Jump to content

2reds2whites

Members
  • Content Count

    257
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

626 Excellent

About 2reds2whites

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting that you doubled down on your stupid comments. The performance degradation occurs over time. I'm fairly certain that the issue isn't due to the Asobo definition of what constitutes a long haul flight. And if you think long haul is defined as 8+ hours then you better contact a few airlines and regulatory bodies as they're all wrong apparently. Wind your neck in.
  2. You absolutely do not cross control a jet airliner into a sideslip to lose height/speed, at least not in real life. Speedbrakes are OK on the 737, but they work much better at high speeds as drag is proportional to the square of the speed. You absolutely can 'go down and slow down,' we do it all the time. The reduction in total energy state does not change, but being low and a bit fast is slightly easier to remedy than being high, so we often choose to go down before we slow down. I don't own the PMDG 737 so can't comment on the specifics of the sim.
  3. I’ve not downloaded it, but it’s not in reference to one of Top Gun’s classic moments is it? Edit: I see you’ve dismissed that theory!
  4. You have autoland data for a 38kt crosswind in an A320?
  5. I'm not particularly impressed with their tone at times.
  6. Can a dedicated forum be established for people making threads asking for dedicated forums?
  7. You were likely beyond the starting point of the STAR, thus attempting to insert waypoints behind you that NAV had already sequenced. What you were trying to insert did not match the active leg. It's telling you to go into a selected horizontal mode so you can sort the MCDU out then tell it where you want it to go.
  8. Weren't you going to get a refund? Perhaps you should, then you can stop talking about it. Looking through your post history you seemingly hate every simulator and aircraft that has ever existed. Odd.
  9. The autobrake setting is a deceleration target, not a fixed amount of brake pressure. If for example you set autobrake low and full reverse, on landing the aircraft might not apply ANY brakes, because the deceleration target is being met from the thrust reversers alone. It does not 'sum' the autobrake and reverse. Note that I don't have the Fenix EFB in front of me so it could be a bug, but you could experiment with contaminated runways and it should make a difference.
  10. I'm surprised that FS labs want anything to do with an A320 series aircraft in MSFS. At the very least I would have expected them to keep their powder dry until the Fenix was out in the wild and they could properly see what they were up against. Instead they announced on May 12th that they would be bringing that aircraft to MSFS. I really have no problem if a developer wants to make the same aircraft, and there are new simmers joining the hobby every day who do not own any Airbus aircraft, so there will in theory be a market should your product compete. The issue is how do they compete? The aircraft they will be competing against is arguably right now the finest and most complete home simulator experience in history (I don't begrudge the occasional small issue, but as a package). But that's not what FS Labs have to compete against. They have to compete against what the Fenix will become in the 12 months/18 months/24 months that it takes FS Labs to put forward their offering. The Fenix guys have just put forward a significant update after a day of being available, and it doesn't look like that pattern will change. Once Fenix has polished this release which is inevitably going to happen, what is it that FS Labs can do better? Can they make it cheaper? And if they can somehow make their new product better than the Fenix down the line, with it's free upgrades and constant improvements - are people going to pay more money for an incremental gain? But the bottom line for me is that Fenix have drawn a line in the sand. If I were a developer I would be saying 'that aircraft is done. It is an exceptional product right now and it is only going to get better.' Good on them if FS Labs want to try.........
  11. I know how the Airbus flight control logic works, I have 3000 hours on type. That's why I asked if you were a pilot, your expectations don't seem to match mine. I see some (very minor) issues with the Fenix, but as it's been out for a few days I don't feel the need to even mention them. They've been raised and no doubt will be fixed. But even without them it'd still be the best 320 sim ever made (in my view), so I'm perfectly happy.
  12. You don't seem positive about the aircraft - do you fly the 320 series in real life? In any case the flare mode is a tricky one. The entire design philosophy is that it shouldn't be noticed at all by a pilot, it just means that you get a proper feeling of flaring against trim. If you land as you're supposed to in an airbus you literally don't know it's there. Part of the problem with replicating airliner flare handling is that barring the FFS's we use for recurrent training I've never used a sidestick which comes anywhere close to the Airbus. The Thrustmaster one is useless. It makes sense when you see how the Airbus sidestick actually works;
  13. Safe to say that's a bug or problem with his setup specifically.
  14. I don't know for sure but given the 'type' of developers these guys seem to be, performance increases will be imminent and successful......
×
×
  • Create New...