Hey fellow TriStar fans,

I’ve been deep-diving into the new IniBuilds L-1011 for MSFS 2024 since release day, testing it thoroughly against the real Delta Airlines L-1011 Pilots Operating Manual (normal, abnormal & emergency sections).

I’m sharing this as constructive feedback so the community knows exactly what to expect right now. This detailed list should help highlight areas that still need attention. If any of the IniBuilds team or beta testers see this and want screenshots, more context from the Delta POH, or a walk-through of the real procedures, feel free to reach out — I’d be happy to share everything I’ve found.

Quick note: I had planned to start filming a full expert-level procedural tutorial series on this aircraft tomorrow on my youtube channel Joshua757, but with so many systems not behaving as they should per the real Delta manual, I am not sure if I should. 

Unfortunately, I’m quite disappointed with the current systems depth. The visuals and flight model are solid, but it feels like the release may have been rushed. The aircraft was clearly not ready in my opinion. Here’s the full list of discrepancies I found (all verified against the Delta POH):

Electrical / APU / Standby Power

• Battery condition light does not illuminate when the battery is the only source for standby power
• APU low oil pressure light doesn't seem to be modelled – should extinguish when APU power is turned on
• APU Logic Incorrect – “Don’t Load” illuminates before and during doors in transit. Actual sequence is doors in transit for 10 seconds then “Don’t Load”
• No option for APU field and gen flow bars to automatically illuminate as in the real aircraft
• APU KW/KVAR gauge reads zero all the time
• Engine Gen KW/KVAR gauge reads zero the whole time regardless of load

Fuel System

• APU starts even with Engine 2 tank valve unlatched and Emergency Shut off doesn't work
• Low pressure warning lights not simulated when tank boost pumps are on
• Fuel quantity test – total fuel and Gross WT indicator does not increase when test is pressed
• Blue disagreement lights for tanks 1A and 3A XFR, their backup gravity XFR, the cross feeds and tank valves are not modelled
• Tank 1A and 3A low lights don’t work during the test
• Fuel (low) pressure lights do not illuminate when tank pumps are unlatched
• Fuel switch enrich is not modelled

Pneumatics / Air Systems

• Pack flow bars and Hot air when latched illuminate even with APU bleed off
• High press flow bars illuminate regardless of whether there’s a pneumatic supply or not
• Avionics Air should read OVBD OVBD when on the ground
• Wing anti ice manual test with pneumatic pressure – does not produce expected OPEN indication

Fire / Smoke / Warning Systems

• S/O Panel Lights test incorrect – Fire detection loop test and wheel well fire test should not illuminate
• No APU fault flags remain after S/O panel lights test
• Engine TURB Cooling air test incorrect – pressing A and B test switches individually should not illuminate the lights
• Nacelle Pylon test does not cause the corresponding warning 'NACELLE OVHT' to display on the pilots Annun Panel
• Cargo compartment fire test button does not cause aural tone
• Smoke detection panel not modelled
• Galley smoke test not modelled
• Fault isolation data display not modelled

Hydraulics / Flight Controls / Other Systems

• Hydraulic ATM test position does appear to work
• With no hydraulics: 4 STABILIZER INOP, 2 YAW SAS FAIL and HYDRAULIC LIMITER PUSH lights should illuminate
• Brake Accum lights don’t appear to work
• Engine gen field close switches and generator breaker close switches can’t be armed beforehand for auto paralleling on start as in the real aircraft
• PRESS IND test – press pointers do not drive to the 9 o’clock position
• Engine VIB FLTR press light (pilots annun panel) does not illuminate when vibration monitor test button is pressed
• FLT recorder trip date not modelled
• Cabin pressure control fault light does not illuminate during manual outflow valve test
• Anti skid test norm and alt does not indicate test pattern
• Stall test does not work
• Glareshield DME test does not cause the fail flag/four dashes/four zeros test pattern
• Autopilot test – wailer does not automatically silence after two seconds
• Flight director mode FD synch is not modelled
• CVR test doesn't work
• Can’t do altitude alert test
• Pitch and roll disconnect levers do not light up when pulled
• Disabling the autospoiler by pressing the button on the spoiler does not cause the DLC fail lights to illuminate on the overhead
• Slat lock doesn't depressurize the servo that controls the slats
• Hydraulics – when engine driven pump depressurized, the ATMs even on auto don’t takeover to restore hydraulic pressure
• Mechanical Gear release compartment – not modelled

What has your experience been with the systems so far? Feel free to drop your thoughts below.

Cheers,

Joshua757

Aeronautical Engineering 1st Class Honors Graduate and Flight Simmer 

 

 

 

Edited March 31Mar 31 by Joshua757

Rather than being rushed, I don’t think inibuilds intended this to be “study level” on the same level as PMDG or Fenix.

31 minutes ago, Gilandred said:

Rather than being rushed, I don’t think inibuilds intended this to be “study level” on the same level as PMDG or Fenix.

Hard to tell. The price would seem to indicate they aim this to be mid tier and not a full simulation of the real thing.

But then again even their top tier price range product, the A350 is, even after a year of patches and improvements, still far away from a real in depth simulation of the real thing.

 

So my guess is that as usual the product manger at IniBuilds favours timely release over endless polish and the time to implement real systems depth.

 

As for Joshua's list: This is something they do usually take not of and correct and implement at a later stage to varying degrees of fidelity.

We shall see how it turns out in half a year.

Edited April 1Apr 1 by Farlis

Josh from ini said "I will be assigning these tasks to the relevant developers in the morning" in the discord to a response to this thread. My guess is that most of these issues will be fixed in the coming weeks.

14 minutes ago, Tengtork said:

Josh from ini said "I will be assigning these tasks to the relevant developers in the morning" in the discord to a response to this thread. My guess is that most of these issues will be fixed in the coming weeks.

I appreciate their willingness to fix these problems. But I do hope they would acknowledge the effort @Joshua757 put into testing all of this stuff - it's great work! 

They should have hired Joshua757!

But then he'd be JoshuaL1011 - doesn't have the same ring to it.

It's inibuilds...  it's not Fenix.  ini is like a slightly better Carenado, but for airliners.

43 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

It's inibuilds...  it's not Fenix.  ini is like a slightly better Carenado, but for airliners.

That's also my take. 

4 hours ago, Tengtork said:

Josh from ini said "I will be assigning these tasks to the relevant developers in the morning" in the discord to a response to this thread. My guess is that most of these issues will be fixed in the coming weeks.

Yes, maybe at the next hmmm, lets say 25 updates, just see there other released AC's 🤔

cheers 😉

Wow, that's a pretty comprehensive list!

Even if iniBuilds intends this to be a "mid-tier", rather than a "study-level" addon, you'd expect some of these things to work. The stall test, for example, seems like something that should be modeled.

Appears that iniBuilds are working on your list, so hopefully some of these items will be fixed soon.

I also sometimes have the feeling that the career history of Inibuild's team might be a stumbling block in their efforts to do real in depth study simulation aircraft.

 

Their partnership with Microsoft in building many default aircraft and some of the local legends might have not trained them the right way for real full simulation of systems.

The focus of these Microsoft Partnership aircraft is default depth which means aircraft without any failure simulation. If you don't have failure simulation you also don't need to really simulate stuff like the flow of the liquids in the hydraulic system etc. It's sufficient to build something where 80% of the switches do what they are supposed to do, the correct lights light up and the flightmodel approximates what the real thing does (which might be difficult to compare in the local legends if the aircraft are no longer being flown anywhere)

As a result the team got lots of learning in 3-D modelling but not enough in systems simulation. And this is might be why this field is the one where their releases still have ground to cover before they catch up to the developers who really have that part down.

 

On the other hand, if they see themselves as targeting the mid-range market with prices that do not exceed the 30-50€ range, then that is also fine. Before Aerosoft's decline that's a publisher and developer who also targeted that market, and one got some very enjoyable 40€ products out of that.

Edited April 1Apr 1 by Farlis

Excellent attention to details - you should be in most developers beta testers teams @Joshua757 !!!

THANK YOU !

OTOH, I can never expect much from INIBUILDS when it comes to highly detailled systems.

But they're great at caricatures of the real thing, and I like their caricatures of the A343 and A359 and A350 🙂

For details in systems, Fenix, FSLabs, PMDG and even iFly (I believe...) in the airliners field, or, TBH, FlyByWire, whoose airbuses were (we should remember!) the first serious offer to detailed modelling with their A32NX...

 

Edited April 1Apr 1 by jcomm

8 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

It's inibuilds...  it's not Fenix.  ini is like a slightly better Carenado, but for airliners.

Don’t think that’s fair.
 

They (Ini Builds) have produced some good quality add ons and have provided consistent updates for their products. I agree that they have a tendency to release too early, but with some patience you’re likely to get a good product with a lot of system depth. 
 

Kudos to @Joshua757 for providing useful feedback. Let’s hope the Ini team see it. 

2 hours ago, Farlis said:

I also sometimes have the feeling that the career history of Inibuild's team might be a stumbling block in their efforts to do real in depth study simulation aircraft...

I would be cautious making generalizations like this. To me it seems less a lack of skill and more a lack of "need" to hit this target or scope. Their addons are enjoyable and sell well despite not having every cannon plug modeled.