dectenor2

Excellent many thanks for this! Many of these that are not a350 specific things are also present in the a340. I.e. the constraint stuff, level off arrow, PERF page and f-pln page speed mismatch, f-pln page altitude predictions etc.

I’m not entirely sure how it works on the 350, but I imagine it’s the same as generic Airbus logic. FLS is a system which allows rnav approaches to b be flown with the same indications as ILS approaches. It’s often an option rather than default, and can only be used on rnav approaches with a straight approach. If you activate the LS push button and there is a straight in approach with FLS available, the final approach modes will be F-G/S and F-LOC. But for any rnav approach if you don’t activate LS you should get FINAL, APP NAV and then FINAL APP when both are captured. Similarly if you try to use LS but it’s a curved approach and FLS is not available it still should be FINAL, APP NAV, and then FINAL APP. But the a350 is currently treating all rnav approaches as FLS an it seems to be impossible to get the standard FINAL, APP NAV, and FINAL APP.

It is no problem, any time. Please don't hesitate to ask if you need further information on any of the points. I am happy to assist in anyway I can. I really don't want to come across as always moaning, I really do appreciate what you guys do for the sim. I just also can sense how close the iniBuilds aircraft are to really being top class addons for the sim, rather than looking and sounding awesome but frustrating to fly for those who like to look at the systems a little bit. Again nothing crazy deep, but just when one looks at things you can see there are quite a lot of issues. Honestly just a bit of work that could be applied to all the airbus aircraft and the upcoming A380 would be so transformative. I have definitely written enough today so will stop now, but please, as I mentioned above, just ask if you need anything more, I am more than willing to help in anyway possible.

Alt Prediction and Level Off Arrow Logic.pdf The following are some bugs that are still not fixed. It is quite disappointing to still be seeing so many so long after release, and especially disappointing that in the meantime, other aircraft have been released that also contain a lot of the same bugs. Please, please fix these, it is all basic functionality that should be correct in an aircraft of this price especially given how it is marketed. Many of these have been reported since release and whilst of course I appreciate the work that has gone into the aircraft, it seems little progress has been made in these basic things and its is most disheartening. These reports take hours and hours and hours to research and gather evidence and write up, please don't just ignore it. I have also attached a pdf explaining how the Altitude Predictions on the F-PLN page should work in the various lateral and vertical modes. @IniJamir these are the bugs I mentioned that you say are not occurring complete with evidence showing them in the form of videos and screenshots. iniBuilds A350 v1.2.6 – Ongoing Bugs Sounds 1. Parking Brake Sound Missing with Hardware Bindings No parking brake sound is played when operating the parking brake via hardware/key bindings (e.g. TCA Quadrant bindings). The sound only plays when interacting with the parking brake using the mouse You can see this on the video linked below. First, I operate the parking brake handle with the mouse and there is sound. I then use the parking brake handle on my Thrustmaster TCA, and there is no sound. https://youtu.be/wgcNu1fsWac?si=eXp2v6pksGxinRVt 2. No Sound for CLB Detent when coming from Lower Throttle Position No detent sound is played when moving the thrust levers into the CLB detent from a lower throttle position, i.e. the idle end of the throttle. The sound currently only occurs when entering CLB from a higher throttle position, i.e. the TOGA end of the throttle. You can see this on the video linked below. First I move the lever into CLB from below and there is no sound when the levers go into the CLB detent. I then move the levers into the CLB detent from above and there is sound. Finally, I go back to moving into the detent from below and again there is no sound. https://youtu.be/SO9YOLHIZsI?si=mlnllxzauzYckI22 Modelling 1. Display Unit Brightness Mismatch The various display units do not maintain equal brightness when set to the same brightness setting. Identical brightness knob positions can result in visibly different display brightnesses. This is very noticeable when using the DU Master Brightness Knob There also appears to be an issue affecting the lower MCDU displays and radio panels on the pedestal. At certain times of day, particularly dusk/dawn, these displays exhibit unusual brightness behaviour where the background does not appear fully black and instead has a weird glow to it. On the video linked below, you can clearly see that using the DU Master Brightness Knob, the display units are set to the same brightness setting, but the lower displays and the OIS are much brighter. https://youtu.be/pIFOp_wNAYI?si=OMSIUhowNbGRLN4r Systems 1. Altitude Predictions are Often Incorrect in Descent The altitude predictions on the F-PLN page are often not being calculated correctly in descent. In the screenshot linked below, you can see that the aircraft is at FL150 with 0.6nm to go until the waypoint HAZEL. Yet the F-PLN page is showing a prediction at that waypoint of FL130. This is incorrect, the aircraft is not going to lose 2,500 ft in 0.6nm and so the prediction is incorrect. https://i.postimg.cc/7ZB8K6fS/Flight-Simulator2024-2026-05-19-16-42-29-115.png 2. Constraint Indications (Amber v Magenta) are Incorrect and Inconsistent between the ND and the F-PLN page and the Altitude Predictions indication thereupon. The colour of the asterisks on the F-PLN page, and the circles around waypoints on the ND are inconsistent with each other, and the ones on the ND do not correspond with the Altitude Predictions on the F-PLN page In the screenshot below the circles around the waypoints HAZEL OCK and OCK/07 are in amber indicating the constraint will not be met. However, on the F-PLN page the corresponding asterisks are shown in Magenta, indicating, contrary to the ND, that the constraints will in fact be met. A constraint cannot be both met and not met. Therefore, one of them is wrong. Logic would lead to the F-PLN page being incorrect given the aircraft is above profile. This also again indicates that the altitude predictions on the F-PLN page are not being constantly recalculated based on where the aircraft currently is in terms of its vertical profile. The magenta asterisks do match the F-PLN predictions, but these predictions are incorrect. Somehow the ND is showing the correct colour indications around the waypoint, but where is it getting the data from to display the correct colour? It should come from the F-PLN page but in this case, it isn’t as clearly the F-PLN page is completely wrong. https://i.postimg.cc/7ZB8K6fS/Flight-Simulator2024-2026-05-19-16-42-29-115.png In addition the F-PLN page predictions and coloured asterisk indication are also bugged regarding the speed predictions. In the screenshot linked below, there is a message saying SPD ERROR AT LLS01. But where is this information coming from, the F-PLN page is predicting the aircraft will be at 250kts at LLS01 and is showing a magenta asterisk. Again, somehow the error message is correct, but the F-PLN page is incorrect. https://i.postimg.cc/xCKV9P1k/Flight-Simulator2024-2026-05-19-16-44-40-667.png I’m afraid the F-PLN is very poorly implemented, and this is unacceptable as it plays a very important role in descent management and planning to meet any ATC restrictions. It seems to work reasonably in climb, but in descent it is very poor. It is possible that it is simply not constantly recalculating the predictions. I have attached included a separate PDF indicating how the F-PLN page predictions and level-off arrow should function in the various lateral and vertical modes. 3. Managed Speed Targets Bugged and Flickering/Jumping/Jittering etc. Managed speed targets can become unstable and visually glitch. Speed targets may flicker or rapidly jump between values. This happens in all stages of flight, to both the target speed and the F, S, Green Dot reference speeds. In the first video linked below you can see the green dot reference speed flickering, and in the second, the magenta managed speed target jumps. https://youtu.be/61Wi-fSszI4 https://youtu.be/4GClDf9tg7M 4. MACH/SPD Indication is Incorrect on the FCU – and on the FMA on the PFD The SPD/MACH indication on the PFD and FCU is incorrect as it is currently implemented to change based purely at a certain altitude rather the correct behaviour which is to change depending on whether the aircraft is indeed targeting a SPD or MAH number. The display should only switch between SPD and MACH when the aircraft transitions between a speed target and a Mach target. Currently, the indication can change despite the aircraft still targeting the same mode. In the linked video below, the target climb speeds are 309 IAS and 0.85M. Meaning, the aircraft will climb at 309IAS until this becomes equal to 0.85M, at which point it will continue the climb at 0.85M. (These speeds can be seen on the CLB PERF page as shown. At the start of the video, the aircraft is climbing at 309 IAS and correctly the FCU shows SPD. However, when the aircraft reaches FL270, the FCU changes to MACH. This is incorrect behaviour. The aircraft is correctly still targeting a speed (309) as this speed is currently only equal to .766 and shown below the speed tape on the PFD. The magenta target on the speed tape is still on 309IAS and correctly remains there until 309 equals 0.85 at higher altitude. So, the aircraft is correctly targeting a speed, but the FCU is incorrectly indicating MACH. This bug is also present in reverse on the descent. In this case, in addition to the FCU indication being incorrect, should the aircraft be in a geometric descent segment rather than in IDLE descent, SPD or MACH should appear on the FMA. Again, here it is bugged and just showing MACH above FL270 irrespective of whether the aircraft is targeting a SPD in IAS or a MACH number. https://youtu.be/2OSJHZmKur8?si=LkVmCIikhcxcDrMx 5. Level-Off Arrow Behaviour. That same screenshot above also has the level-off arrow on the ND Missing. FL 70 is shown below the altitude tape on the PFD (as an aside this should be magenta because there is a FL070 constraint at OCK – it should only be cyan if the FCU selected altitude is above the next constraint in DES, or below it in CLB). The aircraft is in managed mode, and, therefore, if the F-PLN page is predicting the aircraft will be at FL070 at OCK then the level-off arrow should be on the ND at OCK. Here also the level-off arrow is missing, FL050 (transition level formatting error also here – see below) is shown below the altitude tape, so the level-off arrow should be shown in the ND indicating where the aircraft will reach this altitude. In this example it should be just before D283L – as the F-PLN page is predicting the aircraft will cross this waypoint at 4890, but it is totally missing. https://i.postimg.cc/vTZgJhrd/D283L-where-level-off-arrrow-alro-PFD-alt-format.png Yet again, where is the level-off arrow here indication when the aircraft will reach FL100? https://i.postimg.cc/pdddXr9G/No-Level-Off-arrow-but-it-preditcs-TLA13-at-097-so-arrow-should-be-before-that.png Again, see the separate document explaining the level-off arrow functionality. 6. DES PERF Page Constraint Display The DES PERF page currently displays the final descent constraint rather than the next active descent constraint. In the screenshot below the DES PERF page is showing the next speed constraint to be TLA/13 at 210kts. However, this is the final speed constraint on the flight plan, and this page should instead show 250 KT / ESKDO as this is the next speed constraint. https://i.postimg.cc/4xbLPNxm/SPD-LIMIT-waypoint-logic.png 7. Transition Altitude/Transition Level F-PLN page formatting errors. Altitude formatting on the F-PLN page does not always correctly respect Transition Altitude and Transition Level logic. In the linked screenshot below, you can see on the T.O PERF page that the transition altitude is 6000ft. However, on the F-PLN page FL060 is shown at UMLAT. This is incorrect. As you can see in the other screenshot, the charts correctly format this as 6000. 6100ft should be FL061, but 6000ft is still 6000ft. https://i.postimg.cc/4yQP5WJ3/TRANS-ALT-6000-F-PLN-FL060.png https://i.postimg.cc/s2GJ8jVv/TRANS-ALT-CHARTS.png 8. SPDLIM Pseudo-Waypoint Logic Incorrect The (SPDLIM) pseudo-waypoint behaviour does not correctly account for speed constraints affecting acceleration or deceleration logic. If a departure contains a speed constraint of 250 KT (or lower) above 10,000 ft, the (SPDLIM) waypoint and corresponding magenta speed change marker should not appear during climb, because the aircraft is never performing that specific acceleration from 250kts to ECON climb speed at FL100. The aircraft should continue respecting the speed constraint and accelerate to ECON climb speed once the constraint is cleared. Similarly in descent the reverse is true. In the example in the screenshot linked below, the (SPDLIM) waypoint should never be in the F-PLN. The aircraft is already decelerating to 250kts at ESKDO at FL170. So the aircraft never performs the deceleration to 250kts at FL100 because it has already slowed to this speed and so doesn’t need to do it. So the (SPDLIM) pseudo-waypoint representing the aircraft’s deceleration to 250kts at FL1000 should not be there. https://i.postimg.cc/4xbLPNxm/SPD-LIMIT-waypoint-logic.png 9. F-PLN Page and DES Page target speeds do not match. The target speeds on the F-PLN page and the PERF pages often do not tie up and match with each other. In the screenshot linked below, the CRZ PERF page shows the managed target cruise speed to be 0.85, yet the F-PLN page is showing 0.84 for every waypoint…. Again the F-PLN page is just incorrect, another example of how much of a mess this page is in. https://i.postimg.cc/T11SK8VD/perf-page-fpln-page-and-pfd-speeds-do-not-match.png This bug is present in all stages of flight, CLB, CRZ, and DES. 10. FCU Selected Altitude displayed below altitude tape on PFD logic. The display of the FCU selected altitude below the altitude tape on the PFD is not respecting intermediary constraints. (Constraints between the current altitude and the FCU selected altitude.) In the screenshot linked below, the aircraft’s current altitude is FL275 and the FCU selected altitude is set to 24000 and this is displayed below the SPD tape as FL240. However, this display is incorrect, there is a constraint at INPIP of FL260, and therefore if the FCU altitude is set to anything equal to, or lower than this constraint, it is irrelevant as far as the target altitude displayed below the speed tape is concerned. It should display FL260 in magenta. Thus the level-off arrow should also indicate the point on the ND at which the aircraft will reach FL260 and not FL240, this also should be in magenta. The FMA is incorrect here as well, it should be ALT in magenta not cyan, relating to the FL260 constraint, not the FL240 FCU selected. Of course, this is when the aircraft in in managed DES as it is. The behaviour shown on the screen would be correct for OP DES but not for DES, which is the mode the aircraft is in. https://i.postimg.cc/k5xDpzbq/Shouls-be-contraint-in-magenta-and-magenta-arrow.png 11. Cabin Vertical Speed Behaviour Incorrect in Cruise Cabin vertical speed remains at approximately +50 ft/min throughout cruise while cabin altitude remains stable. Minor short-duration fluctuations are expected occasionally, but cabin V/S should remain near 0 ft/min for the vast majority of cruise conditions. This one is hard to get a screenshot of as it is just a snapshot, or a video, as I cannot video the whole cruise for hours and hours. Sometimes it does this sometimes it doesn’t, but there are many flights I have had where the cabin VS stays at +50 the whole flight without changing the cabin altitude as described above. I am sorry I don’t have a video for this, as you can see I have spent a long time getting other evidence, I am not doing this to make up bugs that don’t exist, it really does happen. 12. HUD VS does not match PFD and FPV is not accurate The vertical speed indication displayed on the HUD does not always match the V/S indication shown on the PFD. This can be seen on the screenshot linked below. https://i.postimg.cc/LsqRQ6xY/HUD-PFD-VS-mismatch.png The FPV also does not actually indicate where the aircraft is going, i.e. if you place the FPV on the touchdown markers and keep it perfectly there during the approach, the aircraft actually ends up somewhere else entirely. Overall, the F-PLN page and PERF pages relating to vertical navigation are still quite poorly implemented, there are a multitude of bugs as can be seen above. To summarise: (i) The F-PLN altitude and speed predictions don’t seem to be being calculated properly on descent, it’s as if the predictions just show the ideal managed path, but then do not recalculate based on deviations from this as they should. But somehow the ND manages to do this, by displaying the amber circles around constraint waypoints. (ii) There are also discrepancies between the F-PLN page and the PERF pages when it comes to what the managed target speed should be in any given phase of flight. Flight Model 1. Fly-By-Wire Roll Behaviour Requires Refinement FBW roll behaviour does not appear consistent with expected Airbus handling characteristics. When using sidestick roll input to establish a bank angle and then releasing the stick, the aircraft may alter the established bank angle unexpectedly. The aircraft should instead maintain the commanded bank angle within protection limits after sidestick release. For example, setting a bank angle of 20 degrees, the aircraft will slowly roll back towards wings level instead of maintaining the bank angle. Additionally, after roll inputs, the aircraft can briefly snap back in the opposite direction when the sidestick is released. You can see in the video linked below, that when I roll the aircraft and then release the sidestick, the aircraft snaps back in the opposite direction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55H7GsYv54Y 2. TO Pitch The aircraft lifts off from the runway at far too shallow a pitch. As can be seen in the video below, the aircraft lifts off at about 5 degrees of pitch, whereas it should be more like 10 degrees, so it really is lifting off significantly too early in the rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3pOCrMMTjg You can see the excerpt from the Flight Crew Techniques Manual saying that lift-off should occur at about 10 degrees here. https://i.postimg.cc/2jxpwZCt/fctm.png Again, many thanks for you work on the aircraft, I really hope you can fix these and also apply the ones that the A340 shares to that, and doubtless this A380 will have the same issues, so please apply them to that too. Best.

Oh I totally agree. It certainly should be possible in an aircraft that is the ‘ultimate airliner experience’ and has ‘unparalleled realism’.

Yes I have noticed this before too, but have had plenty of other more basic errors to report so haven't got round to this one yet! Good post, though I doubt they will do anything sadly, but fingers crossed.

Checked the FCOM and indeed you are correct! Not that I was doubting you, just wanted to read it up! Will delete that part so as not to confuse the devs.

Thanks for this. I’m away at the moment but will take a look at the FCOM once I’m at home. Find a physical copy so much easier to find things in. Guess I’m old fashioned hey…

Since SU5 the fuel burn of the APU is ridiculously high.

@IniJamir Many thanks for reporting these outstanding issues. Please do let me know if you need any further information relating to the issues I have listed here.

Oh and the cabin vs stays at +50 for the entire cruise whilst the cabin alt stays constant. There can be minor occasional fluctuations of cabin vs +50 very briefly, -50 very briefly. But it should be at 0 the vast vast majority of the time. I hope you can keep track of all these as there are a lot. Which is obviously extremely disappointing given how long the aircraft has been out and its price and how it was marketed.

Would just like to add that there have been many improvements since release, and I am thankful for those and the continued work that goes into the aircraft.

It really would be great to get these simple bugs cleaned up. Many of them apply to the A340 as well, and getting them all fixed surely would help the A380 development as so many of the systems are shared. Without being fixed the bugs are just mounting and mounting. It would be so awesome to get the A350 basic bug free so one could complete a basic flight without encountering so many bugs so long after release.

THS indication on lower PFD before take off does not match GWCG on TO PERF Page of OIS or THS TO PERF PAGE of FMS. (The aircraft sets the correct trim automatically but it does not match the target value right next to it)/ SPD LIM pseudo-waypoint behaviour is incorrect when there are constraints that affect when the aircraft would accelerate or decelerate. For example on the departure, if there is SPD constraint of 250 kts (or any constraint lower than this), where the aircraft will be above 10000ft, the SPD LIM waypoint should not be in the F-PLN on the climb (nor the corresponding magenta speed change dot on the ND) because the aircraft is not factoring in this 10000ft acceleration at all. It should climb respecting the speed constraints, then when it the constraints are cleared, if the aircraft will be above 10000 ft it will just accelerate to econ climb speed after the constraint. Winds are currently imported when importing the flight plan - this shouldn't be the case, it should be a separate procedure. Altitudes on F-PLN page don't always respect Transition Altitude and Level in terms of format. In terms of flight model, the aircraft still unsticks from the runway at too shallow a pitch, nut full vtol, but the aircraft should require a higher pitch to lift off from the runway. FBW needs work, for example, you use the sidestick to set a required angle of bank within limits of protections but when you release the stick, the aircraft changes the angle of bank, this should not happen but rather the aircraft should keep the angle of bank that was set even when the sidestick is released.

Also I forgot the managed speed targets are bugged and glitch out jumping up and down.

Just done a quick test. In addition to the above: Display units are still not the same brightness when set to the same brightness setting. No sound when going into Climb detent from a lower thrust e.g idle, detent sound only occurs when moving into Climb detent from a higher thrust, e.g FLEX. No parking brake handle has no sound when using key binds on a TCA throttle quadrant for example, but has sounds when you click it with the mouse. I can do a full flight later and report more ongoing bugs. Some of these have been reported since the release of the aircraft and are still unfixed, in the meantime, there have been two other airliner releases, the A340 in particular sharing many airbus systems with the a350 and it also has many of the same bugs. Adverts for A380 testers have been shared, suggesting that is on its way, and doubtless will have the same bugs. It is very frustrating and disappointing to see so many other aircraft released whilst the A350 still has a large number of bugs. Will they ever be fixed? Or just new aircraft released and the bugs on all the previously released aircraft ignored and left to mount up even further?

Can add from memory. SPD/MACH is incorrect on PFD and FCU. Level-Off Arrow behaviour is still bugged. Coloured asterisks for constraints are not consistent with predicted altitudes on F-PLN page. DES PERF page shows final constraint rather than next constraint. HUD V/S does not match PFD V/S.

Maybe, but even a single test flight would highlight this regression.

Eugh. How does so much stuff get broken in an update. Have read about so many issues on here.

Many thanks for another update. Just to confirm the bugs relating to the vertical navigation stuff are all still present, just like on the 350,300 etc. Things such as, but not limited to: FCU Selected Altitude arrow symbol still incorrect logic. For example, Constraint asterisks incorrect. F-PLN page showing at FF06 at 2000, which is meeting the constraint, but then an amber asterisk next to it, indicating it won't meet the constraint... SPD/MACH mode indications still incorrect. Things like CHECK DEST DATA for APPR PERF page still incorrect, should be ENTER DES DATA, (CHECK is displayed when approach etc is changed), and this message still doesn;t disappear when the required values have been entered. Thanks again for the work on the update, really hoping there will be some progress across the entire airbus fleet on these kind of issues soon.

I’ve reported this since the initial release… One would have thought it would be an easy fix. Fingers crossed for the next update. It’s little details like this that do make in a difference in how the user perceives how polished the aircraft is.

Absolutely enjoying it. There are just some frustrating things!! - Sounds a bit like life in general doesn’t it!! You mention above about the VNAV work, take that area of the aircraft as an example. Fundamentally it’s solid and does the job. There are just lots of niggles that for those of us that like to keep an eye of various indications are the cause of the frustration. Things like mismatches between the colour of the asterisks on the F-PLN page next to the altitude predictions, and the altitude predictions themselves. The ALT prediction can show you meeting a constraint but the asterisk is amber rather than magenta - and then it can be the opposite colour circle around the constraint on the ND, again a mismatch. Or the FCU selected altitude arrow again showing a mismatch with the altitude predictions on the F-PLN page. Or the FCU and FMA showing MACH when the aircraft is actually targeting a speed and vice versa. Or the speed restriction being shown on the DES PERF page being the wrong one. I mention just these things as examples, there are more. It’s not that the aircraft is doing anything wrong as such, it just these indication things that once you see them just niggle away. But yes, absolutely still enjoyable. Just can’t help but feel if these little things underwent a bit of scrutiny that frustration would disappear and it would be so much easier to focus on the many positive aspects of the aircraft and the aircraft would have a much wider appeal. Those like myself who like to take things a little deeper and keep one step ahead of the aircraft would suddenly find everything working really well just as those do now who are more content in just letting the aircraft do its thing and not paying to much attention to the various displays and indications. I think this would boost the product really significantly and help it fulfil the massive potential it has. These little issues are present on all the iniBuilds Airbus aircraft and presumably wouldn’t take much to be transferred across as it’s all the same logic really. That was a very long winded way of saying, yes I’m certainly enjoying it, but it still needs a fair bit of refining. Sorry for the long message, but as you can tell I’m passionate about it, you guys have done so much for the flight sim community and I’m truly incredibly thankful for that, but it would be so so awesome just step up a little gear, and sort these little details out!

Great to hear from you. Many thanks for a considered and reassuring response! Best as always.

You can see here that the VNAV path calculation still needs work. The aircraft is predicting that it will not meet the AT 4000 constraint at CAMEL. However, the calculated descent path is just too shallow. The aircraft is only descending at 500 fpm and having to add thrust to maintain speed. Why not calculate a steeper path that can be done as an IDLE descent and therefore also meet the constraint at CAMEL? This is just one example of what is not an isolated incident. Of course there are plenty of other errors with VNAV and the aircraft's altitude and speed predictions which I have reported elsewhere and am looking forward to seeing some progress on.

Yep I thought maybe it was some intended simulation of slight changes to passenger numbers. But it’s always fewer passengers, never more, and the ZFW is always still exactly the same as Simbrief. So it has to be a bug.