Just layed out 71 quid for this.

First 10 hour flight ended with a flame out due to simbrief and aircraft fuel burn mismatch.

Simbrief fuel burn prediction and actual fuel burn are way off. Aircraft responds to flight control input like a fighter jet, using control sensitivties as recommended.

Poor first experience, not worth the price to me. 

Way behind Fenix and PMDG quality.

Once bitten, twice shy.

8 minutes ago, Bunchy said:

Just layed out 71 quid for this.

First 10 hour flight ended with a flame out due to simbrief and aircraft fuel burn mismatch.

Simbrief fuel burn prediction and actual fuel burn are way off. Aircraft responds to flight control input like a fighter jet, using control sensitivties as recommended.

Poor first experience, not worth the price to me. 

Way behind Fenix and PMDG quality.

Once bitten, twice shy.

The flight controls are apparently realistic, but I can understand your analogy, doesn't feel "right" to me either. As for the fuel burn - I've been doing a lot of long hauls with it (with and without sim rate) and fuel rate was always spot on. Are you sure you used the correct profile and didn't have any MSFS weather anomalies (like +25 degrees at FL380)? Or are you talking about the prediction page? If the latter, have you entered step climbs?
It's not Fenix or PMDG, but it works well enough and is convincingly "plausible" for most things, so I like to fly it.

4 hours ago, Bunchy said:

First 10 hour flight ended with a flame out due to simbrief and aircraft fuel burn mismatch.

Simbrief fuel burn prediction and actual fuel burn are way off.

No issues here. Make you're using the correct simbrief profile.

10 hours ago, Bunchy said:

First 10 hour flight ended with a flame out due to simbrief and aircraft fuel burn mismatch.

Simbrief fuel burn prediction and actual fuel burn are way off.

While I understand the error, do you not check the FUEL pred page or anything to make sure things are lining up? 

11 hours ago, Bunchy said:

Just layed out 71 quid for this.

First 10 hour flight ended with a flame out due to simbrief and aircraft fuel burn mismatch.

Simbrief fuel burn prediction and actual fuel burn are way off. Aircraft responds to flight control input like a fighter jet, using control sensitivties as recommended.

Poor first experience, not worth the price to me. 

Way behind Fenix and PMDG quality.

Once bitten, twice shy.

NEVER expect anything from ini to match Fenix, PMDG or Just Flight. 

16 hours ago, Bunchy said:

First 10 hour flight ended with a flame out due to simbrief and aircraft fuel burn mismatch.

Simbrief fuel burn prediction and actual fuel burn are way off.

Abslolutely not! You probably simply made a loading error and failed to check the values before push back.

19 hours ago, Bunchy said:

Just layed out 71 quid for this.

First 10 hour flight ended with a flame out due to simbrief and aircraft fuel burn mismatch.

Simbrief fuel burn prediction and actual fuel burn are way off. Aircraft responds to flight control input like a fighter jet, using control sensitivties as recommended.

Poor first experience, not worth the price to me. 

Way behind Fenix and PMDG quality.

Once bitten, twice shy.

Dude - have you ever driven cross country…? 🤣

It should occur to you that these things can (have) happened IRL, too.

There’s a reason it’s a requirement to have a couple of highly trained people laying around in the cockpit “doing nothing” for the entire flight. 

Ever hear of ETOPS alternates and similar?

Yeah - there’s a reason those are planned out in advance. 

And of course, as The Captain, it’s YOUR responsibility to ensure you have enough gas to get where you’re going, whether that’s your planned destination or not. 

4 hours ago, Farlis said:

Abslolutely not! You probably simply made a loading error and failed to check the values before push back.

Hi @Bunchy, yes, most likely, you made an error.

I’ve done several ultra-long-haul (14-18) hours flights in the A350, without any such issues. You must correctly upload SimBrief data first into the EFB, then sync the EFB data with the FMGC and the aircraft.

Occasionally, I’ve found it necessary to cross-check the data with that of the EFB, once more, just to be sure, before departure, probably caused by my own mistake during configuration.

BTW, after 10 hours into a long-haul (which requires patience and dedication…🙂…), I would not let the flight go into a flame-out, but would see if I can re-sync the fuel (mid-flight), and fly on to complete the flight.

It’s your choice, after all.

I suggest, you test with the A350-900ULR, the A350 with the longest range now in the iniBuilds line, for which, SimBrief also has customized flight plan and payload data.

Good luck, next time…!

Edited March 16Mar 16 by P_7878

10 hours ago, Dreamflight767 said:

NEVER expect anything from ini to match Fenix, PMDG or Just Flight. 

Yeah, ini's stuff is better than PMDG. JF anf Fenix beat them though

21 hours ago, Bunchy said:

Just layed out 71 quid for this.

First 10 hour flight ended with a flame out due to simbrief and aircraft fuel burn mismatch.

Simbrief fuel burn prediction and actual fuel burn are way off. Aircraft responds to flight control input like a fighter jet, using control sensitivties as recommended.

Poor first experience, not worth the price to me. 

Way behind Fenix and PMDG quality.

Once bitten, twice shy.

It's a shame when someone buy a study level jet and don't study, instead complain how bad the product is, instead of their capabilities pretty much suck. Try learning te plane before trashing te developer.

3 hours ago, Bigmack said:

It's a shame when someone buy a study level jet and don't study, instead complain how bad the product is, instead of their capabilities pretty much suck. Try learning te plane before trashing te developer.

I take it you don't agree, Bigmack?

I fly in real world too, ok, I'm not a line pilot but PPL. I have the same number of take offs as landings, my capabilities do not suck, I've always had enough fuel at arrival.

My point was, that simbrief A350 profile and the a350 fuel burn seem way off. Is there a 'special' inibuilds a350 profile any one could point me to?

Just my initial thoughts on the product, take 'em or leave 'em. 

 

 

It seems @Bunchy was indeed onto something.

This current version comes with another even more significant bug: Fuel consumption is totally out of whack:

https://forum.inibuilds.com/topic/35916-known-issue-weird-fuel-consumption-a350-ver-123/

 

And INI have confirmed it. So another reason to not update to Version 1.2.3.

Do they not test these before release?!

20 minutes ago, Farlis said:

It seems @Bunchy was indeed onto something.

This current version comes with another even more significant bug: Fuel consumption is totally out of whack:

https://forum.inibuilds.com/topic/35916-known-issue-weird-fuel-consumption-a350-ver-123/

 

And INI have confirmed it. So another reason to not update to Version 1.2.3.

Do they not test these before release?!

Imo iniBuilds is like a slightly better Carenado, but for airliners hehe

7 hours ago, Farlis said:

It seems @Bunchy was indeed onto something.

This current version comes with another even more significant bug: Fuel consumption is totally out of whack:

https://forum.inibuilds.com/topic/35916-known-issue-weird-fuel-consumption-a350-ver-123/

 

And INI have confirmed it. So another reason to not update to Version 1.2.3.

Do they not test these before release?!

did the new update come with new pointless eye candy ?  

 

7 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Imo iniBuilds is like a slightly better Carenado, but for airliners hehe

I'm using a fuel factor of P30 in the Simbrief aircraft profile, which seems to overcome the discrepency between the 'actual' and Simbrief predicted burn.

I also toned down elevator and aileron resonse to -0.4, it feels like it has more inertia now.

After my initial disappointment, I've completed a couple of medium haul flights in the 5 hour range and I can live with it. No WASM crashes either, which I believe have been an issue in earlier releases.

It's not PMDG or Fenix quality and should be priced lower in my opinion, unless they refine it overtime to become so.

Stu