That thread is a train wreck to be sure.

Yeah, I see some visual glitches here and there, but even in a GA aircraft, I only look at a bridge for a minute or so and move on. In P3D, I would be thinking, "In real life, the chart says there's is a river with a bridge where I need to start a dog leg to the left. I wish it were in the sim.". In MSFS I think, "There's the river and the bridge, according to the chart, I need to follow the river a bit, and dog leg to the left just before that bridge... I sure hope they take a look at the photogrammetry on that bridge by the next time I fly this route in 5 years or so. Whoa! look at this beautiful canyon that the airport sits in. And the airport is beautiful! Yippeee!".

Bridge? What bridge?

 

Edited May 15, 20224 yr by MDFlier

20 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

That thread is a train wreck to be sure.

Yeah, I see some visual glitches here and there, but even in a GA aircraft, I only look at a bridge for a minute or so and move on. In P3D, I would be thinking, "In real life, the chart says there's is a river with a bridge where I need to start a dog leg to the left. I wish it were in the sim.". In MSFS I think, "There's the river and the bridge, according to the chart, I need to follow the river a bit, and dog leg to the left just before that bridge... I sure hope they take a look at the photogrammetry on that bridge by the next time I fly this route in 5 years or so. Whoa! look at this beautiful canyon that the airport sits in. And the airport is beautiful! Yippeee!".

Bridge? What bridge?

 

Or just turn photogrammetry off and voila now every little thing - including bridges - look better than in P3D.

Honestly, for the A320, the only chance FSLabs has to get a share of the MSFS market is to hope Fenix doesn't expand development beyond the A320ceo and sell variants separately. A competitively priced A321neo might even sell well. If they demand to buy the A320ceo first, it will be a big failure.

But I believe that the best option would be to focus on the development of Concorde and the A330.

4 minutes ago, edu2703 said:

Honestly, for the A320, the only chance FSLabs has to get a share of the MSFS market is to hope Fenix doesn't expand development beyond the A320ceo and sell variants separately. A competitively priced A321neo might even sell well. If they demand to buy the A320ceo first, it will be a big failure.

But I believe that the best option would be to focus on the development of Concorde and the A330.

I think @Chock mentioned that the A319 and A321 is very similar to the A320, at least systems wise.  So I can see that Fenix would work on the A319 or A321 not too long after they release their A320 and finish the few outstanding tasks they have planned for their A320 after its release.  This would take away the A319/A320/A321 market away from FSLabs from MSFS, if FSLabs is too slow to release their own A319/A321.

Edited May 15, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

They’ve missed the bus.  😂😂

Fenix simulation won't release any other product than A320, because their product is based on Prosim. Prosim only has one A320 simulator. So far there is no proof Fenix is able to develop a plane like this themselves, even by using an already made A320 simulator they are taking too much time for release. Could you imagine how much time would they have needed if they developed from scratch ? 

33 minutes ago, cepact said:

Fenix simulation won't release any other product than A320, because their product is based on Prosim. Prosim only has one A320 simulator. So far there is no proof Fenix is able to develop a plane like this themselves, even by using an already made A320 simulator they are taking too much time for release. Could you imagine how much time would they have needed if they developed from scratch ? 

Assuming they make a killing in revenue, which Fenix should, they'll have more than enough capital to hire a large enough team of devs to develop any aircraft they want without needing Prosim.

Prosim was entirely a time-saving measure. They could have developed the plane without it, only it would have taken 10 years and been cost prohibitive. The cost prohibitive aspect goes away with the revenue from a successful product.

24 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Assuming they make a killing in revenue, which Fenix should, they'll have more than enough capital to hire a large enough team of devs to develop any aircraft they want without needing Prosim.

Prosim was entirely a time-saving measure. They could have developed the plane without it, only it would have taken 10 years and been cost prohibitive. The cost prohibitive aspect goes away with the revenue from a successful product.

Agreed... Also if the ProSim licensing allows for it, I imagine parts of that codebase could be adapted for a non-320 airbus sim aircraft maybe?

8 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Agreed... Also if the ProSim licensing allows for it, I imagine parts of that codebase could be adapted for a non-320 airbus sim aircraft maybe?

I think Aamir's original quote about ProSim, when he disclosed that the Fenix A320 was using ProSim, was that Fenix could also alter the ProSim code base.  So it shouldn't be too hard for Fenix to adopt ProSim for an A319 or an A321.

7 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I think Aamir's original quote about ProSim, when he disclosed that the Fenix A320 was using ProSim, was that Fenix could also alter the ProSim code base.  So it shouldn't be too hard for Fenix to adopt ProSim for an A319 or an A321.

Yes sounds like that shouldn't be hard to adapt for a 319 or 321.  What I wonder about however is if subsets of the ProSim A320 systems codebase can be used by Fenix to get a running start on a 330? I guess that's a maybe at best... I know Airbus at least from a pilot's perspective tries to have similarity and commonality between all the A3XX cockpits as much as possible, but I imagine the under-the-hood systems can be very different from each other at least for some of them... i.e: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=775349

26 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I think Aamir's original quote about ProSim, when he disclosed that the Fenix A320 was using ProSim, was that Fenix could also alter the ProSim code base.  So it shouldn't be too hard for Fenix to adopt ProSim for an A319 or an A321.

This will be entirely dependent of Prosim and the license they signed with them. It's hard to believe they would be allowed to do whatever they want with the codebase.

6 minutes ago, cepact said:

This will be entirely dependent of Prosim and the license they signed with them. It's hard to believe they would be allowed to do whatever they want with the codebase.

Aamir said in his original comment about ProSim that they have the rights to modify it.  You can search for Aamir's original quote.  Also, check the Fenix thread from a few weeks ago.  One of the shareholders of Fenix is located in the same building as ProSim in Holland.  That is a huge coincidence.  While there was no proof that ProSim itself holds shares in Fenix, there is speculation that the company in the same building as ProSim could be some type of holding company that also owns ProSim (the holding company is not confirmed and just a theory, what was confirmed is that the company that holds shares in Fenix is located in the same building as ProSim).  I'm too lazy to point you to that thread too, but you can search for that Fenix thread, it was the subject of discussion within the last 2 weeks.

TLDR: ProSim may have closer ties to Fenix than we all think. It's not surprising if Fenix has full leeway with the ProSim code (sorry, I'm too tired right now to link Aamir's original quote about ProSim, and also the Fenix thread from a few weeks ago, you can search for it yourself).

Edited May 15, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

14 hours ago, cepact said:

Fenix simulation won't release any other product than A320, because their product is based on Prosim. Prosim only has one A320 simulator. So far there is no proof Fenix is able to develop a plane like this themselves, even by using an already made A320 simulator they are taking too much time for release. Could you imagine how much time would they have needed if they developed from scratch ? 

From their FAQ:

Quote

Will we create other variants of the A320 family?
We're currently focused on the A320 CEO for release, but other variants are planned in the future.

 

Edited May 16, 20224 yr by -Belga-

On 5/15/2022 at 4:54 PM, MDFlier said:

That thread is a train wreck to be sure.

I feel for FSL and the situation they're in but after reading that thread, I couldn't help it.