Sorry, but I won’t take any more time to argue with someone who thinks that an objectively high frame rate in a very complex aircraft makes the platform a “total slouch” which is not twisting your words, it’s literally what you said just a few pixels above this post. I’m sorry you’re unhappy with very good performance in a very good aircraft because a less-good aircraft performs better. Have a great day.
10 Likes
You couldn’t handle a simple comment from me because it didn’t fit your own flawed standards, so you leaned on every logical fallacy in the book just to dismiss my point — and then have the nerve to say I’m “not interested in discussion”? If you weren’t interested, why even start? I never said I’m unhappy with its performance — I said there’s a frame rate gap, and it could be better. It’s telling how anyone who disagrees with you gets shut down, while you treat that right as yours alone. At this point, continuing this conversation is just a waste of time.
3 Likes
I think it’s very fair to equate accusing something of being “a total slouch” in performance with being dissatisfied with its performance, no? Your observations are perfectly accurate, but the characterization is where I have an issue. Either way, this back and forth has skewed off-topic and is of no value to the community.
4 Likes
Comparing Fenix with the mediocre A330 that barely simulates half of the plane’s systems and complaining the former requires more computing resources.
Straight to “ignored” list.
5 Likes
Look, I think there’s a misunderstanding — I never meant “total slouch” as a serious dig. I was pointing out a real, measurable frame rate gap. That word was just a casual way to make the point, not a knock on Fenix’s quality.
Come on — who in this community doesn’t know Fenix delivers world-class quality? The fact that you’re hung up on one word just sidesteps the real issue. My point all along is simple: closing this FPS gap would make it even better. Instead, you tell me not to complain because others get lower FPS. That’s where I can’t just sit quiet.
3 Likes
I don’t think that the human eye is able to differentiate the difference in frame rate once it is above some level like 60 fps. So arguing about the difference between 80 and 250 fps is essentially meaningless.
3 Likes
That’s wrong, there is a reason that Gaming monitors can display 200 Hz
Honestly, the idea that “the human eye can’t see past 60 FPS” is a common misconception without solid scientific backing. The eye doesn’t literally count frames, but it does perceive differences in smoothness, motion clarity, and responsiveness. Even beyond 60 FPS, those differences are noticeable — especially in fast-moving or highly interactive environments. In flight simulators like MSFS, higher FPS significantly enhances the overall experience, making it cleaner and more realistic.
And this idea applies equally to refresh rates. Going from 120 Hz to 240 Hz isn’t just a number change — it’s a real, perceptible difference. These numbers aren’t arbitrary; they define how fluid and responsive everything feels. Higher refresh rates refine motion clarity, reduce blur, and make interaction feel sharper. While the improvement from 120 to 240 Hz is more subtle than from 60 to 120, it’s still meaningful — especially for those who value precision and immersion.
4 Likes
Folks, this thread is going way off topic.
Please keep your posts to the “[A319, A320, A321] Fenix High-Fidelity Aircraft” topic, only.
10 Likes
Actually after I solved the problem with low fps after alt-tabbing on my system I must say that actual Fenix builds are one of the best performing addons in MSFS2024 for me. For example I find iFly Max or FS Labs A321 a bit worse in this matter. Fenix guys have come a long way in term of optimization…
6 Likes
How did you solve the problem? I would love to know!
It’s probably very specific… I use an Asus ROG laptop for MSFS2024 with RTX5080 and from some reason the alt-tabbing sent the flightsim to <30 fps figures (sometimes, not always) when I used the Asus recommended “Optimized” GPU mode (selectable in their Armoury Crate application). Then only restart of MSFS2024 helped.
I switched the mode to the basic “Standard” mode where the GPU switching between the dedicated and integrated GFX chips is purely controlled by Windows (Nvidia Optimus). It solved the issue for me.
Got it. Thanks. Don’t think it will help me.
Is it normal for the EFB METAR to sometimes be inaccurate to the SIM weather/ATIS?
I use BATC and MSF2024.. typically I’ll fly a different time but have historic weather enabled in the sim and in BATC… the sim and BATC typically always are consistent with eachother but sometimes the EFB METAR is off on the temp and or altimeter setting.. but then other times the EFB is consistent with the in sim weather, and BATC ATIS.
I have EFB weather source on simulator as well.
Is it normal to match completely everytime?
Another example was the EFB metar stated it was 14C… the ECAM TAT read 14 as well (which gets from the current sim weather temp) and then BATC ATIS said it was 14… however EFB Metar said altimeter was 30.02 and BATC was 29.87…I get being off by a few but sometimes it’s pretty far off.
Yes I see this discrepancy as well primarily on the altimeter. I have the fenix efb set to MSFS which is supposed to be live weather. When I use navigraph for charts via a web browser and check ATIS there it’s always slightly different than the sim or the fenix efb. The difference is not large enough to matter. And when I use SayIntentions ATC the altimeter there is usually slightly different than what navigraph shows or MSFS shows.
1 Like
Yeah sometimes it isn’t too far off to matter - like this morning… BATC ATIS lined up with the in sim weather as it was supposed to do- EFB, set to simulator for METAR info- was off with the temp, wind, visibility and altimeter.
Update: reading your response again- If I am understanding- even with EFB METAR info on Simulator.. it’s only metar info from live simulator time (regardless if I change the time and have historical live weather enabled.. it won’t read that, it’ll only get what the live sim weather would be?)
anyone here with the same reverse thrust problems after SU4?
i tried so many ways, no success so far
Thanks for having the flight data recorder on. Awesome to watch. Did you have icing?
1 Like
I had ice detected during almost all the descent but at the moment of the CRASH there was no ice (“ice not detected”) but regarding of the weather condition I decided to let the anti ice on for the final
I thinks I did not manage my flaps well, I started put flaps 3 then 4 but I already was at 145-150 knots and throttle was still on idle so it was too late
1 Like
You were at your minimum speed when you went full flaps and at that precise time you lost your 12 knot head wind. Also, N1 was only at 35% so no power. Aren’t you only supposed to go full flaps at 6 nm out from landing? Usually N1 is about 65% at this time. I think this was pilot error. Good lesson.
1 Like