limbo

I don't think that would be possible, there are still config files that need to be put in the flight simulator and is detailed in the SDK. While level d simulators are close it will never be as close in real life. Ini should look into digital flight data recorder data like fenix has done for takeoff and landing for stick aggregate to get accurate flight models aside from SDK values, although they have said that WASM affects flight model to even though the flight model mod has definitely worked.

They said they won't do that on the discord.

Yeah inibuilds seems to have flight model issues in takeoff and final approach. Easy oscilations in the a350 pitch up jerk after raising the gear (which probably shouldn't happen) for both the a350 and a340 and I believe the rest of the airbus fleet. I don't think ini will fix it with their constant defense of the flight model was verified by real world pilots, especially with how they acted when that flight model mod was released, I hope they source data from the digital flight data recorder for the a380 flight model because that thing has been in development for damn years, and data should be sourced for the a350 and a340 as well, cause if they just rely on real world pilots to make a flight model that is an issue in it's own regard, but we won't know.

This is an interesting topic for literally nearly all simmers who don't touch the airliners because well we're to young or to old or just didn't do flying, but I would like to know if there have been any changes to flight model for a350 as I still find myself feeling a pitch up jerk as soon as raising the gear which is off putting and finding it a bit hard to control on the roll axis on final. I will add also the aircraft touches down as soon as 5 gets called out this was not present in initial versions. To also add does Ini at all source digital flight data recorder data from real world flights, I think this would actually aid in helping create flight models alongside verification by real world pilots as Fenix has done this as well which they have set the example many times, it's not all the time a company has to go their own way! Just want inibuilds to improve (flight model and system depth) and with how many years that a380 has been in development the community has high expectations, will it be a redemption, not sure but I'm on edge. The company has a lot of potential with stunning visual models and on the surface systems A-B but given you guys are the first to many aircraft and being ace in system depth would certainty help with justifying the price you charge for aircraft but in the current state of system depth in the 350 and 340 I expect way more, the Xbox simmers deserve a taste to! (Not that I am one) That is all from me, I know this is going to face critique but these are my honest thoughts of ini and how they can improve, pricing data sourcing ecetera, again to clarify I have 0 clue about aircraft development (I know it's hard) or how an aircraft feels but I am skeptical with ini. Thanks for reading.

This is something that is the case for all ini airbuses and also a few other devs in the market. Any possibility ini can make it so the retard callout doesn't just overlap over the rest of the RA callouts, and also not end abruptly when the throttle is set to idle, as this is not the case with any Airbus Aircraft. Also the FWC still announces retard even if the throttle is set to idle before the callout, that needs to be adjusted as well A350 landing at New York Of course I am not asking for what Fenix has done since ini is not at all Fenix level (no offense), Fenix has implemented timings and a bunch of other stuff alongside that. The RA callouts (excluding 90-60) still need to be changed, there are alot of sounds that can still be changed ultimately, alot of things are shared between the airbus fleet in terms of GPWS which may not be accurate to per aircraft type. Oh and to add each ini airbus after raising the gear becomes sensitive to pitch, that probably shouldn't happen (but ofc I am no real world pilot) with a direct law to normal law transition during takeoff, would be nice if all flight models of each airbus can be adjusted instead of commonality with whatever values being modified for each aircraft, it is a bit irritating.

The one inibuilds has modelled is the a340-313, should be correct although idk

Is the tcas on the A350 and A340 by ini supposed to sound like boeing, cause I doubt it is, at least in 380 simulators, it is different.

My assumption is after I let them know that the callouts were wrong they may have decided to remove them to get some new some samples, because the ones they had in release version was that of an a350 (which should be put in the a350 cause the one's they have in that one sound extremely robotic although all the callouts in the a350 are wrong voice to which is off-putting)

Doing it again, but any update on this at all? If echo 19 is handling it that would be nice to know. You guys already sorted out most of the a340's one's, yet to be done for the 350.

most will say software is never perfect ,we get that but it's honestly surprising that features that were missing on the a350 (what a launch..) also are missing on the a340, I don't have the a340 but hearing this just makes me laugh. I don't understand why certain features are always missing it makes 0 sense and almost seems like basic stuff is never prioritized.

Yes, I think this is just an issue in general with ini aircraft, it just will immediately do a pitch up jerk immediately after takeoff and it's really annoying. It genuinely makes me question if this flight model stuff is really verified comprehensively by pilots, it would be great if you guys could source data like fenix has done for their flaring model (with the digital flight data recorder if it's possible to do that if you see it viable, please consider it as I would really like ini to be a really good contender since you guys are really good at modelling but lack in other areas) Another thing I would like to add is how the aircraft floats which seems to be a massive problem for me even with heavier weights, I don't know if it's the meh physics of msfs 24 or it's an ini flight model problem but I hope further advancements are made in this area as well in system fidelity in future aircraft.

As the other comment says, it's the RAT. It shouldn't be a problem if you don't fly in external view. To anyone that does consider yourself a weirdo and don't buy aircraft like this.

Thank you eddie, from 330 driver stream on preview version samples are correct now for all of them except minimums and maybe 90-60 I have 0 clue. Appreciate it 🙂 However this still needs to be sorted for the a350, I hear no difference on the new update in regards to tonality, the 90-60 callouts also need to be changed in regards to Hitachi's post.

This is correct, seems to just be done on all inibuilds aircraft where basic FWC logic like this can't even be replicated which isn't exactly high fidelity as they seem to advertise for the 2 main payware aircraft... imho ini isn't all that high fidelity but I don't expect them to be. The issue on ra callouts from your origin thread hasn't been fixed either, wonder if echo19 is fixing this but it isn't a full sound overhaul either.

They most definitely are, a few months back on instagram on ini story they posted some a380 data collection thingo's.

Imo ini wouldn't implement this cause it has to include the logic above ^. As well as that some other fwc logic related things such as retard cancelling out other ra callouts which ini has it just overlapping most of the time, devs like fenix have implemented such thing. I've never heard a dev implementing intermediate callouts however. Although I guess you can wait till staff responds, although it hasn't been done on the 350 despite a post.

Sorry Steven but I feel like all samples aren't even from the real aircraft especially the 90-60 callouts that were shown in the video covering it fully (it also doesn't sound like it is coming from a loudspeaker at all which I would prefer this is done to the rest of the callouts), especially since it sounds like the a350 and a380 (the voice) which is way more modern than an old a340-300. On the 3rd link I attached it sounds way different, so either the developers haven't taken notice to it and the sound guys have just found what they can use, but my ears tell me it's entirely wrong. I do understand differences on company options though, most don't choose to add them ^, however not so sure when it comes to say replacing a loudspeaker or the flight warning computer that can magically change how the tone sounds. Other aircraft like the 320 on the neo has updates to the FWC software but doesn't at all change what the RA callout sound like. I do hope this can be taken into consideration (even if we are just arm chair pilots and never been in the real thing) and if it isn't that'll be disappointing because to me, it is a unique quirk of the a330 and 40. I am really excited for this aircraft to it seems you guys have actually learnt from the 350 and from the previews performance is great. Won't be buying marketplace though

Yeah this is a problem with the ini a350 TCAS, even freeware devs are able to get it right. Plus it has boeing tcas sounds???

Hello, I was wondering whether inibuilds is aware on the current pre-release version that the RA callouts are incorrect as the ra callouts on the 330 and 340 is different to the a320's and the modern 350 and 380 and is unique for both aircraft, very similar 🙂 The a340 uses a mix of ra callouts, one from the default a330 of fs2024 (it also gets this incorrect for the 2500-100 and is not in the 330/340 tone which I hope gets corrected as well) then it uses a350 90-60 callouts for those. The ini a350 already has the incorrect 50-retard callouts (no clue if this is changed in the latest update as I am unable to check) and the 90-60, however on the a340 it seems to be a sample that should be redirected and put into the a350 (90-60) of the one's currently present that is already on another post by @Hitachi which has no margin and sounds like AI. https://youtu.be/eQoOsf0lrgo?si=BjVFyM9xo_RCS89e&t=160 -A330 landing, a340 is similar aircraft and uses same callouts if it helps, there's an a340 landing here configure with EIS1 I believe (the audio quality for the ra callouts is actually really good) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/e3ufjCi_aw4 The a340-600 albeit newer also uses the same callouts (so does the a330 neo's) atleast from what I can tell: https://youtu.be/GzHoGLxgbW4?si=Zd0vPqfX1-dR5cUe&t=7038 this iberia one is configured with the 70 and 60 callout. Thank you inibuilds and I hope changes are made before release, sorry to keep on complaining about ra callouts i've done that like 10 million times on the forums. I can be very nitpicky 🥀🥀

I believe somebody said on boris discord that echo19 did the engine sounds, now I doubt anybody here flies military or knows what they sound like for the most part, but if those sounds are considered accurate what's going on with the airliner spectrum of the divider?

Do the ra callouts sound different at all or no, saw in changelog they changed the tonality apparently? Also wondering if the TCAS sounding like boeing is going to be sorted cause i'm 99% sure it shouldn't sound like boeing.

Well guys, they didnt get it correct 🥀🥀 no 330/340 voice tone. 90-60 callputs that are incorrect to the a340, but should be on the 350 (the current ones are weird) and some sounds from tbe 330...

I don't think there's any news on that at the moment, although i'm sure something will eventually come up. maybe in the next update, who knows

the reverse thrust sounds need work as well imo as it sounds like the engines are just at idle thrust and the ra callouts are incorrect, it'd be great if we could get company options to. Reference of course, Qantas a330 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQoOsf0lrgo Kind of sucks inibuilds doesn't have full control over it but still a solid aircraft.