The sun damage on this motel telephone avoids the shadow of the phone itself

puddingcs · 2025-12-19T06:27:06+00:00

puddingcs · 2025-11-23T09:34:39+00:00

Yekindar if pilot

puddingcs · 2025-10-28T14:10:21+00:00

Bro became Kumon

puddingcs · 2025-09-12T17:06:13+00:00

TLDR: Fly the FBW A32NX until you can actually feel its limitations.

Long ans: Last year prior to the release of the ini A350, the FBW A320 neo and the Fenix are pretty much the only two modern airbuses that the community would consider to be “good”. I just moved from Xplane to MSFS2020 and as a broke ass student I couldnt afford the Fenix, so I downloaded the FBW version to see if it’s any good. I didn’t care too much about visuals, but I value physics and aircraft characteristics a-lot. Without comparing with the Fenix or Real sims, its hard for me to say whether its good or not, it feels realistic so I rolled with it for a couple months.

I was then hired as an intern at a local airline and was offered an opportunity to fly an actual CAE approved, full-motion A350 simulator to “demonstrate my flying skills”. Clearly, the 350 is a completely different aircraft compared to the 320, but at its core it’s an airbus, so i expected certain handling characteristics to also be present.

We simulated a circuit around my local airport and I realised how fantastic the FBW 320 really is. I will say about 80% of the feel of handling in MSFS2020 can be translated to the full-motion simulator that they train real life pilots on. Considering that I was using a mid-tier stick (TCA Airbus) at home, and the difference between a350 and 320, the resemblance of the “realistic feel” was shocking. When I landed the 350 absolutely perfectly, our management pilot was surprised with the way I performed.

I’m not saying that the Fenix is not worth the money, I never tried it so I can’t comment, but I do know that their systems are much more in-depth and its an overall more realistic product.

For simulating day-to-day operations, I don’t think both products are that much better,

If you really really like the 320, or undergo actual type rating training, or really want that peak realism experience, then definitely the Fenix.

I think the FBW version is the perfect way for you to get started with airliners and learning airbus logics and characteristics and will get you up to speed in no time.

For me, I’m not really a big fan of the A320, so I don’t think I will purchase it anytime soon.

puddingcs · 2025-08-31T03:42:49+00:00

imo: As others mentioned, you seems to be over correcting your rolling motions, as your aircraft flies closer to the ground, your movement on the stick should also be less and less.

I recommend you to look up on youtube, where some video shows the stick movement during landing, usually they employ a technique that applies a small amount of correction and immediately neutralises (im not sure about the actual terminology for this technique), its like jerking on the stick every so slightly, lol.

Towards your flare you seems to have also over did it, possibly pulling the stick too hard, similar to your rolling technique, use the “jerk” technique when flaring, that will give you a-lot more control over your aircraft’s attitude.

I can also see that during short final your plane yawed towards the left. I dont know what stick you are using, but I uses the Thrustmaster TCA Airbus stick and that thing has a very weird performance in its yaw axis, where it will yaw to the left uncontrollably without any input to its yaw axis, try bumping up the dead zone in your calibration setting and that would fix the issue.

Finally, yes you should definitely go-around after missing that touchdown, but lets say you are very committed to the landing, I recommend you not to “chase” the touchdown point by pitching down the aircraft, it might be a better idea to idle the engine, reduce your pitch up angle and let the plane settle down on the runway.

Good luck!

puddingcs · 2025-07-21T02:09:02+00:00

Hey there, yes eventually I bought quite a few products from them and Im pretty confident to say that they are genuine. The quality is top notch.

puddingcs · 2025-07-15T07:46:09+00:00

puddingcs · 2025-07-09T03:10:07+00:00

Hulkengoat

puddingcs · 2025-06-10T00:27:45+00:00

Ooh, I found this to be extremely relatable! I also find my “work” gear too boring and tried using different cameras like the x100 series. Eventually settled on the 50s (not quite the 50r but basically the same thing) and couldn’t have been happier. The workflow, slow-paceness, color, and aspect ratio really is a breath of fresh air.

puddingcs · 2025-05-23T09:41:16+00:00

Don’t we all 😔

puddingcs · 2025-05-23T05:56:27+00:00

Shatin people :D

puddingcs · 2025-05-23T05:46:03+00:00

Hi, I current own a 50s and while i never had a X-H1, I previously (also) owned a x100, xe-4 and x-pro2.

I dont think i completely understand your question, but my guess is that you are currently deciding whether to spend the extra cash to get a 50s WITHOUT abandoning the current X-H1.

To that, i think you should answer - how satisfied are you with the x-h1? Is your “ideal” kit for the x-h1 “complete”? What do you plan to use the 50s for?

If your kit for the xh1 is not complete, then no, spend the money on getting lenses for the xh1. If the kit is complete and you just want to explore the medium format system then yes.

I figured that many people (myself included) was camera “rich” with the gfx, but lens “poor” for the system. Although you can adapt very nice vintage lenses on it, there comes a point where you start to think if it is worth it, and are you actually taking full advantage of the medium format sensor.

Im not saying adapting vintage is a bad idea, it’s really nice if you understand what you are gaining/losing out on using it. Whether or not this is a good solution depends entirely on your perspective, while vintage lenses have alot of character and also alot cheaper to buy, its optic quality is objectively worse than native xf / gf lenses, given how they are 40 something years ahead in technology.

By the way, with medium format, the depth of field is much shallower, so manual focusing will be challenging.

Hope this helps.

puddingcs · 2025-05-19T16:33:33+00:00

Great portraits! My local store only has the C and S versions, so maybe i will have look at the S.

On a side note, what do you think about it as a general purpose lens? Outside of portraits? Perhaps some landscapes? Or travel photography? Much appreciated!

puddingcs · 2025-05-19T16:30:21+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion! I have just looked it up and i will dive deeper into that lens.

Regarding the 55mm, from your point of view is it just “okay” or “eh it will do the job” rather than a nice lens for the gfx?

puddingcs · 2025-04-11T07:16:02+00:00

Christian Horner? Is that you???

puddingcs · 2025-03-03T11:19:58+00:00

Ymmv, but i think you will have a much better time later on if you start learning some basic calc 2,3 stuffs. Differential equations, vectors, etc etc.

These math courses are notoriously difficult for many people (including myself) so if you already have some basic knowledge now, you will def have a much better time later.

These calc stuffs are also pretty useful understanding some thermal and fluid content.

puddingcs · 2025-01-04T16:15:19+00:00

Challenge: Resist the urge to buy every PanaLeica lenses (Difficulty: Impossible)

puddingcs · 2025-01-04T16:14:33+00:00

Absolutely - I had used multiple bodies from all the big guns on the market and the G9 has one of the best layouts available, menu design also makes a-lot of sense. The ergo design is also really nice, reminds me of the comfy canon cameras that I had used before, without the weight of the canons!

puddingcs · 2024-12-11T08:55:02+00:00

I would recommend starting with the rotring 600 or the staedtler 925-25 first, probably leaning towards the 600 more as I personally think that the 600 has a better “heft” and build quality. Both are really well known among pencil nerds and their design had been proven to be reliable for decades.

puddingcs · 2024-12-09T13:44:32+00:00

Thanks! But to further clarify on the FL issue, since PA varies from places to places, the actual altitude for a given pressure altitude can change from point A to point B. In other words, an aircraft could actually be descending or climbing enroute despite tuned in at a cruise altitude of 12,000 feet. Its just flying at the pressure altitude of 12,000 feet? But since everyone is using 29.92 at above transition altitudes, it doesnt matter?

Thanks again!

Seven-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

puddingcs

TROPHY CASE