wyman_hd

Youre clearly being very confrontational with your responses and I can tell the tears in your eyes have welled up causing your spelling to degrade. Please read the last few words of my response as I'm not entertaining your rage bait.

I implore you to make you up your own opinions instead of preaching what others say. Pilots are people too, and are not free from having their own opinions. And if you've never flown the A320 and thus cannot make a reasonable opinion, then you don't need to try this hard to try to convince others that you're right. Agree to disagree.

As others have mentioned, he most likely uses it for practicing cockpit flows and use of his instruments, which could've also been done on something like the original Aerowinx PS1.3 for MS-DOS. Flight model is irrelevant in that case. You are not going to develop the necessary muscle memory and tactility of flying an aircraft for real through a desktop simulator, regardless of whether its MSFS, X-Plane, or FS98. Flightsim is a tool, not the bible, and nobody claims it to be one.

You're assuming that MSFS is even used in the context of pilot training. I don't think many real world airline or GA pilots takes MSFS seriously to the point where they need to meticulously pick apart extremely minute details in the sim. Most people (that includes pilots) understand that it is going to have faults, and you're conflating the issue. Real full motion simulators don't even feel as good as flying the real thing, so how do you expect MSFS to do that with a 2d screen and an office chair? How can you even expect anybody to describe the process and feeling of flying in words? There isn't enough words in the entire repository of the English language to describe in 100% full detail the dynamics of airflow. It is going to be approximated, and it's already being approximated to a pretty word not allowed good level. Is it lacking in some small, esoteric way? Sure it is, but if everything was judged in this extremely pedantic way then you would hate every other simulator within this hobby.

Certain small details in FSL are more "accurate" than Fenix. There's the obvious point that FSL has both IAE and CFM engines in the base package, and they offer the 319, 321 and SL variants. There is also the problem with the engine's burn performance but in fairness, they have addressed the issue as being an issue with MSFS and are working to get a custom engine model in place. I've heard from real pilots that the Fenix's climb profile is out of whack, it can nose up 15 degrees with one engine only which is not realistic, but again it's probably due to that inaccurate engine model that they're already working on. Another thing is the old ADIRS panel on the overhead, which the Fenix has. In the real world, the older IRUs cannot do RNP AR approaches or fly RF legs. For some reason though, the Fenix is able to do both perfectly fine. The newer ADIRS panel you see in the ToLiss A321 NEO or FSLabs is more accurate of a depiction to the real aircraft as of recently. It's an easy fix though, since they just need to change that panel's 3d model to the newer ADIRS panel to properly reflect the version of IRUs they're simulating. There's still value in Fenix, but it's still not yet "better" than FSLabs at this very moment. Of course, if you value visuals more, then there isn't any reason to choose ToLiss or FSLabs at all.

Clicking the X will close the window, but the next time you open the window it will remain undocked. Usually clicking dock window will re-dock the panel onto the sim, but I guess not in your case. I believe I also had this issue with P3Dv5 when it was still on V5.0, I was departing out of SMF and I accidentally undocked the ND display and it blacked out; had to restart the sim. Though, I think this issue (would've) been fixed by now, especially now that we're at 5.2. Maybe try asking on the Prepar3D forums, LM's developers might give you some more insight, as if I remember correctly, this undocking panel thing wasn't affecting a whole lot of people.