Iiari

Terrific, thanks. Regarding the TOD app listed above on Flightsim.to, reviews seem to indicate it works 7-8 times out of 10. I'm not sure I'm ready to trust my flights to those odds yet.

I knew the FBW had that, but not the Fenix. Where is it in the Fenix?

Certainly haven't reviewed all 32 pages of posts, but after spending the last month flying the airlines quite a bit as a passenger and paying close attention to weather along the way and using ASXP since launch, with a lot of "out the window" comparisons, I've come to really believe it looks far more accurate. Less "dramatic" than sim default? Absolutely, but that's how real weather often looks too. I'm very happy with turbulence implementation so far, and historical weather is great. No dramatic transitions yet. So far, I'm very pleased with the purchase.

11th Gen i9 and 3080, 2.5 year old system. 1440p. TLOD and OLOD both at 100. I am using Samscene NYC and NYC bridges.

Thought I'd give you my opinion. It's a beautiful airport, but performance for me is terrible. I need AutoFPS to get in the high 20's on landing with the Fenix, and forget injected or static aircraft. By comparison, Ini's redone KLAX and KJFK both are in mid to high 30's for me with landing and in the low 30's with injected/static aircraft. Only DD's KEWR is as bad or worse performance-wise for me. I'll have to revert back to the freeware KLGA for now until a (hopeful) optimization comes.

Oh, OK. That might push me over to purchase. What should the MSFS setting for turbulence be with the program? Thanks.

Just to clarify, ASFS right now doesn't have cloud turbulence - That's a WIP, correct? Thanks.

Does this give you the XP11 effect at cruise where you feel like weather exists only in a disc around your aircraft and nowhere else?

Despite the overall excellence of the Fenix, I too prefer the feel of the FBW, especially on final approach, to the Fenix, and one or two real Airbus pilots on YouTube have said that the FBW feels more natural and realistic, even despite the obvious improvements of V2 Fenix. The Fenix is very frustrating. It's outstanding for 98% of the flight but the dynamics still fall apart and are disappointing in the final 100 feet, even despite the real V2 upgrade. If it could land like the FBW, it'd be perfect.

I believe there's also a perfectly performant freeware version on flightsim.to for those of us without strong attachments to this particular airport, FYI...

This is what I'm looking forward to most. The last 50 feet of landing has always felt very dynamic and unpredictable, and also IRL Airbus pilots have called this out on videos saying this was one area where the FBW felt far more realistic. Glad to hear it might be better! Looking forward to trying....

Also interested to hear some first hand experiences. I too often forget to record landings given everything going on. When reading about a new product, I like to play a game of, "how much are they going to ask for this?" and I had guessed $9.99, so this is the rare item to be less than I guessed at $8. Given all the landing practice I do, it seems a reasonably good value for me. I'll likely buy this later today...

And still no A220 or 737 Maxes or Embraer 145's....

I believe there is a good amount of freeware scenery on flightsim.to, including approach photogrammetry and a Balboa park vegetation overhaul, that should make the loss of the LatinVFR city enhancements more bearable.

Yes, and I'd like to see adjustments for temperature as well.

Was going to try FSLTL today vs AIG with certain settings, but I could literally not keep AIG running long enough to get good FPS data, it kept constantly closing. It's obviously superior in coverage outside the US, but I can't keep it open long enough to make a difference. I guess FSLTL wins by default.

Some people have done this with good effect (maybe around page 33 of this thread, I don't remember, haha) and it knocks the FPS hit down substantially with few artifacts or quality loss. Hopefully the formal project might have options for this in the future. Apparently deleting the effects folder for plane lights, flaps, etc helps substantially too...

The video I link below answered a good number of my personal questions (sorry if it's in any of the 40-ish pages before this, haven't reviewed each one): Has anyone else confirmed @Gerwil observation that it is not the models but the effects (lights) the models use that hamper performance and removing the effects folder from the 'fsltl-traffic-base' helps FPS?

Is that a default airport or a pay airport? At IRL busy airports like Boston Logan and LaGuardia, I'm seeing no takeoffs or landings, but those are both payware airports and I'm wondering if that's a factor....

Very interesting to read everyone's comments. These are certainly promising early days with FSLTL. However, for me at least, the FPS hit is just too high. Landing at a large urban airport post-SU 10 in an airliner is usually a smooth ~30-35 FPS at the moment without injection, but FSLTL turned on with its default settings drops landings for me down to a more stuttery 23-26 FPS. That's too high a price to pay, even for a free add-on. For the moment, it appears we have an immersion vs performance choice ,and I choose performance right now, which is so good in SU 10. I will still follow this with interest, though, and will watch people tinker with the FSLTL settings to see if we find anything more performant.

Regarding replay, amazingly, the title was released without any kind of replay. So those videos you are seeing are people doing 3rd party video software recording, nothing built into the sim.... So when you see someone doing an external view landing, they're actually landing in that way and recording it, not replaying...

Why is that exactly?