HEllo,


i've noticed that i always landed below the planned Simbrief flight plan EFOB even with fuel offset of +10%

I dont know if the Ini 380 consume for fuel than irl or if the simbref profile is not accurate

seems that i need to add an offset of +20%

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback! The team is currently adjusting the values of our simbrief profile, based on user feedback!

I should have more news about that, hopefully soon.

Thanks again!

My example. I prepared route OMDB SBGR, flt time 14.30, but after import OFP to 380, I recieved msg "DES FOB" and there was a fuel deficit 33,4 t. During flight the deficite reduced to 27,8 t and finally fuel run out about 2h30mins before landing

https://dispatch.simbrief.com/briefing/186778927

Edited September 20Sep 20 by Sarmat2306

Second this, had to reimport my fuel in cruise just to stay above this des EFOB message

I've observed that the consumption seems a lot lower than planned at CI200:

Estimate at T/C:/D:

Close to T/D:

Yes, same here.

hello,

Efob seems to be calculated without stepclimb profile inserted.

From my personnal experience the good offset is +5%

Stephane

I have noticed that a higher cost index results in a higher EFOB, even though the opposite should be the case.

I reported this some time ago for the A340, it's highly disappointing to see that it has not been addressed.

6 hours ago, sdlc said:

hello,

Efob seems to be calculated without stepclimb profile inserted.

From my personnal experience the good offset is +5%

Stephane

Can’t reproduce this. Inserting the step climbs does change the EFOB.

Same here, Standard A330-300 RR, always to less fuel. Even adjusted consumptions in SimBrief won´t get me there legally

13 hours ago, sdlc said:

hello,

Efob seems to be calculated without stepclimb profile inserted.

From my personnal experience the good offset is +5%

Stephane

me its +15%

I'll add to this, running CI60 I normally end up with over +15 tonnes more than what was planned..

There looks like there is very limited collation between the CI in Simbrief's profile and what the aircraft is actually burning.

There 100% is something up with either the planes fuel burn or the numbers simbrief has for it. So far on 5 flights I have tracked with different CI's I have come up with M06 M08 M11 M02 and M09. So it varies quite a lot from leg to leg. So there is an inconsistent disconnect between Ini's numbers and Simbriefs. But I do not know which set is correct.

On 9/18/2026 at 6:14 AM, iniKyle said:

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback! The team is currently adjusting the values of our simbrief profile, based on user feedback!

I should have more news about that, hopefully soon.

Thanks again!

Any news on this? As discussed here, simply adjusting the profile might not be sufficient, in fact even counterintuitive.

7 hours ago, spottersim said:

Any news on this? As discussed here, simply adjusting the profile might not be sufficient, in fact even counterintuitive.

No news to report yet. I will update this thread when I have more info.

Thanks for your patience!

16 hours ago, iniKyle said:

No news to report yet. I will update this thread when I have more info.

Thanks for your patience!

I did some further testing and noticed that the specific range increases with cost index, basically buying time for free.

Segment	Mach	TAS	Actual burn	Specific range (nm/t, normalised to 392 t)
CI15	0.831	484	11.06 t/h	44.1
CI150	0.851	496	11.24 t/h	44.3
CI500	0.862	503	11.28 t/h	44.7
CI15 (return)	0.831	485	10.99 t/h	44.2

really hope this issue can be addressed soon! the plane is excellent but this is really an immersion breaker for me and kinda stopping me from flying

Hi everyone,

To complete my report, can you all verify which engine variant you are using (RR or EA or BOTH).

Can you also confirm you are using the official inibuilds simbrief profile.

Thanks!

I have only used the RR and yes am using the official profile

I’ve tested both RR and EA variants, using the official iniBuilds SimBrief profiles (RR at P01, EA at P02). The RR has shown the biggest discrepancy for me: EGLL–KDFW finished ~14t above planned arrival fuel, and BOS–MUC was trending ~3.8t above OFP by final approach (~5% lower trip burn); the EA also progressively gained fuel against the OFP during cruise on BKK–DOH, although a go-around made the final figure less useful. In all cases the loading/TOW matched the OFP closely, and I’ve also noticed the FMS destination EFOB gradually increasing during cruise.

Hey guys,
I' see the DEEST EFOB changing in irregular intervals betwween two values. It's happening all the time within seconds.

Edited September 27Sep 27 by Leif

Thanks everyone. The team is investigating this behaviour!

So with the update 1.0.1 it got even worse. I gained fuel on a 7 hours flight of over 11 tons compared to the Simbrief plan! Yes I use the Ini Simbrief profile and I use the RR engine variant.

Before the update, it was inconsistent. In climb I used about 1.5 tons more, but in cruise the fuel came back and depending on the flighttime I mostly gained fuel. On short hops it remained as a loss.

But with the update everything seems out of bounds. I had a gain of 1,4 tons between waypoints with less than 200 NM. Very strange.

Looking forward to a solution soon! Despite of that, this aircraft is a masterpiece! Congratulations! Keep up your great work!

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.

1. After loading the aircraft I load the Simbrief plan via the EFB Flight Info.

2. 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.

3. I load the Flightplan via the INIT page of the MFD

4. 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.

5. On the NSS AVINCS page I click INI COM and enter the FUEL FIGURES and send it.

6. I refuel the aircraft using GSX and I also refill the water and do the boarding with GSX.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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!