Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

242 Excellent

About DEHowie

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

2,535 profile views
  1. What do you mean no updates? There have been two updates released in the last month one last week. Are you using the FSlabs Control Center for aircraft maintenance etc? Its one of the best maintained addons we have.
  2. This is why because the entire advantage of a program like ortho4xp is you can create FAR more detailed than any sim ive ever seen. The ability to crank up the detail in the mesh is KEY to realistic mountain scenery avoiding the rounded edges seen in lower res mesh like in standard xp,P#D and msfs. Storage is cheap
  3. If you have an old installer the GTN750 works OOB you just need to do an EXE swap while installing to trick the installer into installing into the xp12 directory instead of xp11. Later installers dont work. Nice to have the best GTN back and working.
  4. It does to a limited extent. If you want proper turbulence dynamically generated in P3D id highly suggest Realturb it does a great job of inserting excellent mechanical turbulence and also en route stuf from jetstream transition etc. I was always a heavy critic of P3D's lack of motion or dynamic motion caused by a lack of turbulence and to a lrge extent realturb fixed that. AS still needs more dynamic winds on approach however the lack of changing direction and speed creates still a to stable approach unless winds are strong enough to trigger real turbs excellent effects.
  5. Thats not ai bad workaround and what i do however it offsets all your views so if you hop back inside whatever offset was applied to the outside is applied inside. Still its better than the default view particularly on wide monitors pushing the aircraft to the bottom of the screen. Because i already have a Warthog on my desktop the last thing i need is another seperate controller particularly when i have a mouse which is proven in multiple simulators, xplane, dcs, p3d and every other sim to be a fabulous camera controller. Asobo have like many things been verging on arrogant not listening to the community since early early beta on this topic. Im not making movings all we want is the aircraft in the screen center, the ability to zoom in and out, pan and move the viewpoint forward and back. Every other sim can do it at what point do Asobo listen? Still we have volcanic CB’s and inverted cloud colours three years later so maybe we are all wrong like HAL told Dave, “You dont need that functionality Dave go buy an xbox controller”, “You dont need correctly coloured clouds Dave the real world isnt spectacular enough for our target audience”. Still surely simple controls native to any other sim is easily possible.
  6. I think my post highlighting the multiple very obvious areas which these youtube reviewers ignored proves that quite clearly. Find me a single Airbus pilot anywhere in the world who doenst know that 15 degrees is the go to pitch attitude after take off. Find me one. Its taught on day one sim 1 and used on every take off you ever do. All of a sudden a youtuber is climing out at 20 plus degrees nose up..SILENCE These guys very clearly ignored very clear very obvious problems if thats not evidence that they where ignoring obvious large errors what more would you like?
  7. I would suggest if you think that real world pilots sharing decades of experience flying these real aircraft and teaching and training people on there systems is not valuable to compare with these add-ons that you have to look at yourself and what you expect when someone calls an addon high fidelity.. The aim is accuracy and fidelity and products marketed as such dont get to use it as a catch phrase or marketing tool without being judged for what they where marketed as. As for some of the other idiotic posts here fire away children unlike you guys real world pilots are used to critique and its like water off a ducks back funnily the reverse doesnt apply and its quite hilarious to look at the rubbish written trying to distract from the case at hand ie the lack of accuracy in the Fenix. However having just over 10000 hours Airbus time and 14 years flying the 320/321 and 330 and now another 4 years on the 787 and having trained more Airbus pilots than the entire fenix testing team put together about 20 times over through my career for the little ego driven children here more intent on throwing barbs than discussing clear obvious issues id suggest you head back to your playgrounds and leave the serious discussion about Airbus to those who are interested in serious simulations. Ive also trained pilots both on the ground and in the air. Ive also taught A320 systems, performance and am very well versed in most anything Airbus family. So lets me very clear having bought the Fenix i am "extremely" disappointed. Your mileage may very generally with your Airbus knowledge and just how serious you take simming. and what your expectations are/where. Thats fine if your happy in your little world thats fine but please dont come here and try to tell someone who has more time in the Airbus than most how an Airbus works and how it flies. If your happy with fenix move on ignorance is bliss. The fenix was clearly marketed as a top level sim with high fidelity experience with stream after stream highlighting systems "accuracy" and just how amazing it would be. Numerous "real world" Airbus pilots who seemingly managed to forget every basic fundamental they use on a day to day basis flew it around praising its "accuracy". So called reviewers who either dont know or dontcare or who are more interested in likes than facts did the same. Unfortunately its neither serious or accurate in MANY areas. So when i mean accurate i mean good a in its representative of a "REAL" aircraft ie similar systems, reasonably up to date something you would see today on the line. 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 there 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 terribly sloppy 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%! Again if you dont care about accuracy do us all a favour go back to playing plastic aeroplanes making vroom vroom sounds running around your house rather than try to make excuses. 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. Fenix even have juniour first officers trying to say that Sharklets have the same drag in the flare as wing tip fence aircraft. Well maybe they better go talk to the Airbus test pilots who put together the initial Sharklet pilot training package which highlighted the prevalence for floats and long landings generated by the lower drag wing. 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. Having been simming for over 35 years i have beta tested for MANY developers(not just Labs thanks) and i still do as a means to to try to enhance products to give the most realistic simulation experience you can get on the home platform. 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. Devs like PMDG, FSLABS, Majestic, Leonardo have all strived to ensure maximum accuracy for a given platform. Ive never seen streamers and so called reviewers ignoring blatant obvious errors that are the tip of a large iceberg of issues and seemingly pretending even when using non standard procedures compared to what they do real world they remained silent. Again if you like fenix thats fine by me go enjoy your Airbus but its certainly not what it was marketed as or what i paid for. PS to add im not here to help Fenix im a paying customer who happens to have done a lot of real world Airbus flying and expected so much more based on the marketing hype. I was looking forward to a great A320 in MSFS maybe that can still happen. if your expectations have been met thats fine but mine have not particularly based off how it was presented and what it delivered.
  8. I hope they do as many people bought this on the basis of the way it was marketed AND on the words of well respected influencers.
  9. Im putting together a nice list of several pages of "issues" with some nice FCOM references to highlight. The easiest way to have a look at the errors is go open the QRH and use the "Unreliable Airspeed" checklist to see when you set pitch and power values see what "errors" you get. Car D sim has a tolerance of 3%. FSlabs 3%. Fenix 25%. Sorry i dont "report" to fenix they are the people who claimed this would be a class leading Airbus. They paid off numerous influencers who have been well and truly been found out to be happy to accept large errors in multiple areas from systems to flight model. Anyone with a FCOM or QRH from the last 5 years can find a litany of issues ranging from ECAM to flight model to model to basic system errors. To highlight the IRU panel used by Fenix was replaced over 20 years ago and if modeled correctly ie the aircraft reflects its model using that IRU panel RNP AR is not permitted as those IRU's do not have the capability to ensure safe navigation in some failure instances. Its a mish mash i=of EIS 1 and 2 which leads to dogs breakfast A320 representing nothing like any real A320 ever seen..EVER. But how basics like post take off pitch attitudes could be missed, ignored or overlooked just shows the tip of a very large iceberg.
  10. Actually we can expand that to the Fenix OEO,AEO,crz pitch, cruise power, cruise fuel burn,N1,EFB data, incorrect FMGC, wrong IRU, Incapable of RNP AR, wrong fonts, drag model conspiracy just to start(don't worry there are many many more)....so many conspiracies so little time...lol Im just glad im not one of the real world pilots who got paid by the dev to market it as a "highly accurate" A320 that will lead the field.
  11. Its been discussed the Fenix has a pile of realism issues ranging from small to huge.Single engine wise the pitch attitudes Fenix use are nothing near the 12 degrees used by the real aircraft. Im quite staggered that other real world pilots have remained completely silent about large obvious errors ANy Airbus pilot would immediately recognize. if they are not commenting they either fail to understand some of the most basic performance based attitudes every Airbus pilot MUST know or they are remaining silent for another more obvious reason..
  12. Yea i am putting together a more comprehensive post highlighting a long list of inaccuracies that will have more references in them so figured its better to do that than shoot from the hip. Im very disappointed in the Fenix. To add you do not need the Airbus Qrh except in a few rare circumstances such as duel hydraulic faults, emergency electrical config. 90% of Airbus failures are run from within ECAM and status without issue.
  13. Its a long long way from nailing anything. Just have a look at the post take off pitch attitudes then compare them to FCOM's 15 degrees. Its the tip of a massive iceberg of issues.
  14. I dont think its been valid for a long time. I run unlimited unlimited no issues here PMDG,FSLABS, Leonardo and Majestic.
  • Create New...