42 minutes ago, Farlis said:

But they devalue it enough to make it clear that it was and is not living up to the standard of fidelity and excellence one can expect from a 90€ Aircraft.

This is a good summary of what I have also noticed. And the systems seem to be simply scripted, the components do not appear to actually interact. It just does not "feel" alive to me. Had they charged 50 to 60 dollars for this I would have said it is decent value for money, but they charged over 100 dollars which is PMDG and Fenix level of detail, and this aircraft is simply not in the ballpark, in fact it is not yet in the city where the ballpark is located. It is flyable and it is not a terrible aircraft, but it was overpriced, it was way overhyped and it underdelivered. I am keeping my eye on it and I hope it gets to a level I can really appreciate it -- but I think at the rate we are going that will be another few dozen updates. I so wish Fenix had continued their development.

For example, I just started a flight. 

 

Bugs so far.

OIS Power Buttons don't work

ECAM ADS-TRAFFIC ON MEMO Logic is incorrect

When you turn on the Transponder it automatically goes to TA/RA on the TCAS when it should stay in STBY

MCDU Screens are different brightness to upper screens even when set to the same level

Number of PAX boarded with GSX does not match number of PAX on OIS Loadsheet

Entries I have made on FUEL&LOAD page for RTE RSV, ALTN, and FINAL, are reset when the ZFW and ZFWCG Fields are updated.

Selected ILS 22L in Copenhagen and it doesn't fill LS (Identifier) and FREQ/CHAN on Select Arrival Page.
 

 

This is 6 bugs before I have even started the engines.

Oh wait, T/O CONFIG TEST logic is incorrect. You can get OK for T/O CONFIG without having to wait for CABIN READY.

T/O CONFIG TEST is showing as OK on the C/L Menu, when you haven't actually done the T/O CONFIG Test, so there is a discrepancy between the Test on the ECAM and on the Checklist.

So that's 8 so far and still on the ground.

 

 

Oh another 

Syncing values on TO PERF OIS page does not overwrite any pre existing values, for instance if TOW has changed.

9 and still on the ground....

 

There are far far more once you get into flight and start inspecting things such as the F-PLN page, for example,

 

ALT and SPD predictions that are just incorrect and don't match what the ND is showing.

Incorrectly calculated IDLE descent paths.

Discrepancies between manged econ speed on the PERF pages and on the PFD.

Incorrect MACH/SPD logic on the FCU.

Incorrect behaviour of DES speeds on PERF page when there are speed constraints.

Incorrect BTV implementation.

Incorrect naming of CHECK DEST DATA, it should be ENTER DEST DATA, and it should disappear once entries have been made in the requisite fields.

etc., etc., so many things.

All of these are very simple things that involve no diving into detailed system depth. They are stuff that should be correct for an airplane that is marketed and priced as it is. The are obviously noticeable straight away and should never have been bugs in the first place, never mind 13 updates in.

Whilst I laud the updates that iniBuilds have done, and commend them for their continued work on the project. I have to question why they are still here after so many updates, do they not know how to code the systems correctly? Or do they not know the systems in the first place?

I don't expect to pay this amount of money and be an alpha tester for a product, and be trawling through my copy of the FCOM and correcting the mistakes, but I do because I want the product to be as good as possible. But it is unfair.

 

And all of this makes no mention of the flight model and sounds, which I also feel are very much questionable.

Modelling - it looks awesome. I don't mind giving credit where it is due.

Edited June 7, 2025Jun 7 by abennett

10 hours ago, psolk said:

I can't believe people get so upset and defensive over @edpatino's question.  Really, we are comparing the ini350 it to OS's now? 

To be fair and credit where credit is due they are paying great attention to trying to get things right.  It's a stunning looker and in '24 has some great features I'd love to see other developers implement.  It really is almost a showcase of what 24 can bring.  In '20 it's meh at best and pretty obvious it was a late port back to 2020 because of where '24 was at the time of release.  I don't think any release in 2025 should come without a cabin at all...

Now with that said, I don't think I know of another add on aircraft that has hads 13 patches in it's entire release history.  At least I can't remember another top level payware plane needing this many in their lifespan let alone the first few months.  The 350 has required 13 and for some is STILL unflyable although if you read this thread those people are just making it up...

Why is it so hard for people to just acknowledge something rather than always argue what is a valid question.  I too look at it and think, "wow, that many patches since release for one of the most expensive add on planes out there is kind of crazy"

So people could just say, "yep, it's a lot of patches but moving in the right direction" rather than accusing them of baiting an audience or getting a raise out of folks to "get off"...  

Go ahead, flame me too... 

You can see what he was doing clear as day, along with his subsequent response.  Perhaps his little poem was original or AI generated, hard to tell these days.

Nevertheless his posts are clearly baiting the community and attention seeking.

Jase

8 hours ago, abennett said:

For example, I just started a flight. 

 

Bugs so far.

OIS Power Buttons don't work

ECAM ADS-TRAFFIC ON MEMO Logic is incorrect

When you turn on the Transponder it automatically goes to TA/RA on the TCAS when it should stay in STBY

MCDU Screens are different brightness to upper screens even when set to the same level

Number of PAX boarded with GSX does not match number of PAX on OIS Loadsheet

Entries I have made on FUEL&LOAD page for RTE RSV, ALTN, and FINAL, are reset when the ZFW and ZFWCG Fields are updated.

Selected ILS 22L in Copenhagen and it doesn't fill LS (Identifier) and FREQ/CHAN on Select Arrival Page.
 

 

This is 6 bugs before I have even started the engines.

Oh wait, T/O CONFIG TEST logic is incorrect. You can get OK for T/O CONFIG without having to wait for CABIN READY.

T/O CONFIG TEST is showing as OK on the C/L Menu, when you haven't actually done the T/O CONFIG Test, so there is a discrepancy between the Test on the ECAM and on the Checklist.

So that's 8 so far and still on the ground.

 

 

Oh another 

Syncing values on TO PERF OIS page does not overwrite any pre existing values, for instance if TOW has changed.

9 and still on the ground....

 

There are far far more once you get into flight and start inspecting things such as the F-PLN page, for example,

 

ALT and SPD predictions that are just incorrect and don't match what the ND is showing.

Incorrectly calculated IDLE descent paths.

Discrepancies between manged econ speed on the PERF pages and on the PFD.

Incorrect MACH/SPD logic on the FCU.

Incorrect behaviour of DES speeds on PERF page when there are speed constraints.

Incorrect BTV implementation.

Incorrect naming of CHECK DEST DATA, it should be ENTER DEST DATA, and it should disappear once entries have been made in the requisite fields.

etc., etc., so many things.

All of these are very simple things that involve no diving into detailed system depth. They are stuff that should be correct for an airplane that is marketed and priced as it is. The are obviously noticeable straight away and should never have been bugs in the first place, never mind 13 updates in.

Whilst I laud the updates that iniBuilds have done, and commend them for their continued work on the project. I have to question why they are still here after so many updates, do they not know how to code the systems correctly? Or do they not know the systems in the first place?

I don't expect to pay this amount of money and be an alpha tester for a product, and be trawling through my copy of the FCOM and correcting the mistakes, but I do because I want the product to be as good as possible. But it is unfair.

 

And all of this makes no mention of the flight model and sounds, which I also feel are very much questionable.

Modelling - it looks awesome. I don't mind giving credit where it is due.

Well mister software developer Ini has an opening. You should apply for the position and show them how it's done correctly.

8 hours ago, Cognita said:

This is a good summary of what I have also noticed. And the systems seem to be simply scripted, the components do not appear to actually interact. It just does not "feel" alive to me. Had they charged 50 to 60 dollars for this I would have said it is decent value for money, but they charged over 100 dollars which is PMDG and Fenix level of detail, and this aircraft is simply not in the ballpark, in fact it is not yet in the city where the ballpark is located. It is flyable and it is not a terrible aircraft, but it was overpriced, it was way overhyped and it underdelivered. I am keeping my eye on it and I hope it gets to a level I can really appreciate it -- but I think at the rate we are going that will be another few dozen updates. I so wish Fenix had continued their development.

You got charged $100, I'd be word not allowed too. You got ripped off!!! How dare they put a gun to your head make you pay $100 when everyone else only paid I think $89

24 minutes ago, Bigmack said:

Well mister software developer Ini has an opening. You should apply for the position and show them how it's done correctly.

The classic response when critical comments are posted.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

The classic response when critical comments are posted.

I will never understand this kind of comment.

You’d have thought people would have been grateful for someone spending hours and hours of their own time testing and creating reports and to try and make the product as good as it can possibly be for everyone.

 

4 hours ago, Bigmack said:

You got charged $100, I'd be word not allowed too. You got ripped off!!! How dare they put a gun to your head make you pay $100 when everyone else only paid I think $89

Yes, I apologize, I was writing in Canadian dollars; I did pay $US89.00, which was about CAD$120 and hence my statement. Nevertheless, the core of my assertation is in tact, $89 is $10 higher than the PMDG 777, so the 350 is priced and was hyped as a full-feature, high-fidelity aircraft, from which it is far from.

I understand the anger of a few users who were expecting something more advanced, especially because it was advertised as a hi-fi aircraft and a few people around here also took it upon themselves to support that advertising and the price didn't help to clarify it until it was launched and more discerning people saw what was actually sold.

The reality is that this is not a hi-fi aircraft, you could say it's a mid-level like what Aeroosoft addons.  Whoever enjoys that kind of aircraft will enjoy the aircraft and say it's all good. Whoever is looking for a high fidelity aircraft and knows what a high fidelity aircraft really is is hardly going to be happy.

 

Edited June 8, 2025Jun 8 by Aglos77

6 hours ago, Bigmack said:

Well mister software developer Ini has an opening. You should apply for the position and show them how it's done correctly.

What's it with you and your ad-hominem attacks?

Got some skin in the game?

Disgruntled Inibuilds Softwaredeveloper in disguise?

7 hours ago, Bigmack said:

Well mister software developer Ini has an opening. You should apply for the position and show them how it's done correctly.

I am a RW A350 TRI with lots of beta testing experience. Inibuilds does not want extra people with RW experience on their team. I know of three other A350 pilots that offered their services but got a “no thank you” answer…

Ini is the Walmart of scenery and airplanes.  You can find a whole bunch of stuff but none of it is very good, will break easily, or be of highest quality.

I know some aren't having any issues but as far as I'm concerned, Ini is the equivalent of Aerosoft - never again.  There was NO WAY I was going to spend that kind of $ on an Ini airplane.  I would have loved to though.

FWIW I enjoy the aircraft.

There have been regressions in performance through the updates, but they seem to get sorted.

There is much to do, but as they keep on it I can be patient. At some point I hope the fix the silly mouse wheel behavior.

I agree there was a lot of hype during release, but am willing to wait and watch development as long as they do not abandon the effort. If they do… all the verbiage will be validated.

Fingers crossed!

C

Edited June 8, 2025Jun 8 by cavaricooper

2 hours ago, Dreamflight767 said:

Ini is the Walmart of scenery and airplanes.  You can find a whole bunch of stuff but none of it is very good, will break easily, or be of highest quality.

I know some aren't having any issues but as far as I'm concerned, Ini is the equivalent of Aerosoft - never again.  There was NO WAY I was going to spend that kind of $ on an Ini airplane.  I would have loved to though.

How can you make such a silly statement. The Aerosoft A330 that released last year is still unflyable. They released 1 update, which didn't do much. And still unflyable. Ini has been responsive to fixing the A350 through 12 updates and folks still complain. You word not allowed about wanting all these high-performance systems and realistic systems and when they are incorporated, you then complain about performance and frame rates. Majority of the bugs in the A350 can't be corrected yet because of Asobo keep changing things. That's why PMDG has held off updating the 777 and the 737. At least ini is trying to stay up with the Asobo changes with the updates. I did a 3 hour flight last night in the A350 and it performed excellent. It loaded the cargo, fuel and pax and transferred everything into the MDU as should. it imported my flt pln and loaded it into the FMC. It took off followed the plan, descended to correct altitudes and landed without issue. That's all I want out of any plane that I fly. Don't need all the bells and whistles and cabins that has ash trays and window shades.

That's all I have to say. Ther's no satisfying some folks

4 minutes ago, Bigmack said:

That's why PMDG has held off updating the 777 and the 737

The only 777 not in 24 is the -300. That one was ready to go, but they had a naming issue in the builds that caused the marketplace audit to fail when they submitted the -200 and the F. They were expecting get that done last week, but the dev working on it got the flu.

The 737s they said they need to rework entirely because the code base is so old. The 777 was at least built with the move to 24 in mind.