dectenor2

Yep, but you forgot to add paid beta testers whose reports then aren’t actioned upon. There are so many things I reported on the A350 that have been left unfixed. And then surprise surprise, the A340 comes with exactly the same bugs. If it was just fixed properly once and for all, it could be applied to the whole fleet, and would improve all of them dramatically.

Completely agree with this. It’s exactly the same in the A330, the seat is too close to the panel, and we all have different size monitors and sit different distances away. With my setup it’s impossible to got a nice field of view because I can’t move the camera far back enough because I get blocked by the seat. Interestingly, I don’t think this is an issue in the A350.

Many thanks for the release of this aircraft, I can certainly say that I enjoyed my first flight. I particularly enjoyed hand flying it, so congratulations to those working on the flight model. Just a few weird pitch changes when changing vertical modes with the AP engaged, for example going from OPEN DES into VS. Really enjoyed the sounds once I had turned down the environmental slider down a bit, though it could do with some touchdown sounds. (Maybe I didn't hear them due to the turning down of the aforementioned slider...). Also, things like fuel burn was great, really matched well with simbrief and with the predictions given by the FMGC at the start of the flight, likewise with the ETA. Nice work. Quite a few basic bugs though, and while these are to be expected for a first release, it is a little bit sad that they are all the things are also wrong with the other airbus aircraft in the iniBuilds fleet, one can't help but wonder if they had been fixed properly, or the bugs not been there in the first place, the entire fleet would benefit. I really hope that they can be quashed once and for all and then this common airbus logic distributed as fixes to the A330, A340, and A350. (Presumably also the A320N and A321LR, though I haven't flown those (in the sim) so you never know they might not suffer from the same issues...) I have made a few reports for some of this stuff in the Systems section, as ever, please do reach out if you require any further info, and know that I am always happy to be contacted in this regard. Again many thanks, a great start, and I really hope we can get these basic niggles sorted, it really would elevate your fleet of aircraft so much if these basic little things could be tidied up. Dare I say it, looking forward to the -600.... Best, Dectenor 2(and 1).

The constraint logic needs some work. Here you can see the aircraft is indicating it will be at FF24L at 2500ft. You can see in the second capture, that the constraint here is AT 2500. So it is incorrect that the aircraft should indicate this constraint will not be met.

Please delete wrong aircraft

Same old iniBuilds bug as on all aircraft. As you can see the aircraft is now targeting speed as it has reached the conversion speed in the descent. We know this because the aircraft is flying almost perfectly on the speed bug (nice work btw!), and that is equal to .770, as shown at the bottom of the speed tape, so the aircraft has already passed through the conversion speed and instead is targeting 288 as shown on the DES PERF page. The FCU (and FMA if the aircraft was adding thrust) should show SPD not MACH. Please can this fix be applied across the whole airbus fleet. At the moment it is just changing from SPD to MACH on the way up, and MACH to SPD on the way down, at an arbitrary altitude, rather than being based on what the aircraft is actually doing.

Now in the descent, it appears it is the F-PLN page which is incorrect, as the aircraft is targeting .79 as shown on the PERF page, rather than .76 as shown on the F-PLN page.

Pretty self explanatory. This should be ENTER DEST DATA. It should also disappear when the requisite fields have been filled in CHECK DEST DATA is for when there is a conflict between any uplinked data and manually entered values.

Let me frame this one by saying that I am much more familiar with the Honeywell FMGC from my flying days, so I am not definitely saying this is a bug. However... Here the (SPD) (LIM) pseudo-waypoint is shown despite there being a restriction of 250kts on the STAR before the aircraft would normally decelerate to meet the 250kts @ 10,000ft restriction. In this case, the aircraft will never decelerate to met the 250@10000 restriction as it will already have decelerated to slow for the restriction at D356T at FL139. Therefore, I would not expect the (SPD) (LIM) pseudo-waypoint to be shown on the F-PLN page, nor a magenta change of speed dot to be shown on the ND. I would expect it only to be shown if the aircraft was ever going to have to decelerate to obey this restriction.

There is a discrepancy between the target speeds on the F-PLN page and the PERF pages. For example here, The F-PLN page shows the descent and .76 and then 288 on conversion, whereas the DES page shows .79 and 289 on conversion.

The PRED TO values on the CLB PERF page is incorrect. As can be seen on the ND we are just under 40nm away from TOC (FL400), but the PRED TO FL400 on the CLB PERF page is showing 560nm, basically same distance as the entire route. And also the predicted UTC time, is the same as the destination. It seems to work for custom entered altitudes, but when left at the default FCU selected Altitude it is just showing the total remaining flight distance and time.

Maybe also worth adding to this that the NAV lights only seem to work on system 2, not system 1. Also SU4b... And also missing Strobe lights.

When loading the aircraft, even without GSX and just using Instant Load, the aircraft does not import the correct planned ZFW. You can see the difference between PLAN and LIVE.

Thanks Link doesn't work for some reason. Must be banned despite the countless hours I have spent testing and making detailed reports to try and help the product improve.

Where was this taken from if you don’t mind me asking?