of the kind comments you have all left us. I have seen some questions - we will produce more information about the NEOs closer to their moment in the sun that will hopefully answer some of them, not quite yet though as the primary focus is the BFU and initial flight testing of the NEOs, with more work to do. I do appreciate we are quiet more than we are not, which can be frustrating after a new announcement - but we really do work best when there is absolute focus on building the product instead of managing comms. We have listened and are trying to find a compromise between working in the dark and showing you what's coming up, I hope this is OK for folks - and now you know what's cooking in the kitchen we will be going back to tending our stew..

9 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Excellent, thank you.  What you're talking about is FOQA data; it should be the only data commercially available so it makes sense you wouldn't be aware of the other type.  They are different recording suites but again, no reason you would be familiar with it.  I was sure that was the case but, you know, gotta ask.  No reason to correct your verbiage; I'm probably the only one who would ever catch it 😁.

I should clarify for everyone reading, I never had any suspicions of Fenix doing something unethical.  They need data, they find the data available, they buy the data... They'd never have any reason to question it.  My curiosity was about who might actually be collecting and disseminating a branch of data that should not be collected or disseminated.  I was pretty sure no one was but, like I said, I'm one of the guys who would read this and have to ask 😉.  But, all good.

Not a problem, always happy to clarify especially when it comes to fairly serious things like this!

Hope they will add the (default) avatar as copilot, only for visuals... Makes the flightdeck less empty!

2 hours ago, Aamir said:

We have listened and are trying to find a compromise between working in the dark and showing you what's coming up, I hope this is OK for folks - and now you know what's cooking in the kitchen we will be going back to tending our stew..

Personally I find your approach preferable to that of other developers who tend to show their hand too early.

 

I know marketing is important and announcing a product not trivial, but sometimes I wish it were possible to just keep quiet until about a month before release when all major snags have been removed it is all about stability testing and fine tuning.

On 3/29/2025 at 1:56 PM, lwt1971 said:

So this bit below from the blog says the NEO series will be all Fenix code ground-up and no ProSim:

To begin with - instead of attempting to turn our CEO into a NEO with a bit of brain surgery and ECAM fiddling, we've opted to replace the entire ECAM from the ground up at a "NEO" standard, this is wholly and solely Fenix - no longer shared with ProSim (some ammo for internet arguments). As a result, we've been able to dive down ECAM messages and functions not present even within the prior implementation - unlocking a whole host of possibilities for features we're not quite pulling the covers off yet

And then this part I assume means the CEO series will undergo same too? (That said, the "slightly less tossing out" part might mean some traces of ProSim left behind in the CEO series?):

So the NEO was not the only one to have a bit of brain-out work. We didn't build one ECAM. We built 2 side-by-side. Our NEO, in the latest shiny standard and our CEO in the standard you know and have today. We couldn't leave the CEO behind, this is the hammer with which we built the house. While for CEO customers this may not present initially as a massive immediate difference, we think this was incredibly important in supporting the product going forward - and it was an extraordinary amount of work to achieve. We rebuilt and rewired the airplane in exactly the same way, just with slightly less tossing out.
 

Think it's important here to be very careful before there is a misunderstanding - the entire ECAM is not the entire aircraft, and it is all at the same time. There are loads of little ancillaries that work well that don't need to be adjusted, for example, let's pick something totally innocous, e.g Lavatory and Galley Extraction Fan - this can trigger a COND LAV+GALLEY FAN FAULT - it's monitored. So the simulation of the actual fan itself remains untouched, but the reporting, sensor suite, wiring and requisite ECAM response is then all new and back to us, whether or not it has actually changed between NEO and CEO. Now, if the simulation DOES need changing, for example as I mentioned NEOs will have changes to hundreds of bits up and down the airplane, etc - then the system itself is also rewritten as required. The example I used in the blog was the Bleed Monitoring Computer, which is different on the NEOs, with some different logic. So that Bleed Monitoring Computer has been redone, then the reporting, sensor suite, wiring and ECAM response on top. Then we did it AGAIN, but this time with the old bleed monitoring computer and it's logic, and on the older era (CEO) ECAM too - so we could support the CEOs, and so in that case you have a BMC you already have, just interfacing with a new nervous system. It's a pretty thorough way of doing it, instead of working backwards from the system changes _into_ the ECAM, we work in the opposite way to ensure we get it from the bottom up. 

Edited March 31, 20251 yr by Aamir

On 3/30/2025 at 6:43 AM, edemeijer said:

Hope they will add the (default) avatar as copilot, only for visuals... Makes the flightdeck less empty!

As long as there's an option not to have it.

Great news, and nice to hear the free upgrade of the CEO. We all know the standard to which Fenix work, and i'll certainly be waiting for this to drop. 

I still don't understand why people get so excited for weather radar in the sim.... Its a sim find the meanest looking part of the storm and plow through it preferably right below MMO, do something you'd never do in real life.

Edited April 4, 20251 yr by z06z33

52 minutes ago, z06z33 said:

I still don't understand why people get so excited for weather radar in the sim.... Its a sim find the meanest looking part of the storm and plow through it preferably right below MMO, do something you'd never do in real life.

I don't know, seeing weather right in front of you is just exciting! 🙂 

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

I don't know, seeing weather right in front of you is just exciting! 🙂 

I agree with z06z33. As long as flying through weather is not dangerous in the sim, weather radar is utterly pointless.

56 minutes ago, Farlis said:

I agree with z06z33. As long as flying through weather is not dangerous in the sim, weather radar is utterly pointless.

That logic can be extended to the whole simulation itself. Why bother spending time with something that isn't real at all? Why bother making a soft touchdown when we can rip the earth at 5000ft/m on landing?

If the answer is that it's fun to emulate the procedures and at least some skills are indeed transferable to the real world. That justifies the weather radar usage in-sim as well. The more realistic the better, of course.

Curiosity, with the ECAM rework, what's the effect going to be on performance of the aircraft ? better, same or worse ?

7 hours ago, Farlis said:

I agree with z06z33. As long as flying through weather is not dangerous in the sim, weather radar is utterly pointless.

But simmers don't like "unrealistic" turbulence that flip airplane upside-down LOL Joking aside, I disagree. If you want to fly by the rules and simulate actual flight - everything matters! Otherwise what is the point to have real navigation charts and a follow real navigation procedures? ATC won't file pilot deviation, and FAA won't suspend pilot certificate! Pointless?