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?

Fingers crossed it will be fixed as the aircraft is very VTOL like at the moment.

I won’t be buying it until they have fixed these things I bring up in the A350. Because I would guess that exactly the same issues will be in the A340. Hopefully if they can fix it in one aircraft, they should be able to easily transfer the lessons learned of this basic Airbus logic.

I wasn’t really focusing on the sounds as understand they are going to be completely redone by Echo 19, so I was just focussing on the basic systems.

Sadly I had to make a new account as it is no longer possible to sign in via Facebook weirdly. So there we are. I was dectenor1 previously, it seems I have been demoted to 2... Thanks for another update today. Lots of stuff I reported has been fixed. Brilliant thanks. In the flights I have done so far, the GSX PAX number matched the number on the Loadsheet OIS page, with all weights correct when simply loading through GSX and doing nothing on the Loadsheet OIS page itself, which is awesome, and unexpected because I didn't see this on the changelog - maybe I was just lucky... Scrap the above, just done another test flight, and the passenger numbers don't match.... TCAS going straight to TA/RA when turning on the XPDR, fixed - awesome thanks. LDG INHIBIT memo did disappear at the correct time (1 min after slowing past 80kts), I didn't actually time this, but it certainly wasn't on anywhere near as long as before. Again, I didn't see this on the changelog, so that was a pleasant surprise. I didn't check when the LDG MEMO actually appeared in the first place, though (the LDG MEMO itself, not the INHIBIT message, from memory I recall it felt a little late, so maybe worth confirming this comes on at the correct time - when passing through 2000ft AGL. Anyway, thanks for the unexpected LDG INHIBIT fix. The changelog says 'FIXED Fuel values removed when page manipulated (see desc)' - but this is only partially fixed, whilst TAXI, ALTN, AND FINAL keep custom values if ZFW or ZFWCG etc. is edited, the value for RTE RSV, still resets to default. There is also a problem with 'FIXED Cabin VS constantly fluctuating'. In cruise the CABIN V/S stayed at +50ft for the entire flight, this isn't correct, this value should generally be 0, with minor deviations to keep the cabin altitude constant. Also concerning was that despite the CABIN V/S being +50ft for hours and hours, the actual CABIN ALT displayed next to the CABIN V/S stayed constant at 5920ft for hours as well. If the CABIN V/S was +50fpm for 4 hours, that's gone up by 12000ft, so the CABIN ALT should also have gone up, (obviously it shouldn't have done this). So the CABIN V/S either needs to stay 0 for the entire cruise, or its needs to fluctuate, but not constantly fluctuate like is was blinking before, rather spend like 95% of the time on 0 and then 2.5% each on +50 and -50, but the CABIN ALT also need to be tied to the CABIN V/S during cruise. Hope that makes sense. The changelog also says 'FIXED Changing sim time erroneous ETA calculations' but this is not fixed. The issue as outlined by @lukevo79 here still very much exists. You can see that the ETA for the next waypoint, 32NM away, ESBUM, is showing 31 mins in the past..... The times did correct themselves when I opened the POSITION/TIME page on the other Lower DU... Another bug that either has appeared only recently is that the REFUELING IN PROGRESS ECAM memo is not synced properly anymore. It stays on much longer than when the refuelling panel door has closed. Of course, numerous vertical navigation issues are still present, such as information displayed in relation to constraints, predicted altitude and speeds, and managed target speeds, on the ND, F-PLN, and PERF pages, but I was not expecting this to be fixed as not mentioned in the changelog, though I look forward to it being fixed as a priority, and hopefully the lessons learned it and the logic and coding can be then easily applied across your whole airbus fleet, improving those aircraft as well. One new one related to this that I haven't noticed before is that the SPD CSTR line of the DES PERF page is showing the final SPD CSTR in the flight plan rather than the next up on the descent, whether that be one on the STAR or the 250KTS at FL100 restriction. Basically the next magenta dot to appear on the ND route in descent indicating the next upcoming speed restriction should be the one displayed as shown below. This also seems to be affecting what is shown as the managed speed targets on the same page. The aircraft is now showing this speed constraint as the conversion speed as well. The managed targets should be the econ Mach, then the econ conversion speed. The managed target here should only change from the conversion IAS to a speed constraint once the aircraft has begun to decelerate to that speed. Clearly in this case the 185 is a bug as if that was the conversion IAS, the aircraft would already be targeting that (it isn't as can be seen on the PFD) as the current IAS of 261 is above 185. In this case it should show .84 300(ish - a typical conversion at this CI), then the SPD CSTR should be 230KT/VUTEB. When beginning to slow to 230 for the restriction, i.e., at the same time as passing the magenta dot on the route on the ND, this 230 will move up to the above line, as the active target replacing the .84 and 300. I am now away from my FCOM, but from memory the mach number becomes dashed out, so it woudl show MANAGED - 230. Then the next speed constraint along the route should appear in SPD CSTR. Incidentally the (SPDLIM) pseudo waypoint should not appear at all on the list of waypoints on the F-PLN page on the left lower DU, as because there is a slower speed constraint above 10000ft (VUTEB at 230), this 250@10000 is never a factor because the aircraft is meeting a slower restriction above 10000ft anyway. Anyway, many thanks again for the work on the A350, and I look forward to seeing further fixes soon. @Eddie sorry for the tag, I had messaged you on discord, mentioning the forum issues, but seem to have been able to get in, and I'm sorry that I had to create another account.