Fslabs A320 Update
Charise Zelnick
I am a new Prepar3D user. Normally I was planning to wait for PMDG, FSLabs etc. to release their aircraft for the new Microsoft Flight Simulator, but it looks like it will take a lot (more than 1 years), and once they are out I won't have much time for this hobby.
I am about to get my first add-on aircraft, and it is really hard to decide. I am mostly in between FSLabs A320 and PMDG 747. How is FSLabs A320 when it comes to failures, and when compared to PMDG 747? I like trying (and learning) failure scenarios, so a detailed failure system would be really nice, including maintenance-based / randomized failures. I was unable to find a complete list of failure scenarios, is there a public & complete list available somewhere?
it has failures but they need to be armed by the user. some failures pop up when the user made an error such as not checking the windows. there is no list of failures included as far as i am aware but they are in the mcdu menu regarding a failure. the a320 and the 747 are two different horses.
Thank you. A320 and 747 are indeed quite different, it's just that I really would love to have an aircraft which I can pretty much simulate as many non-normal operations as possible, so I would just go with the more "complete" one in that sense, regardless of the aircraft type.
Like Koen has said, we don't have a maintenance-based / random failure module that compares to the PMDG one, yet. However we do have an extensive list of failures you can train, and failures can be randomised either for all failure types or just certain groups of systems. It's just that the random failure modes have a much higher occurrence rate compared to "everyday life".
As for the list of failures, if in doubt, just name the failure types you want to train and we'll tell you if they are available.
In addition to that failure list and random scenario generator we do have plenty of non-normals happening if you operate the aircraft the wrong way. For example there is a fully custom icing model present that does affect performance (wing and engine) in a realistic way and can even lead to a stall if you continue to ignore icing. This is something the PMDG747 doesn't have.
Or do a tailstrike and your APU and/or cabin pressure might have to say a thing or two about that, pay attention to fuel temperature both at the lower and upper end of the limits, there's plenty of things that do need your attention and that do have consequences if ignored.
Thank you. Based on the videos I've watched, it looks like everything I want is there. Just one question, it looks like it has reactive windshear warnings, but does it have predictive windshear warnings too?
If you want to train windshear procedures, I'd suggest to also get the RealTurb add-on. It drastically increases the chance of getting realistic windshear, because if you only use ActiveSky (or any other weather engine), wind will blow through terrain and never take its shape into account. RealTurb changes all that and takes the wind from ActiveSky and changes it to be influenced by terrain.
I too am a former FSLabs A320/319/321 user, now exclusively "flying" MSFS, and, for the time being, I fly the FBW A320 which is already very good and getting better every week. When we have both planes (Fenix and FSLabs) side by side, with all the testers and streamers of this world eager to stage the ultimate comparison, we will be in a position to make an informed decision based on facts, not assumptions.
But, thanks to the excellent work of FBW, we have an A320 to fly today, without all the bells and whistles, circuit breakers and failures, ACARS messages and other perks, but very reliable and realistic. And who knows, FBW may surprise us in the meantime with feature we never thought of, negating the need for the others!
Ermmm, I am seeing not authentic display fonts, pitch attitudes of 19deg during initial climb, fuel flows around 800 during cruise, a questionable landing behaviour (AC almost flares itself). Sure this might eventually be fixed with custom flight/engine models in the future. But how on earth can people rate Fenix better at that point ?
Ermmm, I am seeing not authentic display fonts, pitch attitudes of 19deg during initial climb, fuel flows around 800 during cruise, a questionable landing behaviour (AC almost flares itself). Sure this might eventually be fixed with customer flight/engine models in the future. But how on earth can people rate Fenix better at that point ?
Texturing and Modelling though, it is heads and shoulders above the FSLabs. It just loses out on the Flight model like you mentioned. With further refinements, im sure it can surpass FSLabs, but not yet at this point.
Interesting you should pick these points to argue the quality of the Fenix a320. Fenix themselves have been open about their shortcomings, and specifically mentioned two of the points you mentioned. They are going to give the displays and the fonts another pass, even though I've only heard praise concerning the fidelity and accuracy of the displays from real life A320 pilots. Fenix also talked about how the sim presented them with a "nut" in regards to fuel flow - how it's either comparable to a rocket ship during takeoff, or just a trickle during the descent, and how Fenix had to compromise to try to get it as close to real life as possible. It's now within the margins of 8% of the real thing. Do you happen to know how these figures compare to other sim providers?
When it comes to the high pitch during takeoff, I've noticed this myself, but I'm not a real life pilot, and I cannot say it is wrong. I have flown several a320 in sims over the years (my favorite aircraft, and I've simmed for more than 20 years), and I do think the pitch attitude is a bit higher than what I'm used to. It could be down do this particular iteration of engines and frame and thus correct, but I don't know.
The landing behaviour feels very controlled and gives me a good sense of control of the flare. Many other iterations from other providers have typically had an over-pronounciation of the airbus flare logic which lowers the nose at so-so many degrees per second during the flare to immitate non-fly-by-wire airplanes, and the translation into sim practical terms meant that the flare became harder than it probably should compared to the real thing. But then again, I'm making some assumptions saying this, because I'm just a sim pilot.
With all that said, I think it is wise (and ethical) to be open about the short-comings of the product, and not just buy into any hype that seems to only acknowledge the pros. In the end, there are a lot of pros to be happy about with this product, though!
If I remember correctly the FSL A320 had similar issues on its release, couldn't lock on to an ILS was one of them. All software goes through a period of bug testing once released and the devs make that quite plain on release of their various offerings. I think most long term flight sim aficionados would tell you the same thing, I think Oz put it best:
c80f0f1006