Says who?
Neither “Fenixsim.com” mentions “ProSim-AR” as an build-in SIM-Engine, nor does ProSim-AR mention “Fenixsim.com” as a customer. Maybe I overread it, so please send me the exact location, where I can readback this collaboration you mentioned.
Besides that, it’s end of july and Fenix is still buggy…
Cheers,
eddeig
This has been discussed way back in August 2021. Aamir stated that Fenix
… do indeed have a license with ProSim to utilise and modify elements of their simulation software, and are building upon that to bring something much more desktop-oriented and more in line with what PC simmers are used to. By default we respect the privacy of our legal agreements and avoid discussing the various licensing agreements we have …
They also stated (as shown) that they do not discuss commercial details. It was put to bed at that point.
Hope that helps.
And the team are, of course, working on the next update. Several updates were issued at launch to combat the most immediate stability issues.
This statement is from the Fenix Discord btw. And here is the official confirmation from ProSim:
https://forum.prosim-ar.com/viewtopic.php?p=148927#p148927
This honors the Fenix even more, using cockpit instrument renderings and some deep code of the best sim ever created!
I am sure for their next product, they license Airbus itself and use the original system code of the original instruments build in the A350, and simulate even the tire pressure depending on the temperatur of the runway asphalt.
How do those to planes compare in terms of features, handling, realism, complexity. I know one is a Neo the other one an vanilla -200.
The NEO is missing some nice instruments like the DME (DDRMI) below the ISIS, and two fuel pumps in the overhead panel are missing.
The NEO has the rear overhead circuit breaker illuminated, the Fenix has it dark at night.
The NEO has the rear circuit breaker board behind the copilot seat with no labels and no function, in the Fenix all circuit breakers are functional (at least 90% of them).
The NEO has a nasty texture or self- shadowing glitch one inch way of the middle one of the three round flood lights / reading lights I am not able to fix, the Fenix is 100% FLAWLESS from all angles when using my cockpit overhaul 
The NEO has a more reddish dark-orange thrust reverser illumination label while in the Fenix it is more yellow.
The NEO has functional reading lights while in the Fenix turning up these lights does nothing and illuminates nothing except the light bulb inside the flood light.
The reading lights on the windscreen pillar of the Fenix stays fully black at night when switching it on but it casts some light on the kneeboard (or EFB which is used nowadays).
I have not tested the windscreen pillar lights of the NEO yet.
Because the geometry and design of hull and wings is identical, both should have the exact same flight characteristics and almost the same speeds.
The turbines will react different when handled manually.
I have not tested the full complexity of the NEO yet but the Fenix is perfect when it comes to complexity, you can watch a lot of YouTube videos showing real pilots using the MCDU, programming custom flight routes etc.
Hello to all Fenix pilots,
I really like the FBW A320, but am also interested in trying the Fenix. Would appreciate if someone could answer my questions about it:
I am a bit confused because of the many comments here about performance. Is it still such a big issue? With AMD 5800X CPU and AMD 6800X graphics (2560×1440, TLOD 200 in options), surely it should be possible to land in Toronto at night with 30 fps even with the Fenix, as I’m used to with PMDG or FBW?
Is it possible to use 4x time acceleration in the Fenix if for example over the ocean, straight course, calm weather? FBW allows only 2x.
Sometimes I feel ND and ECAM are a bit hard to read in FBW because of the smaller displays or fonts compared to PMDG for example. Do you think this is possible a bit better in Fenix? I can of course zoom in, is clear, but I mean e.g. before landing with view forward.
Thanks!
I don’t have an AMD GPU so I can’t accurately answer your first question. All I’ll say is that I the Fenix is a bit more hard hitting on performance than the 737, but not by much. They’ve optimised it pretty well in recent times.
At first, I think time acceleration was completely disabled on the Fenix. But I believe they have since allowed 2x time acceleration too. And it only allows it in the MCDU or EFB (I can’t quite remember). Trying to do it using the native sim controls doesn’t work.
I also have a 2560x1440 display and I have no issues reading the instruments from the pilot view.
Hope that helps
I have the 2 and they are breathtaking planes as far as the FBW is concerned, I have been saddened since SU10 because this plane suffers lags when taxiing, in particular while the Fenix nothing and I can’t explain why
In my opinion the FBW has to much impact on the performance.
I think the way this plane is programmed with bits and peaces it will be difficult to get it low on demand.
I just installed and learned the basics and coming from Boeing it is quite different but I really like it so far. The lags during taxi is still there and that is the main problem and lack of VNAV in the stable version. I always like new and shiney so I’m hoping they can get there but obviously it’s persisted now. Seems a little better w/ DX11.
Bits and pieces? The aircraft is largely programmed entirely from-scratch nowadays.
It’s just an alpha release, so the performance isn’t the constant priority of everyone. But of course, we are always working on optimisation - as of right now, a fix was merged into the development version to reduce severe stutters - and three more fixes are in review or testing to address general FPS.
Maybe it’s getting better, but is still more resource demanding then the Fenix A320 and the PMDG 737.
What is a Tech Alpha Insider please…?
You have to ask that to Asobo.
They gave this title to the MSFS Alpha testers when Asobo start testing the Alpha version of the Sim in 2019.
Ah OK thanks
In the meantime I can answer some questions myself right away, because I bought the Fenix A320 and the first flights are behind me.
Yes, it needs more resources than the PMDG, but with my computer (AMD CPU 5800x3d and AMD GPU 6800XT) this is no problem. After I set the display rendering in the Fenix App from Quality to Balanced and CPU to GPU (although not recommended), the display is buttery smooth in all situations.
I like the clean cockpit, lighting and sound effects of the Flybywire A320 a bit better, that’s my personal taste. But the stuttering on approach and taxiing has always bothered me a bit in recent months. Maybe these problems affect more the AMD users or are dependent on various settings, I don’t know. I know sim pilots with nvidia, they haven’t noticed it yet.
The predictable flight behavior in VNAV mode, setting and keeping constraints and the correct display of approach paths is for me one of the advantages of the Fenix. But honestly, the Flybywire is a free community project and a great product, which has made the MSFS really useful for me.
So, I like them both and have not regretted buying the Fenix or donating to Flybywire yet.
Simulation rate can be set in the Fenix FMC under maintenance to a maximum of 2x.
It’s not only a problem that affects AMD users.
With my i5-9600K and RTX-3060ti combi it was the same as with my new 5800x3d and RTX-3060ti combi.
Well yeah, that is indeed what I said. I just corrected your comment on the root cause
I took some time to compare both with the same flights, settings, etc.
My tl;dr conclusion is: Fenix is overrated, and before anyone jumps to my throat, it is a fantastic product and the pricing is terrific but its reputation exceeds what it delivers.
Finally since release the Fenix development speed has stalled, as it usual happens with commercial vendors while the FBW team is constantly pushing updates to the plane even with the A380 in the pipeline.