TuomasV

Lot of good points already given! I go to idle at 30 feet, but from that point onwards instead of trying to just execute a standard manouvre, it is important to fly the plane based on how heavy the plane is, what kind of descent rate one has at that point and how gusty or windy the weather is. These all affect what kind of pull is needed. Also, for safe operation it is more critical to get the plane consistently and firmly down between the 1000-1500ft markings than try to buttersmooth it beyond that. In wet weather even more so as too light a touchdown risks aquaplaning.

Could you also post a photo in the Airbus where your FCU is visible?

Have had this happen three times in the past 6 months. Last time, it wasn't even solved by reloading the sim, but loading the sim with another plane and then again with Fenix solved the issue.

That is annoying! Works fine here and I actually get better performance there in 2024. Is it the same every flight there? I wonder if GSX, Photogrammetry or traffic on the ground could have something do with it.

I fly Fenix almost predominantly. Thought it'll take longer to make the transition, but I have much smoother performance and especially atmospheric colours are significantly improved, so now haven't opened 2020 in 3 months and couldn't go back. I've never used PG. SPAD.nxt, SimHaptic, FsRealistic, BATC with AIG - these didn't even notice the sim had changed after updating them. Most sceneries have worked just by dropping the folder from 2020 folder to 2024 one, which at first was a surprise as the scenery providers don't yet say there is compatibility or sell the sceneries for 2024.

Was about to say the same! Some of the trees in the real life clip are way too tall, and the haze is overdone as well.

This here is the reason. That's 22,000 terabytes. I always wonder what people mean when they say "SSDs" and hardrives are cheap. They seem to underestimate how much textures and mesh data and whatnot is needed to deliver scenery for the entire world. Even if you only wanted one region, it would still be a massive amount of data. For just the aircraft and airports, there is probably a case for more offline elements. but that won't really change the big picture of streaming. Delivering a potato for offline flying would be easy to do, but I don't think that's what people are after when they demand an offline version.

Here MSFS 2020 keeps loading as it always has....I can only wish it loaded as rapidly as 2024 does. I was one of the seemingly lucky ones to have 2024 up and running immediately on Day 2 with no loading or server issues witnessed.

I'm with you Bob! Community folder full of stuff all the way with Navigraph ticking along as usual. It's good to be a lucky pilot.

Sayintentions for immersion. Not the cheapest but difficult to go back. Trying the 24h demo is worth a shot.

I moved from FBW to Fenix a long time ago and it's a different plane. FPS improvement was 6-8fps which was a major surprise, and then the additional systems depth and feel of the different flight model was noticeable. Still, the FBW was really good too. But it could very well be that you are just a Boeing person! Modern Airbuses have been made very automated and easy to fly. Compared to 737 or even the older A310, there is a noticeable difference in your workload operating the plane, and e.g. what kind of control inputs the pilot is expected to do.

Hello fellow aviators, I'm currently flying quite a bit in China. Some interesting airports like ZUZH, but most of these domestic airports have no published navdata so Jeppesen/Simbrief/Navigraph are at a loss. Operating A320 on an airport not in navdata must be rare in real life, but of course technically possible. So, does anyone know if there is a way to INIT a flightplan to a destination not in navdata? I tried INIT FROM/TO with coordinates in a few different formats and also with a "Pilot waypoint", but didn't work. My current workaround is creating a flightplan to a nearby airport, after which I create two Pilot Waypoints in the MCDU: One for the end of target runway and one 10nm out as final approach fix, and then programming target altitudes and minimums as constraints. This is niche within a niche, but perhaps someone here has an answer. 🙂 - Tuomas

This happened to me once when my FMC PROG page had a higher planned flflight level than the one I ended up using. The plane was thus still in climb mode and didn't start a descent until I changed the PROG FL.

I've had the same finding on a few higher altitude airports with CFM engines, at least ZWSH and OIII. Also slammed TOGA and was able to get clear if with extra excitement. Have to compare with Simbrief next time!

Same here! I'm using it for IFR in Europe, for which it's not yet really designed for, but already now after the demo I couldn't go to back to default ATC anymore. There are obviously things that are not yet working and the risk of errors is high, but so far the magical moments of realistic-feeling ATC interaction make up for that. As long as I have a valid Simbrief flight plan and know what to do. The software seems to be developing faster than I can track so very optimistic about the future. I've also been following BATC with keen interest. My main worry is they are trying to build the perfect product with convincing ATC interaction and new traffic injection with realistic procedures for all planes in the sky. That's an incredibly complex output to deliver and could take a while.