Study Level, not yet.

[Eurosky]

As a A380 pilot, lots of similarities to the A350. Just not as modern, I have to say after testing this airplane. I am honestly disappointed. It feels like the numbers are scripted. Pre-loaded. Not fluid with the conditions. Potential is there, but in this state it's a toy and a game. Nowhere close to the real A350 in terms of accuracy and precision. This aircraft needs a lot of work. Surprised this version passed the so called A350 pilots testing this thing. I would never signed off on this avionics wise in terms of a 'study level' realistic simulation of the A350. Its a decent product, but needs a lot of work to reach the level of accuracy and precision. 

Edited February 28 by Eurosky

[peternorth]

Unfortunately I have to agree. I expected much more from it. The potential is there, so we'll see. I think it's a disappointment for every hardcore gamer. Unfortunately the product is also aimed at xbox (because microsoft), so that's probably the reason..

[Jack Dudley]

On 2/28/2025 at 8:15 PM, peternorth said:

Unfortunately I have to agree. I expected much more from it. The potential is there, so we'll see. I think it's a disappointment for every hardcore gamer. Unfortunately the product is also aimed at xbox (because microsoft), so that's probably the reason..

Tbh for Xbox it will probably feel great because tahts the best we can get

[wingview]

For the price paid you would have expected way more. Hopefully it will get updated in the future but I have my doubts...

[iniBuilds]

Firstly, want to thank you you all for your purchase, and to those of you are not happy, we apologies. We think its a great value for money and a very technical simulation. But of course, there are bugs and they will be resolved. 

But we need to move away from some suggested misconceptions raised in the community over the past few days here… it takes away from the reality of the position..

This plane is feature packed and has been developed with many technical folks in various areas of the A350. Are there bugs? for sure… and they are being worked on and ironed out. A lot of the people commenting since release are not A350 type rated and the A350 is not like other Airbus,. Furthermore, the logic people are used to in current similar offerings to the A350, is not the default position of what is right…

This is an incredibly feature rich add-on and its only going to deepen in terms of fidelity and simulation.

The A350 flight model takes advantage of the latest Asobo CFD technology coupled with custom fly-by-wire code. Comments and updates from community regarding flight model cfgs are mostly irrelevant, or a placebo effect, as they have little to no effect on how the aircraft performs in sim.

‘Back-end’ systems are also fully custom and overriding base sim cfg files and logic, from electrical system and buses to engine performance. This ranges from custom filters to dampen current sim logic, to complete curves and profiles for fly-by-wire response. The majority also include technical filters so that displays are not static.

If you have specific areas of feedback and can evidence them we will happily review with our technical pilot team and dev team. We are committed to making the plane better for all and constructive dialogue which is specific with areas of concern is the only way forward. Generalized comments stemming from one vocal group is not helpful. 
 

 

[iniBuilds Pablo]

Good day Eurosky,

My name is Pablo, I am a member of the testing team and one of the technical advisors as well as an A350 captain.

Thank you for your feedback, we care about our customer's experience and we are sorry to hear you are disappointed.

In order to be able to help I need more information from your side. What do you mean by: 
- numbers being scripted, pre-loaded
- not fluid with the conditions
- toy and a game opinion
- lack of accuracy

All feedback has to be constructive and accurate for our developer team to be able to action it. 
Can you please provide examples of issues you have encountered leading to your comments? 
I will review this and communicate to the relevant team members once received.

We are aware that the product is not perfect, yet. This has been communicated openly and clearly. The product will be receiving updates and improvements for a long while. This is a live project and not a done deal as of publication last week. 

In my opinion our simulation is at a point in which anyone can do a complete flight from A-B with a comprehensive experience. I have been doing that for quite a while internally, and keep doing so successfully. 

Our intention was to allow pilots to be able to start enjoying the product now, while we continue to improve on it. 

Regarding precision and avionics: please let me know what problem you encountered during your flight. Issues are present, we all keep discovering new ones myself included. 

As an A380 pilot you will have encountered issues in real life in which you had to take over from managed modes, this is not any different in the Flight Simulator world. We are consistently fine turning predictions and the FMS, all reports in this matter are welcome to perfect it.

I love the 350 in real life and in our rendition, and it will just get better and better with time. 

Lets all be constructive with our feedback, it will help us greatly in ironing out all these issues.

[LineDX]

Thank you Pablo. Really appreciate your comments. 

Indeed it's a great aircraft with lots of dedicated work developing this ac. 

Thank you for promising those bugs will be taken care of and to improve this product ovetime. Happy to have the aircraft to do day to day flying while you guys continue to make improvements. This aircraft has a huge potential. To be honest the systems, and available information in the flight deck makes you fall in love with this ac. Like, ois, on board charts, acars, big displays and many more. Thank you. 

I could not agree more on your statement "it's a live product" 

Edited Tuesday at 01:25 PM by LineDX

[Nikolaj Delaney]

Hello Pablo,

let me get my two cents in.

unfortunately constructive feedback is no use if you do not acknowledge reality.

49 minutes ago, iniBuilds Pablo said:

In my opinion our simulation is at a point in which anyone can do a complete flight from A-B with a comprehensive experience.

This is simply not the case for so many of Inibuilds customers. I was able to complete 1 out of 10 flight attempts on MSFS2020.

There are major issues with flight handling, rotation is too fast, FPL gets deleted when changing SID/STAR/APPR, importing SEC FPL causes WASM crashes, FIX INFO page can cause WASM crashes, etc. Many issues were reported both here and on Discord.

52 minutes ago, iniBuilds Pablo said:

We are aware that the product is not perfect, yet. This has been communicated openly and clearly.

What was communicated clearly is that customers should expect unparalleled immersion and realism, seamless integrations etc. See Inibuilds A350 product page: https://inibuilds.com/products/inibuilds-a350-airliner-msfs-2024

I don't think it's fair to ask for constructive feedback when the objective reality is that a large portion of your customers are effectively beta testers who had to pay for the privilege of reporting bugs, while you promised seamless experience.

There is nothing seamless about needing to delete an obscure WASM folder before every flight, only to receive yet another crash.

There is nothing seamless about needing to recalibrate your controls because the calibration gets deleted as part of deleting WASM folder. There is nothing seamless in needing to then restart the simulator or go to that folder and manually change the callibration setting because it does not get saved correctly in case of reverser_on_axis.

There is very little seamless about not having per livery configs on 2020 but yes, this was communicated ahead of time.

The issue is not that the product is not perfect. The issue is that for many users it is unusable.

If you want constructivity, I suggest you start yourselves internally. Banning people vocal about their dissapointment on your Discord server is not constructive.

Best

[turkintheus]

2 hours ago, iniBuilds Pablo said:

Good day Eurosky,

My name is Pablo, I am a member of the testing team and one of the technical advisors as well as an A350 captain.

Thank you for your feedback, we care about our customer's experience and we are sorry to hear you are disappointed.

In order to be able to help I need more information from your side. What do you mean by: 
- numbers being scripted, pre-loaded
- not fluid with the conditions
- toy and a game opinion
- lack of accuracy

All feedback has to be constructive and accurate for our developer team to be able to action it. 
Can you please provide examples of issues you have encountered leading to your comments? 
I will review this and communicate to the relevant team members once received.

We are aware that the product is not perfect, yet. This has been communicated openly and clearly. The product will be receiving updates and improvements for a long while. This is a live project and not a done deal as of publication last week. 

In my opinion our simulation is at a point in which anyone can do a complete flight from A-B with a comprehensive experience. I have been doing that for quite a while internally, and keep doing so successfully. 

Our intention was to allow pilots to be able to start enjoying the product now, while we continue to improve on it. 

Regarding precision and avionics: please let me know what problem you encountered during your flight. Issues are present, we all keep discovering new ones myself included. 

As an A380 pilot you will have encountered issues in real life in which you had to take over from managed modes, this is not any different in the Flight Simulator world. We are consistently fine turning predictions and the FMS, all reports in this matter are welcome to perfect it.

I love the 350 in real life and in our rendition, and it will just get better and better with time. 

Lets all be constructive with our feedback, it will help us greatly in ironing out all these issues.

Here are some inaccuracies I noticed;

- Let's say you activate approach phase, and pull speed knob for selected speed, when you pull, it should capture your current speed, in ini350 it will select Vapp speed.

- Engine spool up is way too quick, engines seems way too powerful even at highly derated takeoff's and flight directors are incredibly jumpy when going to Climb power.

- Even near MTOW, aircraft will accelerate easily to 30 knots + with at idle power on it's own.

- Flight Control Cross on PFD stays on after engine shutdown

- Retard callout should be there regardless if you idled or not, it appears to only come on if you don't retard the thrust levers, according to FCOM it should come on regardless. Even when it comes on it is a very weird low quality sample unlike the other GPWS callouts.

- "Flare" is missing on FMA.

- Rudder seems incredibly sensitive during decrab, it feels rather like a C172 during crosswind landings.

- Speedbrakes come out instantly when you move the lever, in real life they are dampened and take some time to come up, there should be a delay when you move the speedbrake handle.

- Aileron should not come up right after touchdown with other spoilers, they should come up when BTV tries to make the exit (this I could be wrong, somebody can correct if i'm mistaken).

- Yaw damper seems ineffective, and plane uses spoilers to turn when AP is on (almost full deflection).

- Rudder trim with AP on doesn't seem to be working.

 

While I do enjoy this product greatly, I'm really hoping these issues will be addressed in the future.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 02:31 PM by turkintheus
grammar

[TheSoullessOne]

I have not seen this one but autoland is questionable.

In my 2 tries sofar it on the first did okeyish job was just alot off center but good on the touchdown markers and vertical speed.

And on a second try (same airport, same wind, same runway) it basicaly slammed into the runway threshold. Completely missing the touchdown zone, centerline and with high vertical speed.

Edited Tuesday at 02:37 PM by TheSoullessOne

[Eurosky]

Don't get me wrong, I do think your team has done an incredible job so far on the A350. It is a great plane with a huge potential. With updates and tweaks this has the potential to be an incredible product. 

I have not tested this airplane in depth and I have never flown a real A350. A see a lot of the same 'issues' as the posters above. Lots of minor things, when adding them all up, makes a difference. 

Brake temps as an example, Huge differences normally on the A380 on individual wheel brakes. One brake can be 120C while another can be 270c etc. Depending on direction of turn, brake wear etc. Things seem a bit too pre-calculated. This is just a minor thing though.

The normal checklists, On the A380 with latest Batch 7 Airbus changed the Checklists (And a bunch of other things). Cockpit Preparation Checklist added and After takeoff Checklist removed etc. Not sure if this was incorporated into the A350 as well?.

 

Keep up the great work. I am excited to see what the Inibuild A350 future brings. 

Edited Tuesday at 04:35 PM by Eurosky

[nopixar]

1 hour ago, Nikolaj Delaney said:

Hello Pablo,

let me get my two cents in.

unfortunately constructive feedback is no use if you do not acknowledge reality.

This is simply not the case for so many of Inibuilds customers. I was able to complete 1 out of 10 flight attempts on MSFS2020.

There are major issues with flight handling, rotation is too fast, FPL gets deleted when changing SID/STAR/APPR, importing SEC FPL causes WASM crashes, FIX INFO page can cause WASM crashes, etc. Many issues were reported both here and on Discord.

What was communicated clearly is that customers should expect unparalleled immersion and realism, seamless integrations etc. See Inibuilds A350 product page: https://inibuilds.com/products/inibuilds-a350-airliner-msfs-2024

I don't think it's fair to ask for constructive feedback when the objective reality is that a large portion of your customers are effectively beta testers who had to pay for the privilege of reporting bugs, while you promised seamless experience.

There is nothing seamless about needing to delete an obscure WASM folder before every flight, only to receive yet another crash.

There is nothing seamless about needing to recalibrate your controls because the calibration gets deleted as part of deleting WASM folder. There is nothing seamless in needing to then restart the simulator or go to that folder and manually change the callibration setting because it does not get saved correctly in case of reverser_on_axis.

There is very little seamless about not having per livery configs on 2020 but yes, this was communicated ahead of time.

The issue is not that the product is not perfect. The issue is that for many users it is unusable.

If you want constructivity, I suggest you start yourselves internally. Banning people vocal about their dissapointment on your Discord server is not constructive.

Best

Ive followed INI for years. They built the A300 and Beluga in XP11 and it was an absolute benchmark. It actually saddens me a bit to see the regression. WASMs have plagued their aircraft for years. A310 was the same, the A300 is alot better but still the same..now this. There is a wider issue with the way they program their aircraft. One small error renders the whole plane useless. Its difficult to even nail down issues because it crashes for so many different reasons. Ive done about 10 flights completed 3 very short sectors. Each time I recieved WASM crashes ranging from importing a flightplan, entering a fix, to simply turning on the terrain radar. You of course can complete flights by not using some of the systems but thats not the point.

You are correct in alot of ways. We are now beta testing. There are so many WASM crashes accross here and discord now I literally dont want to touch anything incase it crashes, rendering a flight useless. Long haul is certainly out of the question. Im not dissapointed I spent my money, Im disappointed that a Developer who I have a great deal of respect and admiration for has found itself here after marketing this as a next gen realistic product. And when you have situations like on release where charts werent even available and the sound bug with the gear, you cant help but wonder is anyone actually testing this? Like thats bread and butter stuff and really difficult to miss. Its just odd. Or when a person mentions an issue and it described as "Placebo". Doubling down on feeback is never a good look. Its something that sets apart a Developer from a GOOD Devoloper. Its even more fustrating because the Modelling aspect is so far ahead of the rest of the aircraft in MSFS you just want to load it up a marvel at it. Its without a doubt the most beautifuly modelled aircraft Ive seen in any sim. Period. Its only when you start to use it, things start to fall apart rather quickly in alot of cases. 

I dont expect a bulletpoof product and I agree with Pablo about it being a moving development title, all products are. But when I can jump into a 1/3 complete FBW380 and know with a degree of certainty that it will last 8hrs punishment....and no amount of any button pushing will upset it, with a brilliant Flight model, Superb modelling with many of the features like BTV, OANS, (beginings of an OINS as of a few days ago) etc for exactly £0 (And thats a development version that should be full of bugs) you know somethings not right. I did the return flight of a WASM crash A350 flight in the 380 and it was something of a relief to be back in something that just works. I really think you guys need to nail down your programming before you bring anything else to the market. These WASM crashes have been around literally years. There is no other addon that freezes as frequently as yours. Id say on average 30/40% of INI aircraft flights Ive done across the board over the years (Excluding XP11) have ended in WASM freezes which is why I end up flying them so infrequently. In XP11 I flew the A300 almost exclusivley, in MSFS I dont want to touch it.

Would be a real shame to undo the hard work youve done up until now. Sorry to be a downer. I dont wanna see a developer undo its legacy, certainly not one I like. But theres a real danger of that unless you guys tighten up your belts. The flightsim community can be a pretty toxic place at times but there is a degree of justification to the disatifaction. I really hope you guys can turn it around. Its a really strong foundation of a product. 

[davidwarrior]

Improvements I have on my list:

1. The flap and spoiler levers don't have an animation when they are toggled by a button press which is either commanded from a keyboard or joystick. In my case F8 selects Flaps full position and / key gives full spoilers. In this case these controls move from up position to the end without being slowly transitioned as it is done by on PMDG planes.

2.  By default MSFS view in case I want to turn on the VHF2 speaker the flap lever gets highlighted (might be due to being a big click spot).

3. 8X time speed for long routes which should be used without clicking on Auto time compression on the OIS (let it be sim controlled).

4. A little more customized OIS. Having a different background for example. On the load sheet page the number of passengers (first, business, economy) and number of cargo should be given as well instead having just ZFW and fuel quantity.

5. Outside AFT wing view the sound is a bit better since the latest patch but still has a high pitch in my opinion.

[unairspace]

Overall bad FPS is the number one factor that keeps me away of the A350.

Edited Tuesday at 11:40 PM by unairspace

[RTK1972]

any chance we will see a compressing landing gear ? That this feature is missing is really not acceptable for a 2025 product...