All Activity

This is an issue that has been caused by SU6 Beta. We have no control over changes that occur with Sim Update 6 Beta and in this case its something the the sim that is causing excess and large, out of place light poles. Thank you for understanding :)

I have narrowed it down to another inibuilds scenery as I removed all sceneries and ultimately restored all but the inibuilds and issue went away. I have basically re-installed each of the inibuilds sceneries in batches and issue is no longer present.

yes

Hello, Performance is something that we continually see mentioned as of late and will definitely be taking both the compliments and feedback back to our team, thank you for your kind words.

I can only repeat most of the compliments from above. A great looking airplane/cockpit, although the outside could use some work, especially around the Slats area, more specific, the wing surface under the Slats, that gets exposed when the extend, just looks very basic and all in all just not good. But my biggest point of criticism is the HORRIBLE PERFORMANCE, especially on ground/low to the ground, its ok in climb and cruise for me. But the VRAM util. seems very bad at this point still. I dont have such big problems with any other (study level) aircraft. Also the airplane does not seem to be very stable once established on the ILS, it wants, for some reason to drop the nose below GS at about 1000-500ft. AGL, I always habe to disengage the AP when I notice this divination. IN GENERAL, I still have to thank you for bringing this awesome, classic airliner to the most modern Sim today. The INS is such a pleasure to operate and to navigate with its help. But please please please take care of the performance issues, and the ILS/attitude stability.

Hi, Thank you for this feedback, I will pass this along to our team

I am currently on 1.0.1 (July 24 update). ORD is a great scenery, but there are a few issues I've noticed. I'd like to preface them by saying I understand the impracticality of keeping the scenery completely up-to-date as ORD's taxiways (and gate assignments) change every month or two due to construction and gate reallocations. I am more familiar with UA's gates that AA's or T5, so I haven't taken a close look at the T3 and T5 gates. The taxiway complex west of concourse C is out-of-date. As of earlier this month, taxiway U is permanently closed as concourse D work progresses, and taxiways T and R are now parallel taxiways extending down to taxiway B. Taxiways K and L are parallel east-west taxiways on the north end. I don't have access to the stages of construction plan, but it seems like this will be the general configuration for a while as the area between taxiways R and SP/A5 sees concourses D and E built out. The ORD Safe website's AOA Alerts page has great depictions of ongoing changes to the airfield. Here is the alert for the current taxiway layout west of the C concourse: https://www.ordsafe.com/_files/ugd/9d6290_c309177e0fe04922aa533a43afaa28e6.pdf Gate stop lines all have the same aircraft markings, regardless of the gate. For example, regional gates have stop lines marked "A359". It seems the same few aircraft type markings are used across the airport. While every gate doesn't need to have completely accurate aircraft type markings, most high quality sceneries (including other iniBuilds sceneries) at least use appropriate stop line markings based on the gate size. While some UA gates have accurate RIDS (Ramp Information Display Screen), many others have inaccurate gate numbers or are are missing RIDS boards altogether. Below are the B, C, and E gates (UA mainline) with issues. I left out F gates and non-UA gates, as I am not as familiar with them. A Google Maps screenshot is attached showing gates B5-B8 with RIDS in real life (all B gates are missing RIDS in the scenery). ALL B gates missing C2 (unlabeled) C5 (labeled "C3") C9 (missing) C10 (missing) C10A + C10W (missing, should be labeled "C10") C11 (labeled "C9") C16 + C16A (right should be labeled "C16" and left should be labeled "C16A") C18W (should just be labeled "C18") C20W (should just be labeled "C20") C30 (should be oriented towards the aircraft) E6 (missing) E8 (labeled "F13") E10 (missing) E11 (labeled "F13") E12 (labeled "F12") E14 (labeled "F14") E16 (labeled "F16" + facing outward towards twy SP instead of towards the aircraft) E3 (former AC), E15 (former AS), and E17 (former AS) are UA gates now and should have United placards/signs on the side of the jetbridge as well as RIDS boards. I don't expect the G gates to be completely accurate, as they will likely be changing hands frequently with annual gate reallocations, common use gate changes, construction gate closure compensation, etc. AA GSE (many labeled "K19") placed at some UA gates.

Here is a little instructional on how to do so properly which can then be posted in the master thread of the corresponding aircraft which can be found at the top of the Support Section :) https://forum.inibuilds.com/topic/33786-how-to-verify-and-report-wasm-crashes/

Will do the same if it happens again. It's honestly the first one that I've experienced with the A350.

Hi, The link is private so I am unable to view, or share with team if need be. Thanks :)

It's definitely a tricky one but we still continue to work to investigate, isolate, and eliminate WASM related issues wherever possible and a lot of it in part is thanks to the users that take the time to upload logs and fill out the WASM Crash Thread Log properly. While I don't have much more to contribute right now as far as new leads and such; I can say that we've noticed a positive trend of users having less WASM crashes as we've received and continue to receive user reports that we are able to reproduce and diagnose. Thank you all for your continued patience and understanding.

Can you please attach an image either here or in imgur or some other link that can be shared with the team. Thank you.

I bought the KORD and think it looks great. I haven't explored the whole airport yet but I noticed on arrival and departure (south side of the airport 28's/10's) that the taxiway signs are duplicating and one of the 2 duplicates are floating. It is almost every taxiway sign. Anyone else having this and is there a fix? I disabled Asobo ORD and removed FSDT from my community folder. Thanks!

Hello, It's something to do as a workaround as the average user doesn't need 20-30 airports loaded in typically when flying to maybe 2-5 airports in a session, let alone hundreds at the same time on the opposite side of the planet. That being said we are still investigating the issue hence why it wasn't listed in the changelog. Thank you

The pink taxi lights remain after the 1.0.1 fix. Seems the prior thread was locked by assuming that users need to only have KORD and the other airport in the community folder and nothing else. I don't subscribe to this as a valid solution.

I'll note this for the team, thank you

Hi, The aircraft isn't INOP, it can be inconvenient to users to have to click more centrally or maneuver the camera around in excess in order to click a certain button; however this doesn't prohibit the user in flying the aircraft in anyway. Even in the current SU5 environment I still find myself flying in A300 regularly while having the same clickspots as everyone else. We understand the frustration caused, and thankfully Asobo were able to rectify the issue in SU6 returning functionality to clickspots as intended but the plane was never in a position to where one couldn't fly it. Thank you :)

So, basically, those who don't do betas are stuck with an INOP plane until SU6 is released?

The lighting on the A350 needs fixing. It looks unrealistic and creates too much light haze/dust.and strobe light you must to zoom so close just to see the light from far away you see only the haze/dust of the light !!! Xbox

Hello, thank you for your feedback regarding this topic. I'll pass this along to our team ans continue to monitor this thread for continuing feedback.

Hello all, Sorry for the silence, many if not all of the feedback in this thread has been passed along to our team. This thread has not fallen on deaf ears and I apologize for the lack of interaction on my part that would've indicated otherwise. Thank you all for understanding.

v1.0.1 of iniBuilds Chicago O'Hare (KORD) Premium for MSFS 2024 has been released. This update refines the airport with improvements to terminal glass materials, taxiway signage, jetway connections, GSE placement and terrain around the airfield. It also introduces new helicopter parking and helipad facilities, adds the iconic "Welcome to Chicago" sign, includes an option to disable static VDGS for improved GSX compatibility, and resolves a number of visual issues including flickering, stray taxiway lighting and other airport refinements. This update can be downloaded via the iniManager. v1.0.1FIXED Adjustments to terminals glass transparency/colour FIXED Reduced flicker on T2 FIXED Taxisign corrections on placement and orientation FIXED Terraform issues along taxiway P FIXED Stray taxiway lighting FIXED Adjustments to placement/types of GSE FIXED Jetway hood connection issues ADDED Option to disable static VDGS (for GSX compat) ADDED Helipad and helicopter parking ADDED "Welcome to Chicago" sign

Here is the recording. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1epEaPB7OG5vXaBAm7QQDaDIo5oGbrBex/view?usp=drive_link

I just experienced the same issue with the 350 on a long-haul flight last night and wasn't sure what the issue was. Finding this thread I'll monitor but park the A350 in the hanger for now as well. PMDG do indeed use WASM. I agree that I haven't seen the issue with the 777 but they recently released a statement regarding their exploration of continuing troubles with WASM in their 737 line. I've absolutely experienced WASM crashes in that product. They also have offered no guarantee of fixes, just continuing troubleshooting, so I understand the INI devs appear to be on a similar path. This is a difficult issue to track down, it seems and I'm interested by what the INI Dev stated earlier in this thread - that Simconnect may be involved in some manner. I believe this is interesting because the A350 operates within the "sandbox" of WASM, where Simconnect can as well but it also can operate outside this environment and affect the host machine directly - Something not allowed through WASM. I get WASM is required at this point to offer cross-platform compatibility with XBox, but I wonder if it is creating a bigger challenge for developers on PC that we suspect?

Got it, can you upload a small video (either to YT unlisted or Google Drive) and publish here demonstrating the issue so that I can pass it along to the team. Thank you.