Skyrock

Do you actually read the posts before? They fixed it.

https://forum.navigraph.com/t/inibuild-a350-not-working-with-last-2506-rev1/19892/6

From Navigraph Forum:

Hello, I was flying 8h16min today from YPAD to VTBS today with the A350-1000 and 300 pax, so far from full load and after around 5-6hrs the water tank was empty while the waste tank is full. This seems rather excessive given this is an aircraft that can go 16hrs+ nonstop. Maybe you can check this out and refine the passengers biological needs? 🙂 Thanks!

Hello, so this is a longer one, but bear with me... Since I got the A350, I observed a strange behavior when it comes to Fuel Burn with different CRZ FL. Usually I plan my flights as close to the OPT FL as possible and even wrote down most of the OPT FL from the FMS since Simbrief is often choosing lower FL than the OPT FL would be. With this, I usually arrive with ~1t-1.5t of fuel more than what Simbrief calculated, so less fuel consumption. Today, however, I was flying NTAA-YPAD with a friend. He was flying the 350-900 and I used the 350-1000. Due to strong headwinds enroute, we figured it actually makes sense to fly at FL340 all the way which would've saved ~15min and around 400kg of fuel according to the calculations. Simbrief suggested 360/380/400, with my OPT FL it would've been 380/400. ZFW 186.2t in the -1000. After T/C my FOB was already 1.5t lower than calculated and I was 4min behind schedule. Then I went into my crew rest and when I got back 6hrs later, my FOB was a whopping 6.2t lower than calculated and 11min behind schedule! I decided to climb to FL400 then to save some fuel. At the same time, the cruising speed did not match the Simbrief profile. After reaching T/C I was flying at Mach .85 (Cost index 30) which matched Simbrief, however, after I came back from my crew rest, I should've been cruising at Mach .83 according to Simbrief but I was actually going Mach .80. My friend was going as slow as me and had lost 2.5t in the -900. We both use the standard Fuel Bias, so 0.0 for the -1000 and +3.0 for the -900. The weather can be ruled out as the enroute winds/temps matched the forecast pretty well. So, to summarize, in my opinion something is very off with fuel consumption and speed at different levels and is disproportionately diverging from Simbrief the higher or lower you go. Below FL350 you burn a lot more than what Simbrief calculated and above FL370 it is significantly less. I think the problem lies with the 350 rather than the Simbrief profile as the profile makes sense in my eyes. I'm using version 1.0.11 in MSFS2024. I would appreciate if you revisited the Fuel flow and cruising speeds for further refinement! 🙂 Thanks for reading my ted talk.

When turning on ALT RPTG, then the TCAS STBY message goes away. However, I fail to see any traffic on my ND (I selected TRAF and ID but neither of them showed anything). This is on sayintentions and I'm flying with a buddy who is 15nm away. Can't see him

Hello, so in my experience, v.1.0.6 has been the most stable and enjoyable version so far. Now with 1.0.7 I have this weird CG issue where the CG is way too much forward (FWIW, I never suffered from early rotations in earlier versions) and I also experienced a display freeze after 9,5hrs (weirdly without any WASM crash logged). I would appreciate to having the possibility to downgrade back to 1.0.6 or have a standalone installer, especially when the next update is going to take a while to fix these issues. Would be great if you guys considered it! Thanks

Hello, as the title suggests, the Before Takeoff Checklist asks for Packs set to off even if I set them to on in the Performance page. Can you please check? Thank you! Best regards, Martin