I read this summary of yesterday's stream and it's pretty good and brief:

MSFS Addons

What we learned from the Synaptic A220's developer livest...

From a hand-flown approach into Innsbruck to a surprisingly specific list of what won't make launch day, the deep-dive stream covered a lot of ground.

I didn't like that they're not supporting Hoppie CPDLC at all and opting for a new system that's been developed as we speak.

Edited July 16Jul 16 by xsever

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

Synaptic is not doing an A380.

they are obviously talking about inibuilds

4 hours ago, Cognita said:

but still after the A350 anything from iniBuilds is at best on a watch list.

The A340 and Tristar launched in excellent shape though

They learned from the A350 launch. (Even though the aircraft worked perfectly fine for me)

Edited July 16Jul 16 by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, xsever said:

I read this summary of yesterday's stream and it's pretty good and brief:

MSFS Addons

What we learned from the Synaptic A220's developer livest...

From a hand-flown approach into Innsbruck to a surprisingly specific list of what won't make launch day, the deep-dive stream covered a lot of ground.

I didn't like that they're not supporting Hoppie CPDLC at all and opting for a new system that's been developed as we speak.

I agree. Posted on Discord somewhere it should be incorporated, or at least given a choice when the new one releases. No reason not to have it

2 hours ago, cowhide_95_day said:

they are obviously talking about inibuilds

I know. I just wanted to drive home the point again that Inibuilds is not behind this aircraft. It's like the Aerosoft A340-600.

Systems and flight model is Synaptic, Outside Model is by IniBuilds.

Edited July 16Jul 16 by Farlis

No release date but not like it matters. They have completely blown past the Q1 2026 target they mentioned last December so best to not do that again. Lots of cool features shown on the walk around however Stuff I don’t care for but it’s nice to have. Would have been happier to get the plane out faster and get those kinda updates like opening engine cowlings later. Harsh said they have been working on this for 4 years when in reality it’s been closer to 6. Seems everyone has forgotten about how the Synaptic A220-300 used to be in the fly by wire installer as coming soon back in 2021 before the FBW A380 was ever a thought.

The sounds are amazing. I wish we got to hear the auto throttle disconnect sound but we basically got to hear everything else and looks like we are finally on the home stretch. I’d be shocked if this isn’t out by September because it looks 99.9% done. I’ve been critical of Synaptic but I really have to congratulate them on the progress.

5 hours ago, Farlis said:

Synaptic is not doing an A380.

I know - that was in response to a poster saying they would never buy another iniBuild aircraft on release.

On 7/15/2026 at 2:27 PM, Tuskin38 said:

Some random things I wrote down

no HUD at launch, but will be added when the -100 variant releases

There will only be a single cabin config at launch, but they plan on doing more post launch

A220 does not have performance based VNAV, you have to set a path angle (this is accurate to the real thing)

And the EFB

also no weather radar (which is interesting because WT is going to have one one on their upcoming Preator :(

16 hours ago, RJ_FO said:

also no weather radar (which is interesting because WT is going to have one one on their upcoming Preator :(

Because Synaptic is accurately recreating the avionics' map projection, while Working Title are just using the default MSFS map projection.

Without access to a weather API, Synaptic can't create an accurate weather radar projection to match.

I didn't mention that in my post because it's old news.

Edited July 17Jul 17 by Tuskin38

5 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

Because Synaptic is accurately recreating the avionics' map projection, while Working Title are just using the default MSFS map projection.

Without access to a weather API, Synaptic can't create an accurate weather radar projection to match.

I didn't mention that in my post because it's old news.

that is a shame and a no buy for me, I understand that it is not a priority to everyone, but to me it is an important feature that I use when simming (and yes I know the radar on fs24 is less than accurate, but better than nothing). As I said earlier, IRL you cannot dispatch an airplane without a functioning radar (when weather is forecasted) . The team seems to go into great efforts simulating these systems in depth and I wish they had made the decision to use the default map and include a radar.. no criticism, just my opinion. I wish them all the best when the plane is released.

18 minutes ago, RJ_FO said:

IRL you cannot dispatch an airplane without a functioning radar (when weather is forecasted) .

In the sim the weather is neither accurate nor dangerous. So a WXR is still just a gimmick.

Once thunderstorms become dangerous we can talk about the necessity for weather avoidance.

31 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Once thunderstorms become dangerous we can talk about the necessity for weather avoidance.

Well, yes and no. It is true that thunderstorms do not pose a threat in the sim, and I doubt they ever will in 2024. But weather radar is still useful to me, and its absence here is another reason I will hold off purchasing the 220 for a while. I avoid thunderstorms, just like I would in real life. Whether they can substantially impact my aircraft in the sim is not relevant to me, I just assume, or more accurately I suppose, pretend, that they can and so I move around them. I plan my flight around them and I will alter my route around them, so I for one would like a working radar.

7 minutes ago, Cognita said:

Well, yes and no. It is true that thunderstorms do not pose a threat in the sim, and I doubt they ever will in 2024. But weather radar is still useful to me, and its absence here is another reason I will hold off purchasing the 220 for a while. I avoid thunderstorms, just like I would in real life. Whether they can substantially impact my aircraft in the sim is not relevant to me, I just assume, or more accurately I suppose, pretend, that they can and so I move around them. I plan my flight around them and I will alter my route around them, so I for one would like a working radar.

You could always just use the weather radar in the Asobo EFB

On 7/16/2026 at 4:21 PM, Tuskin38 said:

Tristar launched in excellent shape though

You're joking right?

Was borderline an early access product

• No GPWS

• PMS didn't sequence in accordance to their own guides

• Pressurisation/temperature flat out did not work correctly

• TMS was woefully unreliable, same for the ATS, couldn't be trusted for an autoland

• G/S capture was a 50/50

• Sub pages missing from the PMS despite being discussed in their guides

• No progressive-loading

• FE Engineer incorrectly configuring the plane

• Autobrake didn't work

That's just off the top of my head (I reported quite a bit more as did others), I'm grateful for the continuous support ini has given the product post launch but to say the launch was excellent? I hope thats a joke

Edited July 17Jul 17 by Lucky38i

1 hour ago, RJ_FO said:

The team seems to go into great efforts simulating these systems in depth and I wish they had made the decision to use the default map and include a radar.. no criticism, just my opinion.

The default WXR has an incorrect projection for the ND style used by Airbus and The A220 Avionics suite. Its not a matter of whether the WXR is accurate or not, the projection is the problem.

WT has access to things external developers don't which may be why they're implementing the WXR in the Praetor. They may be able to configure it using APIs that aren't publicly available to devs.