Sorry I just saw the title the 5th version

I would respond to both of your question here, my respond can't be short. Do you prefer Fenix or fslabs : I prefer FSLabs. Because FSLabs is a mature product, all systems are accurate, FM (Flight Model) is accurate, you have all A320's CEO family. Fenix is not done, still have FM issues, FBW issues, ILS issues and more. But Fenix have a very beautiful 3D model and texture (that i don't really care, but FSLabs virutal cockpit is very bad for actual standard and P3D capability), also have the LDEV option (FSLabs don't have it and so not a RNP certified aircraft, it's a real shame, you still can do it like i did on this video but in real life you are not allowed). For most realistic experience : It depend on what us a realistic experience for you. if it's visually, go 100% with Fenix. If it's system accuracy and fidelity, for now it's FSLabs, Fenix need more maturity, but no doubt that Fenix is going to achieve a high fidelity product in the future. Do i still recommend investing in P3D : You probably read my comment where i tell why i left MSFS in the past, but things have change with MSFS and i have also a mixed opinion of P3D and FSLabs now. This is why i still don't like MSFS this day : > Bad ground effect (or Fenix don't use it correctly). > Wrong airport/runway coordinate/bearing (it's in fact a very complicated topic, MSFS autogen aiport have issues, but it shouldn't be a problem if Fenix use in sim ILS/terminal data instead of navigraph raw AIRAC data like all aircraft in MSFS and P3D do). > No windshear (very sadly). > Bad turbulence (it's more a Fenix issues with FM). > Bad updraft downdraft (maybe a Fenix issues with FM). > No historical weather solution. > No correct weather radar API (and it will never come with MSFS20 in my opinion). This is what u don't like with P3D this day : > Legacy/default content is very bad in term of visual quality/optimization. You have to spend hundreds of euro in contents like orbx global to get a descent visual quality that is not updated since P3Dv3 and not use all sim possibility. > You have to spend hours to tweak the sim to get the max performance possible with FSLabs (because FSLabs is badly optimize and take to much resources). > No runway slope in legacy/default airport and almost all third party airport scenery don't have it (because of issue with AI aircraft that can't land on sloped runway). > The sim have to much complexity when you want to customize it (P3D is more like a base simulator where the customer can do "everything" with it, it's a good thing but because of that the sim is very complex and hard to work with, even install a scenery is very complex sometime). > FSLabs lost is interest in P3D and focus in MSFS for their A320's family release and schedule the A320's family update for P3Dv6. > Third party dev' are lazy and scammer that do the minimum, only update their product from old P3D to newer P3D version by changing the installer (the content don't change), don't use new P3D features to improve visual quality (even when creating new scenery, some dev use this new features for P3Dv5 and have a visual quality similar to MSFS like in this video, but it's rare) and keeping a high price that can't be justified for almost all scenery. > Almost all third party dev' left P3D to MSFS. > No one use all new P3Dv6 features. > The community is dead so it's hard to find info and help. The good things with P3D : > With ActiveSky you have an historical weather and a very good custom weather engine with more option then MSFS, but MSFS have now a more dynamic weather engine then P3D with ActiveSky (that is very static, it's possible to have some thing more dynamic but ActiveSky have to work to do it). > High customization capability (also a cons). > No frequent update that brake everything. > Content can be port from old P3D to new P3D version easily (even customer can do it when you know how it work, but it also create the lazy dev situation with poor quality contents) The good things with MSFS : > Legacy/default content is already awesome so you don't need to invest on content, even MSFS autogen airport is already good and third party scenery only a plus (don't forget that community will soon have the possibility to update/change autogen airports in MSFS and it's going to be updated for all). > Third party dev' is working here. Would i recommend FSLabs or stay with Fenix : If you have hundreds of euro/dollar to spend, for you a realistic experience is not the visual quality, you are not afraid to learn how P3D work, you have a good informatics understanding, you have hours to spend just to tweak and work your P3D, FSLabs is a possibility and a good choice. If a realistic experience is visual quality go for Fenix. If if you have patience or not hundreds of euro/dollar to spend, stay in MSFS with Fenix, Fenix is at his beginning (FSLabs have more then 10 years of experiences in comparison) no doubt it's going to be a great product, plus FSLabs is working on A320's family aircraft on MSFS. For my part, i'm currently not enjoying either Fenix and FSLabs and i'm lazy of this situation... Fenix lake things that have FSLabs and FSlabs is stuck on P3D (for now) and all issues that have P3D. To be short FSLabs + P3D give you what Fenix + MSFS can't or don't have and Fenix + MSFS give you what FSLabs + P3D don't have... If you have A LOT of time to spend on P3D, learn how to create your content, know how to do textures and 3D model, you can achieve a P3D that look better then MSFS... But no one have the time for that.

@@JaGna_ so if you had the choice right now, with your knowledge of both sims and if you were me would you invest in P3d and fslabs? I’m willing too spend some money but I don’t know if it will be a waste as Fenix are giving there series a 321,319 and sharklets

@@majoraviatior1611 If you want to invest in an other sim, i would recommend XPlane12 with ToLiss rather then P3D... I don't have XPlane12 and ToLiss but it look a solid choice and i want to try it, i recommend you to make your own opinion on ToLiss on internet before. Plus XPlane still have a good community, third party dev still creating content for it, you have ActiveSky for XPlane, you have AutoOrtho add-on that is free (to replace the land class system, P3D also use land class), you can also use Sim Heaven with AutoOrto and get a great visual. Q8Pilot switch from MSFS + Fenix to XPlane + ToLiss

@@JaGna_ thanks for your help mate!

It's my control input, you want to know how I did this layer?

​@@JaGna_ yes please

​@@JaGna_hey did you found the name of the app?

@@infiniteflight2140 I'm using this tealyatinasite.appspot.com/joystick/ And record it into obs with a web sources

​@@JaGna_thanks

Hey i totally dislike V2B1 and didn't really like pre V2B1 either compared to FSLabs. Not now with V2B2 we are getting close to FSLabs "standard" with Fenix (not in term of visual quality of course LMAO). The new flight model is much better then before (still room for improvement) and totally agree on the handling feel (even if i feel no difference with or without SDS active, i keep it active anyway now). Now we are going into a debug and fine tuning cycle of V2B2 and i hope it wont be too long for that so we get SL quickly then A319 A321 (i really want Fenix A319 for my part).

True

What aircraft you want to fly with v6 ?

​​@@JaGna_v6.1 have dlss & fsr alredy, have u checked it?

I don't have P3D v6 because FSLabs don't support this version for now. But for sure v6 have a good AA compared to v5.

@@JaGna_ just to note that v6.1 have dlss fsr support

For the sidestick : Thrustmaster magnetic base with the airbus side stick replica from www.fsprojects.eu For the quadrants i got the GNX DUAL THQ + FSM-GA COMBO from KBsim. Recently i get my miniFCU.

In P3D turbulence is more perceptible vertically. Then it's low turbulence, look at one of my vidéo with moderate/strong turbulence you will see the difference (kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3XZpGiKo5uYbcU look how i fight to keep my vertical speed). In P3D you can use the in sim weather settings to set the turbulence from 0% to 100%. But i'm using ActiveSky. In ActiveSky you can set the turbulence effect scale from 0% to 100% and it's going to affect all turbulence strength. For FSLabs A32X the recommended setting is 30%, if you go over 50% ligh turbulence feel like strong turbulence and moderate feel like severe turbulence with incontrolable aircraft and intempestive stall warning. If you use live or historical weather the turbulence strength is calculated based on the METAR + interpolation (+ terrain, if you have realturb) or with a custom weather area you can set the turbulence precisely (globaly, in specific cloud cloud layer and for each wind aloft layer).

This video is very old, more then one years ago... My setup have change, my config have change, the sim have update, Fenix have update, my main sim have change... So hard to tell. But what i can say is hours of config tweaking to find the perfect balance and a lot of hardware and windows optimization.

-325fpm with 1.47 g load is far to be a hard landing, it's firm and it was intentional. I suggest you re-study you'r documentation on what a hard landing is. The Airbus A320 vertical G hard landing threshold is 2.6G 🙂 (it's around -600/-700 fpm on a flat runway for an A320) It's not because a landing is not confortable for passangers that the landing is hard (in a pure airliner view) and unsafe. Also, just because the landing is buttered doesn't mean it is a safe landing. You wont aim for a -100 fpm butter landing in this kind of runway and wind condition (only 7136'/2175m runway length, wind 15kt gusting 27kt). Their is condition where better is a plus, but safety first 😉 You propably only look landing video with a lot of views with the tag #butter where pilot land on a 3km+ runway length. -300 fpm landing for an A320 is not uncommon and totaly fine in most condition.

I know, I'm just imitating an angry passenger, I'm not trying to argue with you 😅@@JaGna_

@@AEht_ 🤣🤣🤣

In this particlar scenery for that vidéo at NZAA you have : Flightbeam NZAA (photoscenery, autogen, vector and CVZ around airport) Orbx Global BASE Orbx Global VECTOR Orbx Global TerraFlora v2 Orbx Global Building HD Flightbeam NZAA have very high quality P3D airports scenery that make a huge difference. Generally i always use the complete Orbx Global add-ons (inculding Orbx OpenLC, if the region that i fly have one)

Orthophoto around the airport (from the airport scenery) and orbx add-ons for global scenery

ehm no its not? airbus maximum crosswind ON TOUCHDOWN is 35kts

@@kane6194 Really? Maybe I’m getting things mixed up… Oh bruh, that’s the maximum wind speed on my cirrus in real life… Sorry!

I think you are confusing the maximum tailwind for takeoff that is 15kt and the max demonstrated crosswind for takeoff and landing that is 38 knots (gust included and good runway condition). It is often reduced to 35 kt by SOP.

@@JaGna_ Yeah, that’s probably what happened..

@@kane6194 max demonstrated xwind is 38kts, but this doesnt mean thats the worst you can fly in. eg, cessna a152 max demonstrated xwind is 12kts, but you can fly above that.

Crosswind

@@JaGna_ Cockpit view doesn’t change it’s position. Only the plane.

@@respectfullyright Crosswind is still the reason. It's a personal preference. My cam heading is aligner to the aircraft heading and my eyes are looking to the aircraft track. Few reason : - I really don't need to have the camera tilted to the aircraft track to see/feal the aircraft track. - The track may change during the approach (especially when it's gusty crosswind) but the heading is obviously fix. - For me it's easy to feal the track this way but it's harder to keep the aircraft heading in mind with the camera tilted to the track. - It's easier to feal how much you have to do yaw input to decrab correctly. In real life you still have your body to the airacraft heading, but obviously your body are not in the sim. - Probably the best reason, when you decrab you'r camera is going to be tilted offtrack of the runway heading. - And an other very good reason, i wan't to keep an eye to the upper ecam and also see the spoiler deploy in the lower ecam

@@JaGna_ Yea i understand. It just doesn’t look so good lol. But if it works for you, do it.

FSLabs doesn't have L DEV EIS and so is not certified for RNP AR approach. I asked in FSLabs forum about this system/feature, if they are planned to implement it to the current A32X series for P3D and if they are planned to implement it to the A32X for MSFS, because it's a very comon approach type this days and you can found more and more of it, they didn't respond to me, also nobody from the community respond to me. So i'm in this situation : more then 50% of the approachs in my video ideas list are RNP AR approachs ; FSLabs A32X is not RNP AR certified, but i enjoy to fly it ; Fenix A320 is RNP AR certified, but i don't enjoy to fly it in his current state... Because even without L DEV EIS you can fly RNP AR with FSLabs, i chose to do with it anyway. I use the ND cross track error, even if it's less precise.

@@JaGna_ Ok cool! I'm sorry they didn't answer to you, It just seemed weird that it didn't have the scale so I asked heh. Keep up the content :)

​@@JaGna_ just in case tho, try check your progress page on mcdu. If the rnp is not at or below 0.3, by the time approach mode active, the l/dev scale won't be shown on pfd.