dectenor2

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.

Yep. I’ve reported this numerous times. Sad to see it back.

@IniSteve Other issues worth looking at here too. Totally spurious (SPD LIM) pseudo-waypoint.

Please stop locking topics so we have to create new ones. I followed the steps outlined on a previous thread about the A350 not boarding the correct number of passengers when loading with GSX but it still does not match the number of passengers according to simbrief.

Thanks so much for letting us know the situation.

Maybe he means the same issue I mentioned, where the physical keyboard inputs are still being applied to the aircraft when using it to type in the MCDU.

Dear all, Thank you once again for updates to the A340 and A350. I would like to know what is going on with the state of these aircraft. Between them, there have been over 30 updates and yet they still contain so many basic errors, the vast majority of which have been reported since the initial release. We are not talking obscure areas, but rather basic functionality. For example, the F-PLN page, and various PERF pages of the FMS, and corresponding ND symbology on both aircraft are so full of bugs and errors that it seems they have simply have not been tested properly. On every single flight one can find a large array of these bugs and errors. I won't go into details of them here as it is not the place to do in the forums, I have made these reports elsewhere as discussed below. This post is merely an enquiry into what is going on in general terms. Personally, I have given hours and hours of my own free time providing detailed bug reports, and I know that some other users have done the same. It is extremely disheartening to see very little done with these reports and really makes one question why bother making them. The answer, of course, being that we are happy to give up our free time to try and help improve the product for the benefit of all users. However, it is deeply discouraging to repeatedly report issues and see no fruition. That these issues were not noticed in the first place also makes one wonder what is going on with testing. Great hype is made of new features being added to the aircraft, for example, the HUD for the A350. However to focus in on this feature, it is totally unusable, again due to it being full of so many errors for such a small feature. It just seems like it is always one step forward and two steps back, even a small feature like the HUD cannot be implemented without it being so full of bugs that will need addressing in the future, in addition to the large amount that remain unfixed since release. It just feels like the list is becoming insurmountable. Surely, if you will forgive the suggestion, thoroughly testing new features so they aren't released in this state and adding to the already long list of bugs would be a better way forward. I have often found in my professional life that getting tasks done properly the first time, even if it takes a little time, always saves time and produces better results in the long run. There are also blindingly obvious regressions with each update. For example, the latest (1.2.1) update on the A350, pressing Ctrl to type in the MCDU using our physical keyboards results in the views changing when numbers are typed. It seems the exclusion for MSFS controls when using the physical keyboard to type has disappeared. How is this not noticed in testing, and how is an update allowed to release with such an obvious regressions? The above paragraphs are not meant to be in any way exhaustive in their description of the issues present, as I have previously stated, this is not the place for that. They are merely offered to exemplify the situation regarding these aircraft. These aircraft are not inexpensive products, they are marketed and priced in a manner that demands a higher standard than what is offered and it would be great to get to the bottom of why this is the case. I sincerely hope that this post is not taken the wrong way. It is not meant to be in any way 'bashing' or hateful, or even angry, and I truly appreciate all iniBuilds do for the flight sim community, particularly with the vast amount of high quality scenery that is released. I would simply be interested to hear an explanation of what is going on, why there are still so many issues, whether there is anything I can do to help, etc. It is meant like all my bug reports, merely to try and get these aircraft up the standard that they deserve, after all, there is so much potential in them. As always, many thanks for the team's continued hard work in all that they do. I truly mean this. I must reiterate that despite what may come across as a negative post, it is not intended in any way to criticise or be hateful towards anybody. Its purpose, like all my posts on these forums, is purely to help make iniBuilds products be as good as they possibly can be. Many thanks again, dectenor2

Thanks, but if I set ZFW and set Fuel, does the aircraft then not just load those? How can I then refuel and load the passengers and bags without there being too much fuel or overweight?

I have yes. I haven't done many flights as still waiting/hoping for lots of bugs to be fixed, but I saw it on both flights I did yesterday. It was quite a short turnaround and not the longest of flights so it is possible there was some residual heat on the second flight which was into a long runway and shouldn't have heated the brakes that much. I will do another flight tomorrow and make sure I fly to a long runway and select a BTV exit right at the end and see what happens.

I’ve also noticed getting this even with a light aircraft and using BTV with a far away exit, well over 3000m away. If I recall correctly, the A300 also went through a phase of excessive brake temperatures despite minimal brake usage, that again, if I recall correctly, was fixed in an update.

Firstly I hope all the team had a good festive break and that now we are all back work is going well on tackling all the many bugs and errors that are still present in this aircraft so long after release! This post however is really to enquire about the correct GSX settings and procedure to get the aircraft to load payload and fuel progressively with GSX. It seems to be so hit and miss these days whether it does this. I would like to be able to, as you can with other aircraft, request fuelling and boarding with GSX and have the aircraft load in sync with GSX with the correct fuel and payload (including passenger number). The loadsheet PAGE of the OIS is a real mess. It would be much better to have it dispaly current and planned ZFW GW PAYLOAD PAX ZFWCG GWCG etc. At the moment often the SET ZFW is greyed out, the SET FUEL just bugs when you click it and and doesn't let you actually set the fuel...

Yep same issue. One of so many sadly.