Nikolaj Delaney
-
Posts
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Nikolaj Delaney
-
-
See screenshots and video on this link: ini_a350_press.mp4
the screenshots were taken over a period of 5 minutes, but even when cab alt was decreasing again it was still showing positive cabin alt climb.
After reaching 3400 ft the cycle resets and cabin v/s rises from 1250.
Switching both cabin alt and v/s to MAN does nothing
-
Hello,
first of all credit where credit is due - after 1.0.2. update I wasn't able to break the aircraft. Yet.
In Hoppie CPDLC, speed requests are not working correctly.
Values outside of 100-400 kt do not get entered.
It is also impossible to insert 4 digits, or mach request - anything with "." does not get inserted and the switch to mach does not happen.
Tried:
.78, 0.8 (cannot then add the last 5), 85, 850, 470
-
And before anybody gets any ideas, the module belongs to the A350
-
WASM: Exception c0000005 CommBus callback in module m178088ef2d4800fa
WASM: callback execution for event NAVIGRAPH_FunctionResult, in module m178088ef2d4800fa, failed
MSFS2020
Navigraph data 2303r1
To reproduce:
Load in LFBO
Attempt to connect Navigraph - does not work even though Navigraph appears connected. Therefore unable to update.
Switched to default navdata but encountered issue with missing SIDs at LFBO.
Load flightplan LFBO-EKCH
Go to FPL INFO, FIX INFO, Enter LFBO14R
When will you start replying to my email tickets?
-
See attached screenshots.
1. holding was set up for a parallel or teardrop entry, but the aircraft attempted to perform a direct entry.
After leaving the holding aircraft does not reset the speed back to 250 even though there is no specific speed constraint. Tested both direct with abeam and direct, aircraft stayed at 230 kt
Somebody was mentioning something about competency to refine holdings in the A300, I wonder if that was then lost or? 🙂
-
just set your address to Canada it shouldn't add tax
buy on the website
if you're sure it's a good idea
-
Hello Pablo,
let me get my two cents in.
unfortunately constructive feedback is no use if you do not acknowledge reality.
49 minutes ago, iniBuilds Pablo said:In my opinion our simulation is at a point in which anyone can do a complete flight from A-B with a comprehensive experience.
This is simply not the case for so many of Inibuilds customers. I was able to complete 1 out of 10 flight attempts on MSFS2020.
There are major issues with flight handling, rotation is too fast, FPL gets deleted when changing SID/STAR/APPR, importing SEC FPL causes WASM crashes, FIX INFO page can cause WASM crashes, etc. Many issues were reported both here and on Discord.
52 minutes ago, iniBuilds Pablo said:We are aware that the product is not perfect, yet. This has been communicated openly and clearly.
What was communicated clearly is that customers should expect unparalleled immersion and realism, seamless integrations etc. See Inibuilds A350 product page: https://inibuilds.com/products/inibuilds-a350-airliner-msfs-2024
I don't think it's fair to ask for constructive feedback when the objective reality is that a large portion of your customers are effectively beta testers who had to pay for the privilege of reporting bugs, while you promised seamless experience.
There is nothing seamless about needing to delete an obscure WASM folder before every flight, only to receive yet another crash.
There is nothing seamless about needing to recalibrate your controls because the calibration gets deleted as part of deleting WASM folder. There is nothing seamless in needing to then restart the simulator or go to that folder and manually change the callibration setting because it does not get saved correctly in case of reverser_on_axis.
There is very little seamless about not having per livery configs on 2020 but yes, this was communicated ahead of time.
The issue is not that the product is not perfect. The issue is that for many users it is unusable.
If you want constructivity, I suggest you start yourselves internally. Banning people vocal about their dissapointment on your Discord server is not constructive.
Best
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Eddie said:
There will continue to be issues being reported in and the product will never be perfect but, we can do our best to get it damn near close. Our team is working overtime every day since release fixing every single thing coming our way.
Since when does not even being able to take off because of WASM crashes count as "product will never be perfect"?!
You decided to take people's money and give them an empty charade instead of a usable addon. Borderline a scam.-
2
-
-
I would be more than willing to pay for the PW engine option and Cargo/MRTT/Specialty versions of the A310, provided they would be priced reasonably. I would happily pay for the complete A300 - pax, cargo, all engine options.
around 25€ would seem reasonable for PW+cargo A310, or up to 15+15 for each separately. 20+20 would be too much.(20Ł, or 10+10, more than 35Ł)
Up to 50€ (45Ł) would seem reasonable for the complete A300
(Everyone reading this - this is my personal view. IniBuilds staff reading this - imagine how many more of these things you could sell to MSFS users over Xplane, and now that you already did and got paid for the bulk of the system work, it's my opinion that my price sensitivity is justified 😉 )
Hopefully your licensing terms with Microsoft allow you to do other versions of the A310, paid or otherwise. I'm sure there's plenty of sticklers to reality that just want the PW engines for historically PW ships :D
-
1
-
MFD info does not display on ATC COM page
in Systems
Posted
see title and screenshot. Not sure if bug or feature.