Balint

Yes, here is a video demonstrating it: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/oextwu6hzbjehj03vqtet/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-2025.04.23-17.25.59.01.mp4?rlkey=ncjvtk13p1bjnyhkry2grzq3i&st=l5qoa805&dl=0

Dear Developers, Recently I have changed my controls to use a separate Tiller axis and separate rudder axis as I was gifted the IIDB’s Tiller Link for the tiller. I was very excited to be able to do flight control checks while taxiing however it turns out even though I push the tiller disconnect button the rudder still work although to a lesser extent. I have come across another post suggesting that it is not only me having such an issue. I wonder if this could be looked into. Kind regards, Balint

Dear Developers, I really hope that this post catches your attention because the current implementation of wind uplink, downloads winds that are completely irrelevant to the actual cruising altitude. Please let me explain. I will prove you in the next few screenshots and some description to each picture and what I did. 1. This first picture shows some details of the flight just as an additional information for the rest to come. 2. This screenshot shows the weights and fuels as inserted by myself as per the flight plan (from Simbrief) 3. This screenshot shows the winds uplinked to one of the waypoints right after TOC. PLEASE NOTE: the abnormally low flight levels inserted by the WIND UPLINK. FL240 and FL300 are ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to this flight, where the initial CRZ FL is FL380. 4. In this screenshot please see the winds inserted by myself, which contains RELEVANT wind data. Like FL380 and FL400 where I am expected to fly. 5. In this screenshot please pay attention to the levels and wind speed at those levels. COMPARE this with the next screenshot. 6. COMPARE this with the screenshot above. The magnitude of difference in wind speeds is vastly different which results in 31 minutes difference in calculated arrival time in TFFR. Please note: the difference is not only at this waypoint but on all the waypoints along the flight which adds up the flight time to be 31 minutes off from reality (when relevant Flight Levels and Wind Speeds are added by the user. 7. PERF page with imported wind uplink. Expected fuel burn 47.4 VS 8. PERF page with wind uplinks modified to add flight levels relevant to actual expected flight levels and due to that vastly different wind speeds. Expected fuel burn 50.5 Conclusion: Between image 7 (WND UPLNK from Simbrief) & image 8 (WND UPLNK with relevant FL's & wind speeds) there is fuel burn difference of 3 tons of fuel (47.4 against 50.4). The difference between automatically uplinked wind data and modified wind data by me, will mean: - incorrect fuel burn - incorrect EFOB at arrival airport - incorrect EFOB at ALTN airport - incorrect OPT FL calculation on initial CLB - incorrect STEP CLIMB because of wind data not being available at higher ALTs than FL300. Unless inserted by the user. However this should be uplinked once STEP ALT's are inserted and wind request again. This does not occur as of version 1.0.8. I am aware that the A350 ULR is in the works however if this is not going to be fixed the aircraft will calculate all the above information with wind data which is not relevant to the flight level that is being flown. This is however having an impact on all both the current A350-900 & -1000 anyway. If iniBuilds needs more in order to fix this I am more than happy to help or test or anything just so this issue is fixed.

Now don’t hundred percent quote me on that but what you are saying is half true. It’s speed dependant, if you look on the main instrument panel between the CPT’s display unit and the center display unit you will see on the placard that the SLATS extend I believe at 250 knots while the FLAPS actually only extend at lower speed (I am going off my head so I can’t remember exact values here). However if you are slow enough when you move the FLAP lever to 1, both slats and flaps will extend.

This is a perfect example where the Simbrief uplinked winds have nothing to do with the level I am actually planned to fly... Winds uplinked up to FL300 but my initial FL is 360. That is with all the step climbs inserted as per Simbrief FLT PLN.

Dear development team, Having done a couple of long hauls with the A350 I have come across one area where it seems to lack a bit of logic. In real life where pilots uplink the winds either prior the flight or in cruise they won't just get their flight plan's winds but the winds from various sources which are more up to date than the flight plans winds. This becomes quite important where one climbs to altitude higher than what Simbrief thought would be possible, because then all of a sudden there is no more wind data one can uplink anymore. Or at least not one where it will actually be beneficial. I would suggest if possible to maybe implement Active Sky as a source that the user could select instead of Simbrief (as an option for those who have Active Sky). This would then provide winds that are relevant to the Flight Levels the user is flying / expected to fly and the winds would be generally more close to reality. I would very appreciate if the developers could look into this and see if the option of wind uplinks and wind data generally could be obtained from Active Sky rather than Simbrief. Kind regards, Balint

I have just finished my flight. And can add to the above by saying that 1.0.7 have not addressed any performance issues on MSFS2020 at all. My system is a bit older but still very capable: CPU i9 9900K OC'd 5Ghz, RAM 35GB, GPU: nVidia RTX2070 Super 8GB vram. I really hope that iniBuilds spends a little bit of effort to address this please! It's very annoying when you come in to land after an 8 hour flight just to have like 10-15 fps...

We really need this addressed. There should be an option to save panel states. +1

Dear Developers, I found multiple references that the C/L menu and its items should be scrollable by the scroll wheel located on the KCCU. Also there seems to be a problem with the blue selection box NOT jumping to the next checklist items once validated. There are also Lvars available that indicate that this should be able to be done but no matter what I tried and bound it to, I was unable to scroll with the scroll wheel on the checklist. Please see my references from an FCOM below. 1) Reference for scroll wheel - should work for the checklist too. 2) Blue Selection Box - Should jump to the next item on the checklist automatically upon its validation as per this reference.

Same issue for me…

Aircraft: A350-900 (version v1.0.2) Simulator: FS2020 Navdata Method: NAVIGRAPH OFP: OTHHEBBR_PDF_1741512624.pdf WASM Error: WASM: Exception c000001d in gauge MFD in module vfs://inibuilds-aircraft-a350/SimObjects/Airplanes/inibuilds-aircraft-a350-900/panel/inibuilds-A350.wasm Specs: CPU: Intel i9-9900K 5Ghz, GPU: Nvidia RTX 2070 Super 8GB, RAM: 32GB Screenshot of console window: Description on what I pressed / did prior WASM crash: I was on PERF CLB page during most of the climb, I then clicked on INIT page shortcut button and as I was about to press FUEL / LOAD button on the left MFD the curser stopped moving and all instruments and MFD's and indications stopped - which indicated a WASM crash. Just prior to this flight I cleared the WASM folder as suggested to be done before running a new version. It's very disappointing as this would have been my very first full flight in the aircraft. Prior to this I have only really done touch ang go's. I really really hope iniBuilds can get to the end of WASM crashes... If there is anything I can help please contact me. Thank you for looking into this. Kind regards, Balint

Hi, I have done some circuits in EINN with the A350-900. After about three touch and go's the fourth time I did a full stop landing and taxied to stand 39. After setting the parking break to ON, there was no PRK BRK memo shown on the Warning Display. After trying to release and set the parking break again I pressed ACCU REINFLATE button, after which the PRK BRK memo DID show on the Warning Display. Not sure if this is the intended way of it working but I very much doubt it. As the HYD's would normally pressurize the accumulator which should then not be depleted after a flight. Please see my Simbrief flight plan and some screenshots attached. A/C used: A350-900 Livery: SAS, SE-RSC Sim: FS2020 Scenery: MKStudios EINN Navdata used: Navigraph EINNEINN_PDF_1741190017.pdf

@richboy2307 I have flown in the sim ever since so my simbrief flight plan is gone but I found the .fpl file within the \AppData\Roaming\Microsoft Flight Simulator\Packages\inibuilds-aircraft-a350\work\flightplans folder so I attach that so you at least get to see my route and some details of the flight. I use NAVIGRAPH for my navdata. Thank you for looking into this issue. TFFRLFPO_INB_1741122980.fpl

I got this too after giving myself a direct first with abeams, which drew a direct line to the selected waypoint but also a line from my destination (LFPO) to the aircraft. So I gave myself another direct to the same waypoint but this time WITHOUT abeams which then gave me also these weird negative UTC times. See my screenshots below on how I did it and which waypoints. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Notice how after giving a second direct to the same waypoint resulted in negative UTC times shown in ETA / UTC column in the MFD and the same in the upper right corner of the ND.

I seem to come across this inconsistent naming method in a few add-ons… It’s either the same name as what Simbrief calls them or is explained so one doesn’t have to guess which one does the plane need now. Because one developer asks for the alias while the other one asks for the Pilot ID. I think Simbrief itself adds a bit of confusion by not getting rid of the Alias (username) because when Navigraph bought Simbrief they changed the login method from username to email address which then became the user name instead. So both companies could do for less confusion really.

I agree, this should be a functionality not restricted to 2024. It’s impossible to configure every livery with their unique configuration every time one flies a different airline. Unless one makes a document of what should be chosen per livery, but still very inconvenient…

I second this. It’s so much more natural of being able to write in the text field without a press of another button. FBW A380 has it modelled that way too, and it’s very convenient.

Out of the three flights that I have done so far that were familiarisation flights (short hops) I haven’t managed to finish a single one without WASM crashing… Which is very disappointing unfortunately. I was very looking forward to this plane. I am more than happy to invest time to find a reproducible way of crashing WASM on purpose so it can be fixed but still huge disappointment…