Stevenssqueeze

I also have really strange TCAS RA's from time to time which doesn't make sense at all. See screenshot. The traffic is 15 NM away and I get a Resolution advisory! To reproduce it, it is only VATSIM online traffic, all other traffic is switched off in the MSFS 2024 Sim.

I noticed that TCAS senses altitude wrong. I have traffic 2000ft below me and TCAS shows -200ft. I am in FL410 and the other traffic in FL390. I can clearly see from outside view, that the traffic is 2000 ft below me. Because TCAS shows the traffic 200ft below me, it senses a Resolution Advisory see screenshot. I had it twice today. It seems, that the FL390 will be displayed as FL410. Why I don't know. Please check!

So I fly the A340-300 in real life. I can confirm, that this is not correct! They should touch the ground of course! The wheels of the center bogey are touching the ground the same than the wing landing gears. This is a bug and needs to be corrected!

The APU makes no sound when on and external view. Is this only on my system or can anybody confirm same behaviour? Thanks!

I got it fixed after a reinstallation of the A380.

RTO kicking in is very strange, since the Autobrakes functions from 72 kts on. Below that, there is no Autobrake working for RTO. At least this is like it should be. In my issues, the braking started always at about 45 kts and without doing anything, the bird started accelerating again at about 7 kts.

Ok, I just learned that my issue is Autobrake related. I also have this Speedbrake indication coming here and then. But there is no surface deployment, just an indicating issue see screenshot.

Do you also have the issue on Takeoff? I don't know if it is the same issue with the speedbrakes, but after setting takeoff thrust, the aircraft accelerates until about 50 kts and then is braking down to about 10 kts. Without doing anything, the plane accelerates thereafter to normal Takeoff power. I will check if the speedbrakes are out during this. I will report.

No. Normal default textures. It all worked fine in version 1.0.5.

I noticed that all the cabin texures, Emirates and basic, RR and EA are broken see screenshot. Any idea to fix the issue?

I tested different airplanes in MSFS 2024. The fuel burn is very accurate compared to the Simbrief file on all airplanes I tested. In my opinion the less fuel burn is not a drag problem.

So I played around a lot with Fuel biases, cost index and so on. This inibuilds A380 Fuel performance model is completely wrong. On my last flight, I calculated that I need a fuel bis of M23 (!) to get accurate fuel consumptions to check with Simbrief. On the return flight I used M23 and guess what? It was wrong. This time my A380 only used about M05. But the most weired thing is the cost index. When I fly with CI 20, I have an EFOB of 10 tons. With CI 50 I have an EFOB of 13 tons and with CI 100 of 17 tons! So this a great aircraft, really good modeled by inibuilds. But until this fuel consumption issue is solved and corrected, I will step out. Long haul flights do need at least close to accurate fuel performance dates. I hope, you will find a solution soon!

What do you mean adresses this issue?

I checked the MSFS 2024 with other addon aircraft and I come to the conclusion, that this fuel consumption problem is indeed a problem of the A380! Other aircraft have absulute accurate fuel consumption values, close to hundreds of kg. So it is not related to a possible drag problem or bug in the MSFS 2024. So please open the ticket again, this is serious matter. Thank you!

This would be very bad news. It would mean, that we have to wait until Asobo changes something in MSFS 2024. Thanks Kyle for the information. I never thought it could be MSFS related.

Thanks Kyle for your reply. I checked the thread in the MSFS Forum. When it is related to drag, we should compare the fuel flow in the Sim compared to the real thing. I am in FL400 right now and have a fuel flow of 1900 kg/h per engine. I try to find performance charts. I today updated MSFS 2024. Was that SU7? Was SU6 valid since the release of the A380?

Thank you Kyle. Yes it is weird, it would be easy, if it could be corrected with a fuel bias, but that's not working. I did 2 flights, the first one wasn't that bad. After 7 hours flight, I had about 1.3 tons of fuel gain. On the second one, I had a fuel gain of 4.5 tons after 2 hours! You said you are working on the Simbrief file. In my opinion, the Simbrief file is quite correct. The fuel consumption in the SIM is the problem. I compared the Simbrief file with the real life Lufthansa EFB performance data. It was pretty close compared to the Simbrief file. In all cases, the Sim was way off. I think this is important to know. Don't look into the Simbrief file too deep, check the aircraft! Thanks!

Are the ELEVN and GAIN selectors on the WXR panel working? I mean is it implemented in the SIM? The Weather radar works fine as you can see in the screenshot and the buttons are working correctly, but I cannot manipulate anything. When I try to scan different FL in ELEVN mode, the picture is still the same. In this screenshot you should exclude the WX echoes while flying in FL410, because the WX is way below, but if you select any FL below 410, nothing changes on the ND WX picture. Thanks for any hint, if I do something wrong!

Ok forget it. On my present flight I gained 9 tons of fuel in 5 hours flight time. This is ridiculous! I tested it with v1.0.1. Unfortunately there's is nothing about this issue in the last 1.0.3 update. Kyle? Any news on that?

Ok. My thought was, that it might have something to do with loading the aircraft, since fuel is not consistent. On my last flight I had a fuel loss, the leg before a massi massive fuel gain. If the Simbrief file is wrong, it should be always about the same tendency. I will test it further and will report.

I took the screenshot from the Airbus A380 FCOM.

Maybe I got a little closer to the issue. On my flight today I prepared the aircraft exactly as I described above. After I finished loading with GSX, I opened the GROUND OPERATIONS Weight & Balance page in the EFB and checked all the loaded values. It was all correct. The planned load was the same than the loaded values. Then I clicked the green LOAD ARCRAFT button on the lower right corner and loaded again the Payload and Fuel instantly. Nothing changed of course on the loading page, since the values were the same, but I had the idea, if GSX is loading the aircraft correctly, maybe the load is not really physically loaded to the aircraft what would explain, why I don't burn fuel like in the Simbrief file and gain up to 10 tons of fuel on a longhaul flight. With hitting the LOAD AIRCRAFT button and load again the values via the EFB and not GSX makes the difference. The Simbrief file was pretty accurate throughout the flight and ended up with a 1000 kg loss at the destination after a 09:10 hours flight. I only tested it once, but I will report on the next flight.

This is normal system behavior. The tire pressure is only on the WHEEL MORE page, not on the normal WHEEL page.

Yesterday on a 8 hours flight the official ini Simbrief file for the RR engine variant was surprisingly pretty accurate. I landed with a 200 kg difference to the Simbrief plan. Today on the 8 hour return flight with the same Simbrief file I have a gain of over 5 tons after 3 hours of flight! So I try to understand why there is such a big spread with the same ini Simbrief file. Can it be, that it has something to do with loading the aircraft? On my flight yesterday it seemed that the weight of the aircraft was pretty accurate, which led to a accurate fuel consumption during the flight. Today it looks like, I am flying an empty A380, otherwise I cannot understand why I gain fuel this significantly. So I would like to describe how I load the aircraft and maybe I do something wrong there. After loading the aircraft I load the Simbrief plan via the EFB Flight Info. Thereafter I click Ground Operations in the EFB and click the "Import Simbrief" button. A green confirmation comes up at the top of the screen. I load the Flightplan via the INIT page of the MFD On the OIS FLT OPS page I click SYNCHRO AVIONICS and check that the FLT NBR and Departure and Arrival airports correspond to my Simbrief Flight plan. On the NSS AVINCS page I click INI COM and enter the FUEL FIGURES and send it. I refuel the aircraft using GSX and I also refill the water and do the boarding with GSX. On the OIS INI COM page I check the values on the Prelimenary Loadsheet and enter the ZFW and ZFWCG into the FUEL LOAD page in the MFD. When refueling and loading of the passengers is completed I check the values in the Ground Operations Weight & Balance page ot the EFB. The figures of Passengers, Cargo, Fuel and Water in the column Planned and Loaded should be the same. Then I finally check the Final Loadsheet figures and compare it with the entered values of the prelimenary loadsheet in the MFD. The values for the ZFWCG and the T/O CG are mostly different, so I enter the CG's of the final Loadsheet into the MFD T/O PERF page. I start the flight. Is there something wrong? I cannot really check, what my actual weight is. The values of GW and GWCG are a result of the entered ZFW and ZFWCG plus Fuel. But where can I physically confirm, what the loaded weight is in my simulator. The only explanation of this immense fuel gain over time is for me, that the GSX loaded values will be confirmed by the EFB, but they are not physically loaded into the aircraft. I could get an idea about my weight in flight when I check the pitch and the Green dot and the VLS on the PFD together with the current fuel flow. But I don't have performance charts for that. Maybe we can collect the different ways to load the aircraft to get a clue, what the problem with these discrepancies in the fuel consumption compared to the Simbrief file is. Thank you!

The Dynamic feature is great, but I agree, it needs a little adjustment. My suggestion: You need to choose from Minor failures and Major failures and then you need to choose the percentage and number of failures happening. 1 % would be a very rare chance of something happening, while 100 % it will be very soon.