dectenor2

Oh yeah when it works I’ll fly there again. They’ve done an amazing job of upgrading it with the V2. But for now I’d rather fly to an airport where I can connect a GSX jetway. I’d prefer a single jetway to the A350/80 that works properly with GSX and passengers than having multiple ones that are just there for the visuals. But yeah, just my preference, and totally understand and respect that others may have a different preference. It’s one of the great things about this wonderful hobby, we’ve all got different preferences and views and that’s so great for variety!

I have no desire to use the multi jetway tool. It is a visual only thing as far as I’m aware, no passengers can be boarded via the jetways. I don’t want to be downloading and running extra stuff, there is already so much extra software to be utilised in flight sim and I would rather not to add to this list. GSX is the standard ground operations add-on that so many people use. I have never ever before come across an airport that doesn’t allow GSX to connect jetways. I think it’s very poor form that an airport scenery has been specifically designed where one can’t use GSX, and I’ve no desire to support something like that, I would rather just fly somewhere else.

Really we cant use GSX to connect jetways here? I was going to do a long haul to Dubai at the weekend but will have to scrap that plan now.

Oh that’s just brilliant news. Thanks so much. Looking forward to trying it when it’s out!

This is an issue I have reported on the A350 since release. It is really disappointing to see yet another aircraft release with the same issue (it is also on the A340).

same can't download

No, look at the ETA at the various waypoints. It’s clear there is something fishy going on here.

Yes it has had a lot of updates, but it’s still full of bugs and lots of systems errors which is really disappointing for how much we paid for the aircraft and how it was marketed to us. It’s not complaining. Some of us have spent an absolute tonne load of our own time reporting stuff to try and help the aircraft be better, and that will benefit all users. It’s great that there is a v2 in the works, and it will be interesting to see if this stuff that has been reported since release will be finally fixed.

Many thanks for sharing that.

Would be interested to see what was in here!

Thanks swisspilot. I really hope that we can finally begin to see some fixes for the still quite a lot of bugs that are outstanding. And my hope is that they will be able to easily transfer the same fixes to all the Airbus aircraft. It will really just lift the standard of the iniBuilds airbuses so that people interested in more than just the nice modelling and textures can enjoy them.

Weirdly I was able to go back and edit and it worked, feel free to delete these messages regarding the photos!

PS I don't know why two of the screenshots have just appeared as links rather than and embedded photos. I have always uploaded images in this exact way, and for some reason these two are just not showing but you should still be able to access them...

Hi all, Here are a few more bugs to add to my list of ones still present in 1.2.6 here: https://forum.inibuilds.com/topic/36783-bugs-that-still-are-not-fixed-in-v126/ Sound The sound during flap/slat extension from the cockpit can only be heard with the camera right at the front of the flight deck really close to the glareshield. You can see and hear on this video as I move the camera back and forth the sound is cutting in and out. https://youtu.be/q2BkI9-sLvM Systems From the F-PLN page, if you click on a speed prediction to take you to where you would enter a restriction, clicking on the RETURN button does not take you back to the F-PLN page. Obviously in this video you cannot tell if I am clicking, but when I am clicking the button (and you can see my mouse over it) but it is not returning to the F-PLN page. https://youtu.be/pEruRkfEk4M CMS (Constant Mach Segment) is not working. In this video you can see that I am entering a value for a CMS but nothing changes when it creates a temporary flight plan, and then nothing changes when inserting this. You can see I tried to enter a CMS by doing it directly from a waypoint and also from the CRZ PERF page. You should be able to enter a value here, and then it will use that speed for the rest of the waypoints until it reaches the end waypoint of the CMS (which I should select from a prompt after selecting the starting waypoint for the CMS). https://youtu.be/Pq30jzQf6Sk PERF Pages: The formatting of the speeds on the PERF pages is incorrect. Firstly on the CLB page, in the image below there should be no MACH value in the MANAGED line, the aircraft is just targeting 250KT(as under 10000ft) this will never be converted to MACH as at 10000ft the aircraft will accelerate to the ECON climb speed on 313KT, which it will then hold until that equals .84 MACH at which point it will target that. When it does this, the value for 313KT should not be shown on the CLB page as the aircraft is simply targeting .84. It should also state if this speed target is due to a SPD LIM or Constraint. (As shown on the DES page in reference photo below) On the DES page: The aircraft is now targeting a SPD (as shown on the FCU - although the logic for when the aircraft is showing SPD or MACH is bugged - see my previous reports), and this can also be seen on the PFD, the aircraft is targeting 325KT which is currently equal to .764M so clearly the aircraft has descended through the Mach to SPD transition. On the DES page therefore, the .84 should not appear and should be dashed out (as in the reference images at the bottom) The .84 is irrelevant as the aircraft will simply target 313KT until it decelerates for the 250@10000 SPD LIM. Whilst on this page, a reminder that the logic for SPD LIM shown on this page is bugged. At the moment the aircraft shows the final constraint rather than the next one. (In the case above it is correct by accident as the there were no further constraints and so the final one was also the next one if that makes sense.... Furthermore, whilst on speed restrictions, for some reason, as can be seen below, the aircraft decided to target 295KT, there is no reason for this, there is no constraint, as can be seen on the F-PLN page, and on the DES page it is still showing 325KT (and erroneously 0.84, as this should be dashed out as previously discussed. There is also a lack of a SPD LIM waypoint on the F-PLN page, the aircraft targeted this spurious 295KT until reaching exactly 10000ft when it changed to target 250KT. This is incorrect as it should begin the deceleration earlier. The point at which is does this should be shown by a SPDLIM pseudo waypoint on the F-PLN page, sequenced at, and indicating the altitude at which it will begin the deceleration. Here, once the aircraft is targeting 250KT (as below 10000ft), again the .84 should not be shown and it should simply show 250KT. And again, in the box where it says managed it should also show SPD LIM to indicate that this target is a SPD LIM not an ECON speed. Below is a reference image showing the MACH dashed out where not applicable, and the SPD LIM in the box with managed indicating that this speed is a SPD LIM rather than an ECON speed. Many thanks for your continued work!

Great thanks. I’ll get a video tonight. Also found an issue with a return ‘button’ on the MCDU not working so I’ll get that as well.