AGuther

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxbvBbXX0LATsklLLC-Vc6oIe4ncCYDylG?si=BenHmqKYM8gbLjfZ Look how the track line exactly moves with the change in heading during the decrab. Keep in mind there is inertia of the airplane and there is sideslip...

...but still the crosswind behavior is simply wrong. The heading / track difference depends solely on wind and does not react at all based on sideslip when you press the rudder. That's the reason you drift away during a crosswind landing although you apply the right technique.

In VR, DLSS is good to look outside the window or the cockpit itself but horrible when looking on digital instruments. When Microsoft will add to exclude those screens from DLSS it's an instant switch for me, but until then it's just horrible.

No worries, it’s always the right time to buy the Fenix. Great product and great developer team that keeps up delivering high quality and being transparent.

I have some more questions: Is there a description available for the checklist format supported? I.e. are tabs required to be used? How to flows and procedures trigger? Can they be connected to a checklist? How can items like here be supported:

Hello, I'd like to ask if there is a more recent version of the Fenix / Airbus SOP available for MCE. The default one provided is a bit older and is not used anymore by many european airlines. If not, I would consider implementing those...so it would be helpful to understand how the built-in VoxScripts are working (what triggers them and what they are doing). Therefore, I would like to know: Where can I put checklists without admin rights? Where are the built-in VoxScripts located? Where are the original checklists located? Best regards, Andreas

Have you created a bug report on the MSFS forum? Complaining about it here does not help.

I tried it already and for me most of the annoying issues in VR are solved, like: Different rendering between eyes was fixed The black box in front of you when jumping into VR from the plane is gone Toolbar seems to keep working Performance is much better and smoother Downside so far: EFB is still not working Sometimes the clickspots still stop working (easy workaround: just activate a VR controller and then move the mouse again)

You are referencing to a setting that is not recommended for usage:

Well I exaggerated that to show that the ATC system isn’t capable to handle such situations. In day to day use and while you’re being Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring it can happen that you overhear something or misunderstand and that’s the side I’m coming from. But the SI guys know about this and they are working on it…it seems they are more open to acknowledging this than you are.

One of the core decisions that I doubt are the right ones on BATC side is the usage of the Unity engine. The reason is the following: while I understand that the usage of this engine might help/ease the developers implementing features, this means that everyone starting this application is running another game engine on top of the flight simulator. That will be the reason I expect SI to perform much better with the traffic injection as those are rendered "in the cloud" and not on your own PC. Fair enough, it comes with a different price tag.

Yeah, and you can tell SI whatever you want to be blunt - it will be happy with it. That's not what I expect from an ATC controller. I think in the current state the ATC is too open on the SI side. In the real world, there are clear procedures in place that you need to stick to.

Well that’s by far exaggerated. I use both applications and both have their highs and lows. Right now at least on my end I run into more issues with SI than with BATC. But both applications are constantly improved so let’s see how they’re shaped in a year. I will keep using both as I enjoy both for their highs and I’m looking forward when in April traffic injection will hit SI universe.

I think there is truth in it to some extent and it's hard to tell what it is exactly. I fly both in 2020 and 2024 in VR only and there is a clear difference in the overall quality of the picture. I have a pretty decent system so we can rule out that it's running with quite low settings (13900k, 64 GB RAM, RTX4090 OC, Quest 3). I also say all of that without considering the VR bugs in 2024. Still there are things that look way better in 2024 like the atmospheric effects, clouds, lights etc. but especially on the scenery when not flying in specific areas like the Grand Canyon, in VR it looks worse than 2020. This applies to photogrammetry but also to normal scenery when seen from above. The reason is unclear. It might be because of the colors / seasons, but that's not all. I guess it's because the overall image generated is less smooth somehow and contains a lot more sharp edges in the details. Although when you look at it, it might be very subtle. But that's also just a guess by myself. I can just tell that the scenery looks worse than in 2020 and I really hope that will get fixed somehow over time. I think that 2024 overall has many great additions and is a great platform for the future, so I look forward to how it will evolve. Some other things are also quite surprising. While the VR performance in 2020 is outstanding, especially when using TAA, there is also difference in how other applications affect the sims. So for example, when running BeyondATC, in 2020 the performance penalty is much worse in VR than in 2024. When running BeyondATC with OpenGL, this improves the situation a bit for 2020, but in case of 2024 I need to run it with Vulcan for the best results. Both simulators are running with DX12. When running 2024 in 2D, the performance is outstanding compared to 2020. I can run 2024 with everything on Ultra when TLOD 400 and OLOD 100 and it's just smooth.

Well, I cannot use the A350 at all right now. The cockpit is frozen with some displays partially working, and no switch and no button is working. 😞 I even can't operate the EFB.

Well, all I can tell is that at least in VR the look of the scenery around me is much clearer with the new DLSS profiles than it is with TAA. Even the displays are quite sharp - if they don't change information. That's in fact the biggest downside of it.

One comment about the ghosting and why people have different experiences with it: The ghosting depends heavily on the framerates as it turned out. If you put a limit of 30 fps and turn on DLSS4 you get a lot of ghosting especially on the smaller numbers but not only. It affects also switching MCDU pages etc. In contrast when you enable frame generation or open up the Vsync to 60 fps and even more the ghosting goes almost away - but in contrast it also burns a lot of power in the GPU. Also if you’re using VR (as I do) there is zero benefit from frame generation and it’s hard to achieve real 60 fps in VR mode even with my 4090 - so you get more ghosting, although it improved a lot in comparison. What I didn’t understand yet is why the HUD of the F/A 18 is not ghosting AT ALL even with 30 fps. Understanding the reason behind maybe could help getting rid of it for other displays.

I just want to being up one point regarding the traffic injection of BATC. You shouldn't compare it directly to any other add-on like FSLTL as those other add-ons "just" inject traffic. BATC needs to perform more than the other tools as it "controls" the traffic in parallel including voice commands in both directions, handing off etc. Having said that I also have some issues with BATC and performance when using VR. While in 2D there is no loss for me (as I locked my sim to 30 fps anyway to save power and get a more consistent experience) there is stuttering on larger airports when enabling traffic. It might be that using another game engine in parallel (BATC is based on Unity) is not so good for VR performance. All of that with 13900k (running @ 5.1 GHz), 64 GB RAM and a 4090 OC...

Are you using VR?

Mine is much better when flying in 2D but much worse in VR.

It's interesting that you mention him because it's just 7 days ago where he clearly didn't recommend MSFS2024 for the time being:

Yeah these kind of comparisons are more helpful in my opinion and that is also the more easy part to compare when you have the data needed for it. And to be honest I believe both the FSLabs and the Fenix will be quite good in that regard as of today. Also the A32NX is very good in that regard (flight model wise). Missing features don’t tell you how good certain available aspects are. A comparison that also works well if you follow official procedures when failures happen and what the airplane should do system wise. This is something pilots are regularly trained for in simulators. As another bad example there is Austin saying in a video that the MSFS flight model is bad because there seems to an Airbus out there that doesn’t implement the normal law protection in bank (I even don’t know which one). Well really? That’s the comparison for the flight model? I mean Austin is very intelligent…he knows it isn’t. But the argument seems to work for a certain group.

Well pilots say that between different Airbus aircraft there is a different feeling. For example, A320, A330 and A340 or the newer A350 and A380. What I can say from personal experience with certified flight simulators is that the A380 indeed feels a lot like the A320. Only in roll there is a slightly increased inertia when you initiate a turn that you can sense, but it's not large. Other than that, the A380 seems to fly surprisingly agile. On the grounds it's a different story obviously - this plane was made to be in the air 🥰

Personal experience when building a fly-by-wire system.

I think all these videos of streamers should be taken as what they are: opinions / comments. Don't take them too seriously. On top: all of them are in the end driven by commercial interests (clicks, money, praise, ...). That's not a problem per se, but I guess this should be considered. When streamers are always too negative about products, guess what happens: they won't get them anymore in the future as a pre-release or for free, which takes potential watching hours and followers away from them. And in general, about pilots: there are very few pilots that are really good at judging how it should handle and work / use data to compare it. Even if these people fly a certain aircraft every day, a lot of stuff is not usually to be tried out in normal operation. So, I got careful about that, it's just not easy to get helpful feedback (it's also not easy for the pilots to do so). There's a reason there are test pilots with specific skills and even, for example, Airbus is doing "blind tests" with pilots to rule out personal feelings and opinions. On top it's not an easy task to compare a real airplane with real hardware to a desktop simulation. This works for pure data driven stuff, failures etc. but not for how a plane "feels" as long as you're not taking objective data into account. There is too much depending on hardware and even perception because an airplane feels completely different even on the desktop in VR or just in 2D. There are a lot of interesting videos out there where you can learn a lot from but as I said just not overpraise every opinion within them - at least from my point of view.