Speedbird193

Fully agree - just give us correct fuel burn for 8x and I'll be a happy simmer! Let the user decide if it's "stable" (and yes, for me 8x is perfectly stable using the in-sim shortcut...but I can't use it as it messes up fuel burn).

That’s odd, I’m using 8x and even 16x with the PMDG 777 all the time and never had a single issue in 2020 or 2024.

Any update on this? Thanks.

I'm sorry but this is becoming a bit of a joke. That's a pretty serious bug that was first raised in April (!!!), six months ago, and here we are still having to chase for "sorry, bear with us" every few weeks. Is anyone actually supporting those products or is it just a "sell & abandon" approach to customer service?

I just did a test and unfortunately fuel burn for anything above 4x is wrong. I flew for 10 minutes on a straight heading, no wind with 4x (native via OIS) and 8x (via key bind and indicated as 8x in the OIS). Fuel burned after 10 minutes for 4x was 1,600kg, fuel burned after 10 minutes for 8x was 800kg. This proves that fuel burn doesn't work beyond 4x and you will arrive with incorrect FOB. ini - any plans to fix this? My sim and the 350 ran absolutely fine using 8x via key bind (I could even use 16x without any system issues or stutters). Would be nice to either get native support for 8x/16x or at least correct fuel burn so we can enable it via key bind.

Which update was that? I don’t recall seeing anything about that.

There is no 8x in the EFB. And as far as I’m aware, using the sim’s native key bind 8x doesn’t adjust fuel burn etc so it’s all way off when you arrive.

I'm on the SU4 beta and the ini A350 is finally flyable as I now get an incredible 80-90 FPS (post FG) even in EGLL with detailed custom cabin and BATC at traffic level 10. Previously I couldn't get more than 30 FPS in the same scenario. Many people are reporting similar performance boosts from SU4. Considering the reason that was previously given for not supporting sim rate >4x was "no system can handle that" - can this please be revisited? I'm still not using this plane as I don't have time to fly 12+ hours at 4x only. Other developers offer 8x and even 16x and they run perfectly fine on my system - even pre SU4. I could finally start using the A350 if there was an option for at least 8x sim rate, let the user decide if their system can "handle" it rather than not even offer it.

Has anyone had a look in the five weeks that have passed? For reference and as already posted by someone else, this is the issue that is still present with T3 missing buildings/objects.

Incredibly frustrating. Between the terminals still disappearing, the blurry runway issue on approach and the wrong line up point for 09R (to cater for landing AI traffic rather than users taking off on a runway that is virtually never used for landing in the real world anyway) I have been back to using the the 2020 for a while now. Truly sad state of affairs from ini and product support seems to be all but dropped here.

Is anyone looking into this? Multiple people have reported that the latest patch only partially fixed it and parts of T3 are still missing and yet nothing since June.

Same experience here. In demanding scenarios I see 10-20 FPS less vs Fenix or PMDG. It’s unflyable unless I want to operate from one tiny remote island to another, which goes against the point of what the aircraft does in reality.

I can confirm this. Does anyone quality test this before its released?

There is no workaround - ini need to fix this and it seems to affect a lot of users. I'm back to using the previous 2020 version of EGLL - everything is loading as it should, no blurry runway when approaching and the correct line up point for 09R. This product needs an urgent patch...

+1

Thanks. It's unrealistic though - 09R is virtually never used for landing in reality and is always the designated take off runway when on easterly config. 09L is the designated landing runway. It's different when 27L/R are used as they switch halfway through the day, but that's not relevant to this issue and they seem fine in terms of runway start in this version anyway. The counterargument to your different use cases is that 09R isn't even used for landing in reality, so if default AI traffic or something else wants to land AI aircraft on there then that's already unrealistic in the first place. So by catering for landing in the right place on the runway vs allowing us to use the correct line up point (NB11) you're trying to solve a problem that's not even there in reality. Please fix this and switch it to NB11 so we can line up correctly. That fixes the right problem that's 100% relevant vs trying to solve something that's 0% relevant as it's not even realistic in the first place to land on 09R.

Thanks for the answer. BATC, correctly, doesn't use 09R for landing as in reality Heathrow uses 09L for landing 99.9% of the time when operating on easterlies. So it would be far more realistic and accurate to just use NB11 as the runway start point as there's a 0% chance of aircraft landing in the wrong area but a 100% chance of AI and me being directed to use the wrong entrance every single time. That's how it was done in the prior version of EGLL for 2020 too so not sure why it was changed now. I still think this should be fixed based on the above.

I appreciate there's already an older thread but is there any update on the issue with runway entry for 09R? BATC directs all aircraft to N8, so it must be something in the scenery. In the prior version of the scenery it correctly uses N11. Using N8 is causing all sorts of issues. First of all it reduces TORA which impacts long haul departures in particular. Secondly, it causes inefficiency from a taxi perspective as AI aircraft approach from North, East and West to a junction rather than all going West to the furthest entry point (N11). Aircraft taxiing up from T4 now also have to cross 09R whereas using N11 they can just enter from the South and line up. Would be great if this could get fixed. 27L works as intended with aircraft lining up using N1.

Would be great to get this implemented officially with correct fuel burn. 4x is nice but long hauls still take forever. PMDG can do 8x, even 16x without issue. Please add 8x support!

Same here. Managed to do 2.5 flights until yesterday, then had a WASM crash on descent. Cleared my WASM folder, tried loading it today and it's just taking forever on the loading screen.

Same issue here. Managed to complete 2 flights to date but yesterday I was flying KIAD-EGLL and just as I was crossing the Welsh coast all my displays froze and had to give up. I didn’t even interact with the aircraft, all I did was check the destination METAR in the native MSFS EFB. I use MSFS 2024 with the latest SU1 Beta and Navigraph. Super frustrating, I’ll ground this aircraft until this is fixed but definitely expected more considering how much you charge for it.