All Activity

Known issue that we are investigating with Asobo.

Not sure, but here is how I do it. Open the SimBrief Dispatch app on the in-game EFB; select VIEW; IMPORT ROUTE> wait; then inspect the flight plan on the GNS530.

I think this is part of the same issue that is described here: https://forum.inibuilds.com/topic/36854-a350-fls-course-is-incorrect-with-rnpldavor-offset-approaches-show-runway-course-instead/ I checked few approaches in the sim and there were a couple of issues in the Inibuilds aircraft. I tried to make detailed examples, so it would be easier to see and fix the problems. 1. For the approaches using FLS that have a Missed Approach Point (MAP) before the runway threshold, the course for the FLS beam should be the course that leads to Missed Approach Point (MAP) (FCOM: "the course that is stored with the MAP in the navigation database"), not the runway track. 2. The runway waypoint (waypoint named according to runway, e.g. "EGLL27R") is added even if it should not be part of the approach procedure. I think this is partially the reason for the issue number 1. See examples below. Here is Taipei RCSS RNP 28, the same approach as described in the link above. According to the procedure, there should be no runway waypoint RCSS28. The correct sequence should be JOHNT - VANES (MAP) - DENIS and then rest of the missed approach procedure. Since MAP is located before runway threshold, the final approach course for the FLS should be the course leading to VANES = 272, not the runway track 277. I think this is an issue with the Inibuilds A350 and not with the navigation database, since some other add-ons are able to show the same approach correctly. Here is Bangkok VTBS RNP 20L. In this approach, the missed approach point is named as "BS781", which is located at the runway threshold (+-0.14NM), and it is also the anchor point for the FLS beam. In the Inibuilds A350, BS781 is correctly the missed approach point. However, there is also a "VTBS20L" waypoint, which shouldn't be there, since MAP in the procedure is not defined in format "ICAO code + rwy ident", but as a waypoint. The correct sequence for the waypoints would be BS780 - BS781 - DE20L - BS601 etc. As the MAP is located on the runway threshold, the correct FLS beam course is the course of the final-approach flight leg. In this case it is the same as runway track, but in Adrian's example of KSFO 10L LPV approach, there is a difference, and that is probably the reason the approach path is incorrect. As a last example, Frankfurt EDDF RNP X 25L. In this approach procedure, the Missed Approach Point is on the runway threshold and it is named by the ICAO code and runway ident "EDDF25L". So in this case, the runway waypoint is correctly there and the waypoint sequence is fully correct. 3. FLS should not be available, if: Missed Approach Point (MAP) is before runway threshold, AND The difference between final approach course and the runway course is more than 50 degrees. In this case, there should also be a "NO FLS FOR THIS APPR" message in the FMS message area. Example: Split LDSP RNAV Visual 23 the difference between final approach course and runway track is 169 degrees and missed approach is before runway threshold, so the FLS should not be available for this approach. See also the final approach course for FLS, which is according to the runway track (see point 1) and the "LDSP23" waypoint, which should not be part of the procedure and it messes up the whole missed approach procedure (see point 2, the correct sequence would be RORKA - SP502).

For some reason, I installed 1.07 and now it loads in the cockpit..but ctrl c does nothing. No way to leave the cockpit. Anyone else have this issue?

Logged for the team.

+1, we've gotten no quality main hub from Germany now, apart the Aerosoft EDDS, EDDK and the MK EDDS. I really wish we could have a good EDDB too.

+1 :)

Hey y'all, I'm simming on Xbox and I just wanted to know if there was any scheduled release of the ini LGZA on the MP. Thanks!! Can't wait to have a mediterranean hub : )

I have no problem sending the simbrief flight plan to the INS system but I wanted to try the GPS system and I must be missing something. I've changed the settings in the EFB to GPS and it all loads properly over there but when I send it over from the EFB it never makes it to the GPS. Am I missing a step?

Hi, No even at IDLE when stationary, a running engine can't give an EPR below 1.0 - which indicates that the total exhaust pressure precisely matches the ambient intake pressure. A flight idle of ~1.100 is pretty typical.

This image probably does a better job with the clickspot issue. The red is what you would expect to be - and what previously was - clickable; the green dot is the tiny area that currently is clickable.

Having the same issue as well - no logo lights for pax variants but working for freighters. Reinstalling did not fix it.

Good morning, with the A300 Premium, I can't log on to CPDLC with Bayond ATC or request preflight clearance. Has anyone else had this problem and managed to resolve it?

Just to add some data here, I am experiencing the issue with clickspots being off as well. This is occurring on most of the overhead square-shaped push buttons, although the probe and window heat buttons appear to be the normal size. Only a very small box at the center of the button is actually clickable, it's a bit frustrating having to fish around on the buttons to find the correct spot.

I think it would be great if someone was making an airport for YPDN Darwin. This is how it currently looks and i would gladly pay money for it

Haven't yet purchased the Bulldog, as I am an X-Plane 12 user. Has anyone tested compatibility? Of course we want an updated version, but I've seen no indication that Origami is moving on this. The current model is not intended for X-Plane 12, won't support new features, but that doesn't mean it won't work. Do you know?

I do not unfortunately. This isn't to say that there isn't being progress made. I just cannot attest to how, why, or when a fix might be coming as it's primarily simulator side from what I do know; we are exploring options for 3rd Party aircraft regarding performance following SU5 but no timetable for that as well. More information is probably better sought on the Microsoft Forums where they can answer more concretely than I can for the simulator as a whole. https://forums.flightsimulator.com/

Hello! Thanks for the reply! Do you have any sort of idea of when things are likely to be solved, also considering the fact that the two beta patches released after SU5 have been absolutely terrible? It feels it’s something that should improve really really soon, because it’s affecting the whole sim, most of simmers and 3d part add ons. But things don’t look so promising right now.

Hello Francesco, We are aware of the issues plaguing Xbox users following SU5 alongside Asobo whom are investigating the issue on their end as well as it is something that changed with SU5. Thank you.

I’ll also note CASA and ATR are working with Airbus so I’m looking forward to see what Airbus’s, old CASA or old ATR’s come if we get any more Airbus related aircraft :)

Hello, I would like to ask whether iniBuilds is currently aware of the significant stability and performance issues that many Xbox Series X users have been experiencing since Sim Update 5. In my case, the impact has been particularly noticeable on iniBuilds aircraft, including the A320neo and A330 family. Since SU5, I have experienced: Increased stuttering, especially during approach, landing and taxi. Occasional black screens and display failures. Memory-related warnings after arrival. General performance degradation compared to previous simulator versions. Reduced confidence when operating longer flights due to concerns about stability. What makes the situation confusing is that some other complex aircraft appear to be less affected, which makes me wonder whether there are specific interactions between the simulator changes introduced in SU5 and the iniBuilds aircraft systems. My questions are: Is iniBuilds aware of these issues? Have you been in contact with Asobo regarding the problems introduced after SU5? Have any root causes already been identified? Are there any planned updates, workarounds, or optimizations currently being worked on? Do you believe the majority of these issues need to be resolved by Asobo, or is there anything that can be addressed from the aircraft side? I understand that some of these problems may originate from the simulator itself, but many Xbox users would appreciate any information regarding the current status of the investigation and any cooperation between iniBuilds and Asobo. Thank you for your time.

Hello Platform: Xbox Series X Aircraft: iniBuilds A330 variants Simulator: MSFS 2024 I’ve been trying to use the Aerotone add-on by SoFly, specifically the ATC Chatter feature. The strange thing is that ATC Chatter works correctly in other aircraft, including the iniBuilds A320neo and A321neo, but it does not work in any A330 variant I have tested. What makes me wonder if this might be related to the A330 itself is that the radio behaviour seems different from other aircraft. Things I have tested: Autoplay ON and OFF. COM frequencies changed manually. UNICOM 122.800. Multiple airports. Multiple flights. Offline mode. Multiplayer OFF. Traffic OFF. Simulator restarts. Aerotone profile resets. In the A330, whenever I try to use frequencies required by Aerotone, they often revert automatically to another frequency, and ATC Chatter never plays. The rest of Aerotone works normally (cockpit sounds, cabin ambience, pilots, etc.), and ATC Chatter works in other aircraft. Could there be an issue with the way COM radios or frequency handling are implemented in the A330 that prevents third-party audio systems from detecting the active frequency correctly? Has anyone else experienced similar behaviour with Aerotone or other radio-dependent add-ons on the A330? Any help would be appreciated.

Well, I start the flight at the gate.

Hello. Currently descending thru FL300 with throttles at idle in MACH hold. Surprised to see that EPR is still 1.1. In a turbofan engine shouldn't the value be around 0.8-0.9 at idle since the engine are causing more drag than thrust ?

I Need help to solve this issue