Tom Wright

I'm on the fence with this one at the moment and have held off buying just yet. I impulse bought the Aerosoft/Toliss A340-600 on release and remember being similarly disappointed with the texturing on that, as well as that also only being a 2020 model non-native to 2024. I guess I've been spoilt with the Fenix, especially now we have V3, and the IniBuilds aircraft which all have stunning models and textures. I note from videos I've seen since release that they still haven't fixed that inaccuracy where when the aircraft is powered down with no hydraulic pressure the ailerons droop - this isn't an Airbus. There are physical mechanical linkages and steel cables between the control surfaces and the yokes so the ailerons will not droop down. It may seem minor but it's things like that which put me off and cast doubt in my mind about what else have they not modelled correctly.

I've just picked up the A380 yesterday and have had the A350 since release. I agree that the A380 is generally a step up, but the A350 as it is is still really good and will be getting updated to the same level as the A380 for free, so there's no reason not to get it if you want a good A350. As with all iniBuilds models the visual modelling and texturing is exceptional. I've not really had issues with it, or any iniBuilds aircraft. People love to slam them for issues around WASM but the reality is that they're really not as prevalent as it's made out to be. They're very system specific and a lot of the people complaining of getting them all the time are either running poor hardware or heavily modded set ups.

It's not a scam. It's just not as good as a lot of other products.

I often have moments where I'm just blown away by how good the sim looks. Approaches in IMC conditions with low cloud and breaking out just above minimums are particularly impressive. Frequently I sit at the gate after a flight and just pan around, watching the BATC traffic land and taxi around the airport to their gates. It isn't faultless of course but it is just amazing to me how far we have come from FSX (and even P3D) 10 years ago.

Tbf I only really have experience in PA28 and a Cirrus SR20. Both have clockwise props and require right rudder at full power - the latter requires a TON of right rudder. I think there's only a handful of aircraft out there that have anti-clockwise turning props, and most of these are historic aircraft (a quick Google revealed the Tiger Moth and Chipmunk do). I do have about half an hour in a Chipmunk years ago, but didn't do the take off and was probably too inexperienced to notice whether the reverse was the case with the rudder!

In my opinion the only MSFS single engine piston that gets it right is the A2A Comanche. For everything else (default Cessna, JF PA28 and Carenado PA28) they've overdone the weathervane effect and underdone the torque effect. I've never flown a SEP in real life that doesn't need right rudder on take-off, even in a strong crosswind from the other direction. You might need slightly more or slightly less depending on the wind, but it'll never go in a straight line without and you will certainly never need left rudder.

To be fair to him though we all wanted to see how terrible it was without buying it and he did that for us.

WASM = WebAssembly Module. Most complex aircraft in MSFS use it in one form or another. To put it simply it is a sandbox which allows developers to use languages like C++ to code various avionics and systems. Some like PMDG and IniBuilds use it extensively for almost all their aircraft systems. Others like Fenix use it only as a handle to link to their external application.

I really do hope it's worth the hype! One thing I noticed in a preview video which bothered me was that they had it all powered down and the ailerons were drooped down like an Airbus with no hydraulic power. The 757 doesn't do this in RL because the controls are still cable operated (hydraulically assisted) so would stay wherever the yoke is.

Really? They are drastically different (and inferior imo) to both the Fenix and the Inibuilds in my eyes. The whole cockpit looks flat and plastic in comparison.

Yeah I reported it, didn't get an official response. As with others here, my sim time is limited so waiting 15 mins to load a plane isn't really that great for me when I could be up and flying in something else in a fraction of that. Never had loading times this long with Inibuilds, PMDG, Fenix etc.

Glad I'm not the only one with the issues loading. It often stalls during load with the spinning circle and I'm never sure whether to keep waiting or abort and try again. It's the only aircraft for me that does this, and it's not just the initial load like some that compile their WASM binaries on first load, it happens every single load.

Normally you'll be put on a intercept heading and below the glidepath, so no need to engage any other modes. Once you're on a intercept heading just arm APP mode and it'll capture localiser and then descend on the glidepath. If you're intercepting the glidepath from above you'll need to do some V/S trickery to try and establish it, but this is messy and most pilots wouldn't favour this.

I've been on a bit of a mission to land on short runways recently! Key West, KEYW is another good one - 1550m. There's a really good new scenery for it by MK Studios. Frequently served by A319 and 737-700s. And British Airways have just started up a new route (well resumed after a long break) from Heathrow to Guernsey in the Channel Islands which is also only 1460m and designated Airbus A319 or A32N only. Same for Florence LIRQ which is only 1560m. Jersey, also in the channel islands is also fun at 1700m.

Mehh, they're totally usable, yes. But it does add so much to the immersion to land at an airport with high quality runway textures, and where the terminal buildings look exactly like their real world counterparts. I buy a lot of third party airports.