All Activity

Hmm. Will double check. Maybe the pathway in inimanager is wrong. Ta

I have just respawned and it solwed the problem. It seems it was nothing serious.

It's still being worked on :)

I can pass this along to the team, are you able to upload a video of this occurring in the sim when you have the chance, if not I can grab one later. Thank you.

Have you spotted there has been an update.

Is it in the library? You should check the content of the community folder.

Hi, Do you use any 3rd Party Liveries installed or any other mods related to the aircraft that might be out of date. Usually this occurs when mods or out of date. If not it's possible that something corrupted during the update or install. Let me know if the first option or reinstalling the aircraft helps. Thank you.

I'll take a look into this, it appears my list of things for A340 is increasing :D

Hi, So for the former issue I have noticed this as occurring every so often, I have assumed it to be something that occurs on a route basis and not consistently and chalked it up to an IRL navdata issue, similar to IRL waypoints that cause loops or other weird anomalies which is usually listed in NOTAMS. I'll ask the team about this just to make sure but I can recommend that one verifies the Flight Plan in it's entirety using the PLAN function and scrolling through the Plan with the MCDU to verify there are no discontinuities. As for the second issue, I have noticed this happens when I flying max forward speed possible, they activate but at these altitudes, the weight of the airframe, and the oh so sweet efficiency of 4 CFM-56s, the aircraft executes the climb but spends the next 1000s of miles climbing at less than 50fpm in some cases, usually I'll reduce speed ahead of climb and then accelerate again post climb, or I'll just run the usual 0.83/.84M for cruise so the aircraft can still climb. Outside of that I tend to not run into this issue with step climbs so I wouldn't be to sure after that. If you would like to add a video from YT or Google Drive to the thread I would be more than happy to take a look at it. Thank you :)

Hi, I will pass this information along to the team. We have been seeing reports of inconsistencies in our discord as well which I am working through investigating. Thank you :)

when you say QNH is showing on the FO Side while you are in inHg. The link should allow the user to set each value manually on one and reflected to the others. If you try setting both to the same setting, unchecking the Link options, the recheck and check if this is still occurring?

Hi, I have purchased the A350 for MSFS24 and installed it via the inimanager. However, when I click on free flight and then change aircraft, the A350 is not appearing. Any advice?

Is there any way to improve the brightness of the flight deck in the A300 for MSFS 2024? Even with every brightness knob turned all the way to max some parts of the instruments and overhead are so dark that I sometimes just have to guess whether I have something set right. It makes me not want to fly the aircraft during the day. Is there a mod that improves the brightness of the lighting? Or some way I can edit the cfg files? Thanks.

Hi, The issues is known and logged to the team, I'll run it back past them but no immediate ETA at this time. Thank you.

Hi everyone, I’m reaching out to the community and the development team to spark a discussion about a project that I believe is long overdue for our simulator: Frankfurt Airport (EDDF). As we all know, EDDF is not just the busiest airport in Germany; it is one of the most significant hubs in Europe. Currently, we are facing a situation where this iconic location is missing a high-fidelity representation for the console platform entirely. With other developers confirming they won’t be pursuing a release for consoles, a massive gap remains in our simulation experience—one that users have had to endure for years. Furthermore, with the recent opening of Terminal 3, Frankfurt is more relevant than ever. Having a modern, up-to-date representation of this airport would be a massive upgrade for the sim. Given the expertise and the standard of quality that iniBuilds has consistently delivered, I believe this is the perfect project to fill that void. Developing a top-tier version of Frankfurt would not only serve a massive, eager user base on consoles but would also provide the perfect stage for the long-haul aircraft currently dominating our skies (like the A380 or the 777). Frankfurt is the beating heart of German aviation. It deserves a representation that matches the beauty and technical depth of MSFS 2024. Does the team have any plans or considerations regarding this legendary hub? I believe many of us would be thrilled to see it on the roadmap. Looking forward to your thoughts!

That’s great, thanks a lot for your reply!

Hi, Unfortunately not much we can do about that. EGLC is using a custom flattened platform to get around the crazy undulations in the base photogrammetry ground elevation. User and other AI aircraft correctly read the collision model of the custom flattened platform to set objects on top of it. The GSX simobjects however don't respect this custom platform, but instead sets their height as an offset from the base base photogrammetry ground elevation. There is about 1ft of difference in some areas, hence they appear slightly sunken. A GSX profile allows to set custom elevations for the walking passenger models/paths, but not the base simobjects (like the vehicles, staff, stairs etc). TL;DR just a side effect of working around badly deformed base PG elevations that can't be resolved via terraforming. They should only be slightly sunk, not wholly at the stands. If that's happening, then likely some other mod is also affecting the underlying terrain elevation.

Hey, I haven't actually got around to it yet, but I will next time I use this airport. Muxp is a tool that allows you to make mesh adjustments. It has a bit of a learning curve but it's not too bad once you get the hang of it (although it is both alpha and abandonware, so stability varies, but it's really useful). Here's a link: GitHubGitHub - nofaceinbook/muxp: Mesh Updater X-PlaneMesh Updater X-Plane. Contribute to nofaceinbook/muxp development by creating an account on GitHub.You'd use the cut_spline_segment tool to re-profile the runway, probably using some elevation data from a Navigraph chart or something. If you don't want to experiment with it, when I get around to it I'll share the .muxp file here and you should be able to just apply it.

I've had a look but I can't find anything for the London area. I've disabled London by Orbx as it caused clashes. This is is between parking 3 and 4. If I use GSX, crew and passengers all have their feet underground and as I said the baggage truck nearly disappears. I'll have to see if it happens anywhere else

Is this going to be addressed? Just landed and this issue is still happening on the latest version.

Yeah, that kind of routing usually comes down to how the ground network is defined rather than anything the AI “decides” on its own. At airports like DFW, small differences between the real-world taxi logic and the sim’s navdata can lead AI to prefer ramps or connector segments that technically exist in the dataset but aren’t actually used operationally IRL. Once those links are marked as valid paths, the AI will happily use them even if human ops avoid them in practice. It could be coming from the base airport AFCAD/airport file, or from how the traffic injector interprets available nodes (FSLTL or otherwise). Sometimes even a single extra taxi link with lower cost can reroute the whole flow. If you want to test it, it might be worth checking the airport layout in a tool like ADE or whatever editor you use and looking specifically at that K → B transition. Removing or adjusting the E ramp connectivity usually forces the correct routing pretty quickly.

Just to keep the discussion going, because this is a very serious and disruptive issue, and I believe it deserves the highest level of attention out of respect for customers. Another GHOST crash problem! It happens to me as well, and only with iniBuilds aircraft, especially the A350 and A340. I also often get the orange screens, and it still happens even when I delete the WASM folder. I admit I am not an expert on this subject, but is this WASM really essential? Because since it was introduced, flying has become a nightmare. iniBuilds aircraft used to be famous for the completeness of their systems. Now, unfortunately, they are becoming known for causing crashes. If you tell me that WASM is absolutely necessary, then I honestly feel sorry for you. The PMDG 777 has never given me a single problem since release. I am not saying this to praise a competitor, but don’t they use WASM? Why do their aircraft work properly? Again, I am speaking as someone who is not an expert, but still as a paying customer. Another issue: autosave no longer works as it used to. Precisely because iniBuilds aircraft are currently not reliable, I set autosave to every 10 minutes. However, when a crash happens, autosave brings me back to the correct position, but not with the aircraft configured as it should be. First of all, the engines are off, so while the aircraft is falling, I have to start the APU just to access the autosave menu. Even then, it only seems to restore the position and a few settings, but it does not take a complete “snapshot” of the aircraft state. As a result, it is almost unusable. It did not work like this before.

I've noticed that with the new progressive loading system, it does not defuel the aircraft if less fuel is needed than what is onboard. Instead, it instantaneously sets the aircraft to empty, and then begins loading it from there. This causes the aircraft to jerk substantially, and can break INS alignment.

Any news on this subject? Is it (still) on the to-do list? Has become sort of quiet after the first weekly updates ...

I had this issue last week on a PDC and the controller told me (I don't recall the exact words) that the WILCO response came in with a variable 0 and the request with 3. I don't know if that makes any sense? Unfortunately, I'm too late for the logs.