I'm on the SU4 beta and the ini A350 is finally flyable as I now get an incredible 80-90 FPS (post FG) even in EGLL with detailed custom cabin and BATC at traffic level 10. Previously I couldn't get more than 30 FPS in the same scenario. Many people are reporting similar performance boosts from SU4.

Considering the reason that was previously given for not supporting sim rate >4x was "no system can handle that" - can this please be revisited? I'm still not using this plane as I don't have time to fly 12+ hours at 4x only. Other developers offer 8x and even 16x and they run perfectly fine on my system - even pre SU4. I could finally start using the A350 if there was an option for at least 8x sim rate, let the user decide if their system can "handle" it rather than not even offer it.

I had never a problem with 8x, even before SU3. Ryzen7900 and RTX4080. 

Edited September 12, 2025Sep 12 by frank_m

44 minutes ago, frank_m said:

I had never a problem with 8x, even before SU3. Ryzen7900 and RTX4080. 

There is no 8x in the EFB. And as far as I’m aware, using the sim’s native key bind 8x doesn’t adjust fuel burn etc so it’s all way off when you arrive.

That has already been fixed several revisions before. 

14 hours ago, frank_m said:

That has already been fixed several revisions before. 

Which update was that? I don’t recall seeing anything about that.

1.0.5 or something? I'm using it for a long time now. 

On 9/13/2025 at 7:20 PM, frank_m said:

1.0.5 or something? I'm using it for a long time now. 

I just did a test and unfortunately fuel burn for anything above 4x is wrong. I flew for 10 minutes on a straight heading, no wind with 4x (native via OIS) and 8x (via key bind and indicated as 8x in the OIS). Fuel burned after 10 minutes for 4x was 1,600kg, fuel burned after 10 minutes for 8x was 800kg. This proves that fuel burn doesn't work beyond 4x and you will arrive with incorrect FOB.

ini - any plans to fix this? My sim and the 350 ran absolutely fine using 8x via key bind (I could even use 16x without any system issues or stutters). Would be nice to either get native support for 8x/16x or at least correct fuel burn so we can enable it via key bind.

Edited September 17, 2025Sep 17 by Speedbird193

Fully agree to @Speedbird193. I do not have the time to have a long distance flight on sim rate 4x. 8x or even 16x is def. needed! Also is there a way to control thr sim rate without the ois? Doing this here is also a pain. I am on xbox btw and there it is a real navigation desaster. Thx

Hello,

Will bring this up to the team and we'll see what can be done. No promises however 🙂

Thank you 

On 9/21/2025 at 9:40 PM, Eddie said:

Hello,

Will bring this up to the team and we'll see what can be done. No promises however 🙂

Thank you 

Any update on this? Thanks.

Not really no. We have found the sim itself exhibits poor stability above 4x so trying to combat that is a challenge. 

15 hours ago, IniSteve said:

Not really no. We have found the sim itself exhibits poor stability above 4x so trying to combat that is a challenge. 

That’s odd, I’m using 8x and even 16x with the PMDG 777 all the time and never had a single issue in 2020 or 2024.

On 11/21/2025 at 10:44 PM, IniSteve said:

Not really no. We have found the sim itself exhibits poor stability above 4x so trying to combat that is a challenge. 

The wrong fuel burn at 8x is the main issue, not the instability. I have been doing 8x enroute and then manually input lower, estimated fuel quantity. This invokes warning on fuel burn to fuel quantity mismatch (correctly). If 8x fuel burn is a hard issue, maybe you could do workaround for manual fuel input without invoking warning.

On 11/29/2025 at 9:36 AM, FIN82_Heavy said:

The wrong fuel burn at 8x is the main issue, not the instability. I have been doing 8x enroute and then manually input lower, estimated fuel quantity. This invokes warning on fuel burn to fuel quantity mismatch (correctly). If 8x fuel burn is a hard issue, maybe you could do workaround for manual fuel input without invoking warning.

Fully agree - just give us correct fuel burn for 8x and I'll be a happy simmer!

Let the user decide if it's "stable" (and yes, for me 8x is perfectly stable using the in-sim shortcut...but I can't use it as it messes up fuel burn).

Is there any update on this?

Please, at least fix the fuel burn so it works using the MSFS simrate options for 8x/16x. I’ve still parked the A350 because I don’t have time to fly long hauls at 4x.

The frustrating part is that the A350 flies well for me using 8x and even 16x but the fuel burn is all wrong.

Either fix the fuel burn or if you really want to go all out, add 8x and 16x as options in the EFB. I don’t know why PMDG has been able to add this in their FMC for decades and it works perfectly.

Let the user decide how they fly and whether it’s stable for them or not. Of course the PMDG goes nuts when trying to take turns at 16x or climbing/descending, but all I have to do is manually select 4x ahead of a turn or step climb and then go back to 8x/16x on straight legs.

I'll see what I can find out from the team about this.

Definitely second this! I love flying the A350 a lot but I’ve been flying the PMDG 777 only because it can go up to 8x which is extremely convenient and shortens the flight sim times a lot. Will for sure permanently move to flying only the A350 if you guys can get 8x working properly  🙏!!! Please ini team !!!

On su 5.1 beta manual simrate at 8X works fine using the A340 on Xbox Series X and is very stable and hopefully can be added as a future update to the Efb for correct fuel burn.

I've tried 8x cruise in the Airbus aircraft you're building for 2024, and it was very stable during cruise, including the A330. The only drawback was the incorrect fuel consumption; if that could be improved, it would be perfect. 4x cruise is really outdated for a long-range wide-body aircraft. Admittedly, not every computer can handle that kind of pressure, but please add this option, because not all computers are incapable of doing so. This doesn't conflict with maintaining the existing 4x cruise. I really like the Airbus aircraft you're building, and I hope your team will seriously consider this suggestion, especially for the future A380 and A350V2!