ha5mvo

I believe I actually answered it. just prior to TOD, set up the arrival pressure, than switch it back to standard. In transition simply switch to the preselected pressure. As I said, when changing the barometric pressure the plane ( that’s how it’s on the real one) will maintain altitude and won’t hunt down for the new barometric altitude as you change the setting.

The real bus will not change altitude in cruise if you change the pressure. I suppose they modeled it correctly

You're right that p3d doesn't simulate, or at least convey, air movement very well. Xplane does it much better, MSFS exaggerates it... How does the fact p3d "flies on rails" as you put it, improve Microsofts dynamics? You don't have to take my broad and comical statements at face value - test it for yourself! I did.... I have put out values and numbers in previous posts but that obviously didn't matter to those who are entrenched in the position that its all within a couple of percent margin. Heck, not even the developers statement will make them budge....

You sound like a decent fella. Now do you find it reasonable to believe that FENIX will spend months, if not more, of its time to develop external dynamics engine for the sake of refining the model from a 6 to say..3 percent error? Can you honestly say that this sounds reasonable. Fenix, with admirable honesty and transparency said out loud that they have given up on the sims default engine. Majestic did the same with p3d's turboprop dynamics when they wanted a serious simulation. You don't need to take my word for it. Experiment yourself! set a crosswind of mighty 3 knots gusting to 5 at the opposite direction and see how it flies! I stumbled upon this video: [P3D] FSLabs A320 Pitch and Power Basics - YouTube The numbers he's quoting are accurate. See if you can recreate it with the fenix, and see if you can land with unreliable airspeed indication. These are bread and butter basics! I'm not trying to attack Fenix. Actually they are the most decent in acknowledging the errors but there's something fundamentally wrong with the sims flight dynamics which - and its their words, not mine - is beyond the scope of just polishing up the airplanes dynamics.

Easy. There's not a single tubeliner that will even remotely fly "by the numbers". That includes products by reputable developers such as Leonardo or PMDG ( the latter just flies like a pig). Fenix had virtually thrown the towel on MSFS' physics and is seeking to develop a module of its own to run outside the platform - no easy feat with but a single precedent, namely, that by the Majestic dash 8. If that's not a testimony for the broken physics engine, then I don't know what else I can say to convince otherwise. A glaring example would be the excessive yaw that runs throughout the models in MSFS, be it default airplanes or more sophisticated addons and no sensitivity adjustment can mitigate that. Try to run that very same FENIX, the current pinnacle of MSFS development , in a variable "gale" wind of 3-5 knots and it will shake about like a nutshell in white waters. Now, I'm well aware that for some a plane may fly like an F-15 from an 80s arcade, as long as the pretty views and the fancy photogrammetry keeps coming. Heck - one can even buzz over ones neighbors' house... Being a work in progress, there's still a chance that in one point in time Asobo and co may get it right. Until then, it's up to the developers to find a creative workaround if they wish their products flight characteristic would resemble those of the real world counterpart.

Not the only shortcoming of MSFS... just saying. There are still many features and things that are broken. Especially when it comes to physics and controls. The good news is that it's very much a WIP. Bad news is that it still has a long way to go till it transitions from "Flight" into "Simulator".....

Just to make sure... Is it a camera effect or does it shake the fuselage? If it's the latter, then I wouldn't buy it as its bound to cause problems with complex airliners. At least that's my p3d experience when ezedok used to do the same rather than just having a camera effect. If it's just the camera then it's ok I suppose.

It autolands just fine, at least judging by a couple of experiments. The problem however, is in the platform. As an experiment, try setting up a 90 degrees x-wind at 4 knots gusting at the opposite direction to 6 knots at 5 gusts/min and see how a, say, 50 ton aircraft handles under such conditions

Msfs addon organizer by lorby-si can create a google earth file that includes asobo/microsoft sceneries as well as other sceneries you have installed in the community folder. obviously it also has the ability to group and selectively activate/deactivate scenery groups or move them outside the community folder.

More important than an effect utility is that the sdk now allows some control of the camera. I find the current system quite cumbersome and in desperate need of a chaseplane-like addon which will allow one to access all the views using a simple 4 way hat switch.

Nothing will be fixed if people will refrain from bringing up issues or if their voice will get aggressively muffled by those who think that the FENIX is just infallible! You just can't say a single critical word without (the same) people jumping at your jugular. There's just to much tribalism going around in our society and these forums are no exception unfortunately. In all fairness, the FENIX team do not share that stance and they seem to be open to suggestions whenever they happen to go through. I must say, I have done plenty of experiments comparing the flight dynamics to FCOM and official published data and found all of @DEHowie observations to be correct. I don't care who and what he's beta testing for if what he says is true... I sure hope those issues are fixable and that MSFS doesn't have too much of that xbox DNA to make things beyond repair but people also HAVE to allow some critical appreciation by others without the latter taking the risk of being lynch mobbed.

I did so on their discord page. Perhaps they got it, I wouldn't know - more likely it was buried under a pile of other, unrelated, posts. I wasn't talking "opinion", in which case you're right. I will accept praise and criticism though, if it can be confirmed against objective facts and figures. May very wall be true! I don't have the product. However, this is irrelevant in this context and doesn't help much knowing their 737 may fly like a pig. Perhaps there is an underlaying shortcoming of the platform, though Fenix have brought it close enough. Don't understand what seems to be everyone's problem in asking them to go the extra yard and get it spot on (like FS labs did for example). I believe its definitely doable.

Getting tired? well... tough! you can easily skip that post and join the cheering masses! All I said, was that it needs more polishing AND that I'm comparing it to published data! Again, to run certain procedures that are outside the scope of autoflight you need the airplane to behave in a certain expected manner. Again, as I said, they are not far off the mark. It just needs some polishing, that's all. What I don't understand, is why people get so huffed and puffed whenever, god forbid, someone dares to sound a word of criticism. relax man! stay cool, chant omm, no need to get that excited over it.

Which book is that? I have the companies published figures and I can tell you that they are off. Not by much, that's true but flying or landing it with a failed speed indication based on pitch/power (that's piloting 101) is quite difficult. I understand that most will engage the AP at 400 feet and disengage at 1000 or after an autoland and thus will care more about the sound of the cargo door - and that's fine. For me, its a bit of a miss if all that impressive system simulation is not coupled with an accurate flight behavior. That's basic stuff. Having said that, I should reiterate, that fenix are not way off the mark, it just needs some small corrections and a bit of polishing. I'm even sure it can be achieved if they decided to do something about it.

hi Rick, Airport at 146 ASL , 15 deg Celsius, 1013 millibars and no wind

The discord page is pretty useless, its like trying to listen to a hundred people all talking at the same time. I don't understand why they won't move to a proper forum.

So I made some experiments. At 60 Tons, 15 degrees, standard pressure and no wind. Reaching 5000 ft at 4200 f/min (somewhat high) I got the following pitch/power settings: 57%-4.5 degrees - 230 knots 53%-5 degrees - 210 knots 57% - 7 degrees about 15 knots below green dot (should be green dot) at 10000 feet 60% - 5 degrees - 210 knots Certainly needs polishing but not way off either. What kept bugging me, is that I had to fight the controls until I could achieve a stable pitch. This is not something that should happen with a FBW. Albeit we are talking a series of minor corrections, the plane should not recoil once pressure has been removed off the stick.

@omarsmak30 As I said, I feel nothing. Hence I tend to dismiss reviews that tell me how right (or wrong) the plane "feels". here are some eurocontrol figures for a very generalized ROC values. Even for ballpark values, this is way more than the claimed 6% difference Aircraft Performance Database > A320 (eurocontrol.int)

Muscle memory is absolutely inapplicable on a desktop simulator, not unless you have a genuine airbus stick or a Boeing yoke. Even than, a "feeling" is not something you can carry over from real life experience to the sim. I KNOW that from my own GA experience and I have no reason to believe its any different for bigger planes. Otherwise the only relatively reliable parameter is to compare the models behavior to the published figures.

for sure! just thought someone might have actually bothered doing it already...

Impressions and "feeling" are subjective. I'm more interested in figures. I'd be surprised if I'm told that 4000 feet per minute is realistic for anything other than an empty plane...

So I hopped onto the Fenix bandwagon. While the system simulation is quite impressive - on par with the FS Labs from initial impression, I keep wondering how accurate are the flight dynamics. On initial climb for instance, I keep getting high pitch command with about 4000 f/m ROC for a GW of 66 tons. Is that realistic?? Before I get into a tedious series of pitch/power experiments, did anyone check it thus far? Also, and this is something subjective that I can't back up with figures, but the FBW feels a bit "unstable". Removing the pressure from the stick will cause make the plane bounce back a little as if it needed a little bit of trim. anyone with any input on this?

So if the atc is canned, as it’s pre-determined by the user, how is it different in principle to the default atc?

But this will always be the case unless you sync sim time to local (as in departure location) time. Historical or any other type of weather won't save you here

Getting better, yes. The photogrammetry makes for much nicer visuals than landclass from lower altitudes. It still lacks a lot though. The weather system is awful! AI are very buggy and require lots of workarounds. ATC is useless (much worse than default p3d). Both PMDG and maddog are a thinned down version of their p3d counterpart (especially the former). In fact, the 737 is very much a port over of the 2014 NGX. the brighter side of things is that both ASOBO and 3d party Devs are constantly working on improvements but in most aspects it still has a very long way to go.