5 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

Once FSLabs fix enormous VRAM footprint occurred on a recent update, I'd jump into it for NEO experience. Huge improvements on visuals and systems. It's not better than FENIX as of yet, but they are definitely closing the gap. 

 

OR...maybe they will never fix VRAM issue, so I'd wait for FENIX anyway 🙂 

 

Well there's nothing to "fix". They've simply done a very bad job at modelling and texturing, using huge amounts of VRAM for a mediocre visual result. They'd have to do this all over again which they won't (as they've just introduced a mediocre cabin which uses up just as much VRAM). It's not something they can "fix".

11 minutes ago, Farlis said:

How can you buy an add on that is not yet released?

59 minutes ago, iFlySimX said:

Sorry.  I conflated that with the last Airbus release from Aerosoft.  Currently locked out of my Aerosoft One account so I can’t say which one.  Told ya’ I was a dork.😎

20 minutes ago, btacon said:

Sorry.  I conflated that with the last Airbus release from Aerosoft.  Currently locked out of my Aerosoft One account so I can’t say which one.  Told ya’ I was a dork.😎

You were thinking of the A330.

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

Well there's nothing to "fix". They've simply done a very bad job at modelling and texturing, using huge amounts of VRAM for a mediocre visual result. They'd have to do this all over again which they won't (as they've just introduced a mediocre cabin which uses up just as much VRAM). It's not something they can "fix".

Check the thread about the FSL A321 neo (announcement by FSL on page 6)

 

Edited February 11Feb 11 by flyingscampi

They're different, just that...

There are still things I prefer in one over the other...

Fail an engine on the Fenix A320 CEO while in manual flight and watch it follow all along happily as if nothing had happened, at least asymmetric thrust wise... Push the good engine to the full TOGA stop, no problem it still files pretty much straight ahead, no hint of perturbation on the sidelsip cue... Do the same on an Fslabs 321 and you will see the difference...

Edited February 12Feb 12 by jcomm

14 hours ago, flyingscampi said:

Check the thread about the FSL A321 neo (announcement by FSL on page 6)

 

Glad to see they react (without blaming the users, this time). Whether that makes performance acceptable and how long this takes, is a different question though. I'll keep my eyes on it.

17 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Well there's nothing to "fix". They've simply done a very bad job at modelling and texturing, using huge amounts of VRAM for a mediocre visual result. They'd have to do this all over again which they won't (as they've just introduced a mediocre cabin which uses up just as much VRAM). It's not something they can "fix".

Did you ever own an FSLabs Airbus, or are you just trash-talking without any clue?

Why does every Fenix topic ends up with an FSLabs comparison??? To stay on topic: there will be a blog certainly for release. My guess is that within a few months the new VNAV update will be out and if that release is smooth I expect the NEO's hopefully in the summer?

13 minutes ago, edemeijer said:

Why does every Fenix topic ends up with an FSLabs comparison??? To stay on topic: there will be a blog certainly for release. My guess is that within a few months the new VNAV update will be out and if that release is smooth I expect the NEO's hopefully in the summer?

An even better question is, why do so many people that have absolutely no idea when a product will actually release come in here and give their predictions on when it will be released.  These predictions, together with a couple of dollars, will get me a ride on a city bus.  That's about all they're good for.

1 hour ago, MaximumN2 said:

Did you ever own an FSLabs Airbus, or are you just trash-talking without any clue?

 

I owned all of them in P3D. In regards to the visuals and VRAM usage I refer to the many reviews saying so, so it's not trash talking. As I was saying on multiple accounts in this thread, I'm still tinkering with getting it in spite of those issues.

EDIT: Actually that was another thread, so you couldn't have that context, sorry.
 

Edited February 12Feb 12 by Fiorentoni

10 hours ago, jcomm said:

Fail an engine on the Fenix A320 CEO while in manual flight and watch it follow all along happily as if nothing had happened, at least asymmetric thrust wise...

Hm, I find this statement sliiiiiiiiiightly disingenuous. Did a takeoff cut, not a V1 cut, so you can see the asymmetry. Not sure why you don't need any rudder at all, but at least on my end - you need to respond to align your beta target. I think the amount of rudder trim needed is slightly less than reality, but more a problem with the trim units and the power of the rudder which I will review later. Asymmetry is alive and well 🙂

Sorry for the short video, using a debug build which tends to have many oddities going on with it, so usual caveats apply et al. 
 

 

On 2/11/2026 at 2:08 PM, Fiorentoni said:

Well there's nothing to "fix". They've simply done a very bad job at modelling and texturing, using huge amounts of VRAM for a mediocre visual result. They'd have to do this all over again which they won't (as they've just introduced a mediocre cabin which uses up just as much VRAM). It's not something they can "fix".

Well...once you tune your PC it works excellent even at most complex APTS....Took me some time but I got it going....Still testing though. So far all in order....

13 hours ago, Aamir said:

Hm, I find this statement sliiiiiiiiiightly disingenuous. Did a takeoff cut, not a V1 cut, so you can see the asymmetry. Not sure why you don't need any rudder at all, but at least on my end - you need to respond to align your beta target. I think the amount of rudder trim needed is slightly less than reality, but more a problem with the trim units and the power of the rudder which I will review later. Asymmetry is alive and well 🙂

Sorry for the short video, using a debug build which tends to have many oddities going on with it, so usual caveats apply et al. 
 

Thx for the video  @Aamir, and yes right after V1 it does sideslip, but try it in flight cruise or even after takeoff as you level off...

Ah!, and btw, shouldn't that sideslip target cue displace quite a bit more ?

Edited February 13Feb 13 by jcomm

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Thx for the video  @Aamir, and yes right after V1 it does sideslip, but try it in flight cruise or even after takeoff as you level off...

Ah!, and btw, shouldn't that sideslip target cue displace quite a bit more ?

Right, hence why I said I found your comment disingenuous. You're moving the goalposts a bit from what you said initially below, to what you're saying above, now. There's a difference between "it should displace more", and below - where you're quite firmly claiming nothing happens. While I am happy to say I can review the amount of effect, there's little I can do with feedback that falls into a fallacy of composition - "it doesn't move enough, so it doesn't move at all". Much more so when posted as a matter of fact. I feel the need to point this out as people do read what is said, and people within this community do have influence on, and within, prevailing opinion - a longstanding and well respected community member such as yourself, more so. Even scarier, most do not check for themselves, but will repeat it allowing such to propagate as fact. Have been on the receiving end of such, multiple times. 

fwiw, I also quickly tried a failure at 5000ft, 250knts, and a lightweight airplane so neither engine was producing a lot of thrust, in other words the most sympathetic situation to support your initial claim - it still deviated laterally, offset by a few degrees. If you feel it needs more beta target deviation, that's fine, but beta target and the actual aerodynamic yaw deviation are two relatively separate concepts. Yes, they mingle, but they are not one another, and there is a long, long list of factors that influence beta target that could cause it to deviate less than you feel appropriate - but again, equating that with physical yaw deviation due to thrust asymmetry and leaving it at that is very much an unfinished picture. 

On 2/12/2026 at 8:29 AM, jcomm said:

Push the good engine to the full TOGA stop, no problem it still files pretty much straight ahead, no hint of perturbation on the sidelsip cue

On 2/12/2026 at 8:29 AM, jcomm said:

Fail an engine on the Fenix A320 CEO while in manual flight and watch it follow all along happily as if nothing had happened, at least asymmetric thrust wise

 

 

@Aaamir, 

I see your pov, and I agree, basically, that stating it (at least in a not so technical and supported with real data) the way I did wasn't the best choice 😕

I do think, nonetheless, that the Fenix 320 CEO probably needs fine tuning of the asymmetric thrust effects regarding sideslip angle.

You did run your experiment at 5000', light aircraft... I will try at that altitude too when possible. My tests were run at various altitudes, one of them being FL100, and in manual flight mode, AT disconnected (!), I failed #1 while cruising at 250 KIAS and then cycled the thrust lever of #2, several times, between idle and toga.

I know the modern buses do compensate, even under manual flight, with rudder inputs, but from the ECAM "Flt CTL" page I didn't notice any such deflection, and I believe there should be more evidences (regading sideslip) of the thrust asymmetry under such situations (?).

Please test it under such a scenario.

Regards

Edited February 13Feb 13 by jcomm