17 minutes ago, lagos_flyer said:

ini have simply filled a market gap.

Which I thank them for. 

And they developed quite some fresh quality of life features. 

Nontheless they put themselves in a price range where I expect deeper system modelling than they provide. 

 

7 hours ago, Simon_C said:

Um yeah, why would I do that? They explicitly noted as compatible with Navigraph. Tested day before release. With Navigraph.

Sorry, my understanding here is short.

It's still compatible....you just have to "recycle" it...Not a big issue

For the Fenix stuff - well, make a better version and I’ll buy it. There’s only one A350 out there so naturally we have to put up with whatever flaws it has. 
 

and sure, it’s not study level but it’s fun! And I’d wager that the vast majority of simmers are happy with fun. 
 

just a bad look from the Fenix team running down another dev that brought a pretty great plane to market. I mean this isn’t Bredok level broken, it’s a good product. You can argue pricing or features or study level.. but it’s not a scam. 

Edited February 27, 20251 yr by JonathanC

Fenix should spend less time being jealous of far more financially successful developers and more time developing an A320 that doesn't float like a balloon in the flare.

7 minutes ago, JonathanC said:

 

just a bad look from the Fenix team running down another dev that brought a pretty great plane to market. I mean this isn’t Bredok level broken, it’s a good product. You can argue pricing or features or study level.. but it’s not a scam. 

Fenix isn't" running it down", he is just pointing out what it lacks.  Big difference. 

For me on 2020 - A350 runs fine and performance is steady and runs a lot better then Fenix. There is one or two minor glitches such as terminal charts (navigraph) does not work and some errors with the sounds (inibuilds are aware & there is already a fix in work for that). Other then that a spot on aircraft to fly - did one flight yesterday from Toulouse. A lot better then FBW A380 which is performance killer. Having no cabin for me makes no difference to me as I spend my time on flight deck as a pilot not in the cabin.  

I am planning on buying the A350 tomorrow. 
 

What I can’t decide is should I update 2024 to SU1 and use 2024 or install it in 2020 until SU1 full release. 
 

Has anyone tried it in both sims?  What are your experiences if you have?

Thanks 

I really didn't know what Inibuilds was selling yet, thanks to Fenix, now I do. The reflection of this guy I have already heard from other developers, to what extent, commercially speaking, is it worth launching a high-level product today if with something that simply looks like it you make proportionally much more money.

On the one hand, if you can really fly the aircraft with the ADRIS off then that is a pretty poor implementation of the 350.  Is that actually true?

On the other hand, I suspect the vast majority of the market for MSFS addons are not looking for FENIX or PMDG level simulations. The majority, are not engineers, not pilots, they are just people who want to experience what it might be like to pilot an aircraft on a mission from point A to point B. Even those who want the comfort of knowing that the simulation is accurate and has depth, I suspect do not use that depth very often.  I remember PMDG commenting on how so few people used the failure module in the 747 and kind of encouraging people to try it out. But I don't think many people do this, and if they do, it is once or twice to see how it works. Most seem to want to get in an aircraft, go through the flows, and complete a flight from A to B, recording it in their flight log.  So in this sense, iniBuilds is providing aircraft to that market. The 300 and 350 are not just shells of an aircraft with Frankenstein systems, they are thoughtfully built out, but they are also not this engineering level, high fidelity airline that a few in the craft try to make--Leonardo, PMDG, FSLabs and Fenix.

Is that not ok? Do we have to be sad about that? Given the time it takes to make these aircraft -- PMDG have released 2 types and a few variants in 5 years and not a single complete new airframe in over a decade; FSLabs has released the A321 after years of effort, building on many earlier years; Learnardo has completed 1 type and 4 variants; and FENIX has in the past 5 years completed 1 type. So if the only acceptable airliner is at this level then we will have precious few choices.

25 minutes ago, Cognita said:

Is that not ok?

I think it's perfectly fine. But not at the price tag.

Remember Aerosoft? Back when they where kind of making good products?

Their Airbus fleet was a perfect example of what you describe. Decently capable, with some stupid design decisions thrown in there, like tieing the FBW system to FPS, and overall a good representation of the Airbus narrowbodies without deep systems modelling. And they were appropriately priced. They were always transparent about who they were geared towards and why that made them less expensive than the full study level aircraft that PMDG made at that time.

 

Now the A350 seems to be in that category as well with a few added extras. Yet it is priced like a study level aircraft. And THAT is not okay.

 

For example I ran into a quirk today that I don't expect from a 89€ add on: After an AP disconnect in cruise I had to navigate myself back on track and did so with the help of the "Direct To" function. As a result the wind data of the whole route is lost and the aircraft can no longer compute how long the rest of the flight will take.

At this price range that is unacceptable. I can forgive a 40€ aircraft such behaviour but not one like this.

Edited February 27, 20251 yr by Farlis

1 hour ago, Claudius_ said:

In my opinion it's not correct to see a dev attacking another dev, because everyone has its own flaws (see that A320 floating like a glider when landing, and flying on the rails?). He who has a glass roof should not throw stones.

Like fenix would have been the first to make an aircraft that already has a version by another dev. The reason the ini a350 is being talked about so much is that it is new and it has no modern built competitor. If a studio had built a really good 787 id have got it. Fenix airbus works in fs2024, all i ever hear is how good fenix are. Well they should have put their money and resources where their mouth is. Quite bizarre to hear a dev saying stuff like this after another teams project comes to fruition. I dont care who builds the planes, if they are decent and i want it, i buy it.

It appears that the Inibuilds A350(900/1000) is priced around the same level as:

Fenix A320 + A319+A321 + IAE/CFM WL/SL variants
TFDI Design MD-11
Toliss A330-900

All of which have superb systems modelling.

Also, regarding the ToLiss, we were assured addons on MSFS would be cheaper due to a larger market - what happened there then, especially when you consider the Ini A350 is designed to appeal to that broader market by being less complex than a "study level" A350 would be.

Edited February 27, 20251 yr by FPVSteve
maffs

Well yikes :), didn't see the Fenix vs iniBuilds drama coming 😅.

All I can say is, I wish no developer ever decides against working on something they are planning (or would love) to do, especially something that is going to take time to develop in order to be deeply simulated, just because another developer might be quicker to market with the same aircraft etc.
 

Edited February 27, 20251 yr by lwt1971

this is the last I'll post on it, you people have fun

36 minutes ago, Cognita said:

On the one hand, if you can really fly the aircraft with the ADRIS off then that is a pretty poor implementation of the 350.  Is that actually true?

On the other hand, I suspect the vast majority of the market for MSFS addons are not looking for FENIX or PMDG level simulations. The majority, are not engineers, not pilots, they are just people who want to experience what it might be like to pilot an aircraft on a mission from point A to point B. 

This is what Captain Sim counts on.