ha5mvo

.

Popularity is not a valid criterion. Justin Bibber had sold more than the Doors, Britney Spears more than Bowie. Popularity is not synonymous with quality (Most times its the other way around). Flight simulation, or the quality thereof, can be roughly broken down several factors: 1) Flight physics (that includes weather and its effects ) - This is where MSFS still badly lags behind. 2) System simulation - This is up to 3rd party developers really. Again, at this point in time the "study level" (for the lack of a better term) addons on other platform still offer a more reliable and accurate representation of their RL counterpart. ATC and AI are problematic in MSFS, but those are not core qualities for a sim. As I said, it may or may not get there, development certainly doesn't stop but AT THIS POINT IN TIME, its definitely not there yet. While I'm not a senior fleet captain at AA, I did have my fare share of full motion level - D simulators and guess what, the airport IS mostly a slab with a runway on it.....

Eventually MSFS will be the way to go. So far though, its still inferior in many aspects other than eye candy in comparison to other platforms + their 3rd party addons. ASOBO themselves had outlined this as a ten years project so keep that in mind when comparing the same product on different platforms. Since this is the MSFS forum, some people tend to be overly defensive when the platform or its addons are being criticized, so keep that in mind too.

Comparing your video with my own experiment under similar conditions I noticed that the FBW constantly moves its rudder to counteract the yaw that's otherwise very significant on the a320 I have tested (fenix).

Surprising indeed! I stand corrected...That's the FBW, right? Can you tell me how to record a video plz?

You heard it right! You don't need the word of reputable or non reputable folk. Put it to the test yourself. Take a heavy airliner, say an A320 and put it in a crosswind of, say, mighty 3 knots with an awful gust to 5 knots at the opposite direction. Your 65 tons of metal will oscillate like you're trapped in a hurricane.

I was askes by @threegreen to bring specific facts and figures as to where does the fenix go wrong, Which I did with an elaborate long list. In response, I got the usual ad hominem attacks by the usual crowd, which is no surprise either. Not a single reference to that long elaborate post though which makes me wonder how many did actually understand it. Anyway, those who keep hammering that it’s the best thing since sliced bread- good for you! Enjoy it, by all means. Ignorance IS bliss.

Just prove my point. This is a TOGA takeoff (made reference to it in the other post). Probably on a lightly loaded craft. On the fenix, every takeoff is a TOGA takeoff = considerably overpowered .

To quote the most experienced A32x captain to post here: "So lets look at the Fenix briefly and believe me i could write far far more. The IRU panel/system in the fenix hasnt been installed by Airbus in over 20 years and the old panel ie keypad etc isnt even compatible with a modern IRU. You see the IRU's in the A320 needed to be modified for the approval of RNP AR as the IRU's in Fenix represent a version long gone from Airbus. Since their replacement the IRU's have been upgraded twice and the analogue panel is LONG gone from the overhead. The Fenix as presented cant even fly an RNP AR as its IRU's are not correct, neither is the overhead panel which are swapped out with the IRU upgrade 15 years ago. So either the systems wrong or the model is wrong. Whatever the case its wrong end of story. Speaking of old lets talk Prosim which is the base for Fenix it itself is extremely old with literally being at least 20 years old as a basis. Meaning most ECAMS have had extensive modification by Airbus. In short many of the failures are inaccurate with incorrect ECAM information. ECAMS are continually updated as systems develop and change so unsurprisingly Prosim is a long way from a modern Airbus. It might be approved but hey so is the B-17. That doesnt mean it represents what a modern Airbus is like! Lets move onto the flight model. Now every A320 you or anyone would ever fly climbs out at 15 degrees nose up the only exception to this is at light weights and non flex temp departures. Watch ANY video of an A320 departure yep 15 degrees it is. Fenix climbs out at yep 20 degrees nose up heavily loaded!. Its written in FCOM and every pilot who has ever flown any A320 knows 15/12 as the two base pitch attitudes they would of used hundreds to thousands of times. Fenix didnt even get something so basic correct. To blend with that the handling is nothing at all like the very light touch and feel of any Airbus. In fact Fenix climbs beautifully at 15 degrees nose up "ON ONE ENGINE". In a real A320 if you even tried to climb on one engine at 15 degrees id give you under 20 seconds to still be on this planet. Its impossible for the real aircraft to do, end of story. Unlike Boeings using multiple derates and an ATM ie FLEX Airbus performance is very very predictable and 15 degrees pitch up is the figure you get basically every take off unless your very light or going Toga. Neo's with a larger flex range can get slightly less than 15 but again its a small difference not 30 plus percent. So as any pilot would know Power + Attitude equals performance so it doesnt take long at all to see if you have the wrong attitude and are getting wrong performance then the flight model is simply broken. How broken well thats easy id recommend everyone saying its not broken go do a simple test. Grab the QRH go to the unreliable speed checklist find your weight and set the power and attitude let it stabilize then watch what happens. Yes you get a speed nowhere near that your supposed to. yes the flight model is broken. So now we know its broken what else does that mean. OK it means the N1 on final is wrong, the drag model is broken, the fuel flow is off by a mere 40-50%! Did i mention the fuel burn is off by 40% getting 1600Kg/Hr as opposed to the 2450 of the real CFM A320. Yea 40 to 50%. By being forced into a very old A320 systems wise because of the Prosim base Fenix is a hodge podge of multiple real world A320's none of which exist in reality together nor could they as the systems used do not correspond to the capability of the aircraft. A cross between EIS1 and 2 with incorrect fonts and an FMGC standard nobody knows because it doesn't represent any standard. Non RNP AR capable overhead panel with RNP AR capability yea you get the picture.. Now i could go on for paragraph after paragraph highlighting things like Fonts, flight control feel, incorrect deceleration distances/times ie the flight model has huge issues the EFB using non optimized take off data which hasnt been used in 25 plus years. The EFB performance data generated is not even close to what you get out of an Airbus flysmart calculator i have no idea what these guys where thinking maybe a balanced field Boeing style FMC version but its nothing close to optimized data. I mean the control feel on it is nothing even remotely like flying a wingertip driven A320. Why am i having to adjust control sensitivities when it should fly perfectly well with linear control sensitivity just as the real aircraft? Fly By Wire is simple the side stick in normal law commands a roll rate. That means ANY dev can use linear curves to set a required deflection to generate a roll rate. Its not rocket science its very basic in fact. Yet the fenix is like flying a 737 needing large sidestick movements unseen in a real Airbus. With the complete failure to implement the external flight model the million dollar question is if it will ever fly remotely like a real A320 as my experience is its right now not even close to the beautiful light fingertip handling of the real A320.. Fenix where very good at marketing and this impression of it being amazing is very well spun. It has some VERY nice systems rendition which is to be highly commended even if it doesn't know what generation its from an airframe number or the decade its supposed to be from. The overhead panel from a first gen A320 with modern brake system and new aircon controllers, like i said its a mish mash. if they had simply said hey lets do a 2015-2017 A320 then at least it would be timeframe accurate with system and display consistency. Its very obvious to anyone who knows an Airbus well enough that it has significant problems but that are well founded in FACT like Airbus FCOM and the QRH its easy to find the issues. Many wont care and thats fine but for the people out there who want there simulation to be "accurate" and 'reflective" should care. Those who dont know but bought this on th epremise it was study level should know. I loved flying the Airbus but for anyone thinking this is somehow the "best" or close needs to look elsewhere for that experience right now. Hopefully fenix can get the eexternal flight model to work so some semblence of fidelity to the flight model and controls can be restored. Now this doesnt mean you may wont enjoy Fenix but lets be very clear the Fenix was marketed and talked up as being the "ultimate" Airbus and its a VERY long way from that indeed. Why are all these things important? Ill tell you because the team at fenix promised, marketed and sold this product as a study level Airbus A320 how many times did they say it would be the best?. . How are you supposed to fly an Airbus which handles terribly, has a mish mash of systems drawn from over 3 decades, has a drag and thrust model so wrong you cant fly the values used in every take off every day by every A320 in the world. Anyone saying this is "study level" either doesnt know what study level implies. I'll tell you what study level means and SHOULD mean to every developer. It means that anyone with suitable amount of real world experience could sit down and do 80-90% of whats covered in a real world type rating then hop into a real full motion sim and apply that to safely fly it. That is the ultimate test, they would already be familiar with the ECAMs, failure management and flying the aircraft with familiar power settings. These things are important in an Airbus as when your flying direct law approaches you MUST know what power setting to set ie what N1, what pitch attitude. Right now the fenix can do none of those because the flight model will not allow accurate power and pitch values to be used. This is why flight model is SO important in an Airbus because when all the automatics fail and it turns into a 737 you need to know the powers and pitches off by heart. if you dont good luck enjoy the ride in. Why cant i use the very rules, guides and gates i used in the real aircraft in thousands of flights in every type of weather imaginable in the Fenix. Experience from the real world doesnt lie and you cannot hide issues either. If you dont like what i have to say sorry get a ticket in the far queue and wait in line. if you dont like realism thats ok there are plenty of aircraft in the market for you. Study level simulations are the high ground of flight simulation and several developers have worked for many years to ensure quality and accuracy are the prime areas of concern. Again if you like fenix thats fine by me go enjoy your Airbus but its certainly not what it was marketed as. if your expectations have been met thats fine but mine have not particularly based off how it was presented and what it delivered."

RNP AR procedures, Descent profile idle management, placing the FDP correctly, managing Dir to waypoints. Dynamics in general... Considerably overpowered on takeoff! will command a 19-20 degree pitch (always 15 degree on the real thing). Very draggy on descent, as if the speed brakes are constantly deployed - will almost always decelerate to the lower airspeed bracket. Wrong pitch\power dynamics (try to follow the "unreliable airspeed" procedure and you'll see what I mean). The FBW on the fenix requires small corrections, somewhat "unstable" for lack of a better word. Fuel consumption is off... The IRS unit...well...you won't find the one depicted on any existing airframe. Fonts are incorrect. I can go on till the cows come home if you really want me to...

It's a well established issue with MSFS. Playing with sensitivity can't really cure it. Definitely something that needs to be fixed by Asobo as well as other glaring issues with the physics engine. In the last Q & A the Asobo team has pledged to cater to more than the eye-candy crowd so there's hope that at some point this will be improved.

While this is quite cool in getting “as real as it gets “ atc, it’s also quite limited in city pairs or enroute coverage. Kind of like ivao or vatsim, which brings us back to square one

Sure they would! It's been shown a 1000 times before that the flightsim crowd are drawn to hype like flies to s##t. Never a lesson learnt. I mean, if or example, Flight One is still selling UTlive I guess I have very little to say....

As if one attitude or another would have made a difference

If you have default liveries then something is not turned off...

More likely a glitch in link to the correct livery. The sim does nothing as AIG inject its own traffic Man, that logo of yours is such a heartache....

Oh, inibuilds have said that on their product! isn't that a surprise?! I have offered you many times to put things to the test, I bet you never did! Instead, you and bob have dismissed Darren Howie, probably the most knowledgeable and experienced A32x captain to post on those forums. Now, isn't that just laughable.....

Since you seem to find so much and so many to be "laughable" , mind enlightening us on what basis do YOU determine the accuracy (or lack thereof) of say the physics?

perhaps not in MSFS. The FSLabs does a way better job in simulating an A320. The Majestic q400 is the most complete simulation. To the best of my knowledge, its the only one to be used for actual flight crew training.

I believe the arcade reference in one of the posts above is pretty accurate! Sadly not the only arcade-like feature in msfs.

Which of the two?

Come to think of it, besides scenery, the entire platform is an “early adopters “ of sorts… so what can one expect from 3rd party developers….

I don’t think the community should accept “early adopters “ aka half-baked products. Sure, no piece of software is ever bug free when it’s released but there’s a glaring difference between bugs and missing or poorly implemented features. we’ve been taught this lesson time and time again, yet it seems many of us never learn.

It does, but the real thing should maintain it’s altitude. If that’s not the case and the plane attempts to capture a new one, then fenix got it wrong. From memory I believe it indeed does not climb or descend. When you change to qnh, the autopilot maintains level fligh.

There’s a caveat. If the point of transition is somewhat further from the airport, which is likely with say, 18k transition, the pressure at this point might be slightly different than in the actual port of arrival.