Airbus A350 Feedback and Suggestions

1st Official Post

    Hello Jan and IPACS team,


    I’d like to congratulate you on the immense effort of producing the new A350, which is certainly IPACS’ most advanced aircraft from a systems perspective. It’s beautifully modelled and the systems are wonderfully executed, so thank you for the hard work. However, I have some small observations that could greatly improve the quality of the aircraft.

    Firstly, the FMS is properly modelled but the text entry for the FIX INFO page refuses to enter certain fixes. An autopopulated « cheat value » cannot be entered even if it is produced on-screen. Values such as « KMSP17 » without an L/R designation can be entered, but longer names such as « KMSP12R » or « EHAM36L » cannot be entered due to the character limit which should not exist. In the FPL page, estimated time on fixes are not shown.

    On iOS devices, a strange grey texture flickers and covers the green status light for the FD button. I’m certain it is a bug.

    The textures seem to be reduced when compared to other recent aircraft such as the 737s, 777F, and Airbuses. This can be seen especially around the cockpit window during flight. At night, the « mask » has white pixels that pulse for an unknown reason. Additionally, hollow windows do not exist so the fuselage seems to be made to a lower quality standard than other recent IPACS models. The flaps lack a depth of texturing that causes them to appear unfinished on iOS devices. Wingtip cameras are zoomed for the length of a -900 and thus the nose of the A35K extends beyond the width of the screen at default zoom.

    The selection devices on either side are different. Can this be manually changed, as it’s extremely bothersome to interact with two differing interfaces.

    Regardless of the inputed cost index, the climb speed remains set at 300 KIAS. Why is this? (CI adjustment failed)

    Like the A380, the aircraft will not comply with direct V/S commands. For example, entering -2400fpm on the MCP results in an actual descent rate of -3100fpm without speedbrakes. Is this a mistrim or an error with the code?


    The aircraft is unable to sustain a level cruise above FL390, when the ceiling is FL410. I’d like to be able to reach that altitude on empty repositioning runs.


    The -900 (incorrect) wingtips are included on the -1000. Is this an indication that another variant is planned for an eventual release?


    The flap sounds are fantastic, but the slat motors seem to have a higher-pitched « G » sound in real life, but I’m not sure why. Additionally, the slats seem to have an extra notch in real life at FLAPS 4 when compared to the sim model. The ailerons raise at 100 knots from what I can tell, not immediately after touchdown. The APU also produces a strange humming sound in the rear cabin views and is actually quieter than those on the A320 series aircraft. Why is this?

    When using a thrust setting above 92% N1, 2 different notes can audibly be heard. The higher one accurately corresponds to the N1, but the lower (and louder) note sounds about 10% N1 lower and causes an odd sound. If that sound file could be updated to match the baseline sound, it would be appreciated. It’s not possible to discern the actual N1 during a flyby or tower view shot as a result.


    BTV is an excellent feature, but it has confused me in several cases. Is it disabled at LSGG? I can’t seem to set it there, but it’s worked at every other airport I’ve flown the A350 into thus far. (KMSP, EHAM, EGLL, KJFK)


    The seatbelt chime is quite interesting aboard the A350. From what I’ve noticed, it’s not possible to make sound using the « NO MOBILE » switch. Even in replay, the sound does not play when the gear are extended/retracted. Additionally, the « HI » chime, which is present on all Airbus models, is still not included. The tone is similar to a « G-D-B » cascade and is used during « MECH » or « ALL » calls from what I understand. Additionally, the sound is played on certain A350 models during a cockpit PA if optioned by the carrier. The volume is too quiet to the point that the chime can barely be heard from the cockpit. Can this be adjusted slightly? The gear « ding » may also be too quiet, but I appreciate that the seat belt chime itself can now be heard in replay.


    As time passes, it would be greatly appreciated if the lineup could be expanded to include the Airbus A350-900. The aircraft can occupy the same size niche as the A330-300 with a seating capacity of 280-320 passengers. Unfortunately, the A350 directly overlaps with the B78X with seating for 366 and 370 passengers respectively. Excluding fuselage length, flap size, and landing gear set up, the aircraft is practically identical due to the inclusion of the long wingtips on our A35K. Operational variety and the length of flights would open as well (ex. WSSS-KJFK, KATL-FACT) and airlines such as Air France, Delta (N524DN), Singapore, Swiss, Edelweiss, Lufthansa, Emirates, China Airlines, Iberia, ITA, SAS, KLM (please show some love to EHAM by fixing its aprons) in the near future, Turkish Airlines, Air China, Korean, Asiana, LATAM, and many, many more operators would become available. As a personal note, I will be flying aboard an A350 for the first time in June, travelling from Minneapolis to Amsterdam. I would be overjoyed to replicate the flight with the A359 in-sim around that time, but if it isn’t yet available, I’d love to contribute some source material. Given how much time and resources went into the creation of the new systems and sounds of the A350, it would be a shame and waste to make variants wait in similar style to the B737NG/MAX, B787, CRJ line and B777 for 5 years (Until the -F came along).


    Finally, there are some bug fixes that were excluded from this update. The ever-present erroneous FADEC of the B737 has not yet been fixed and the B747 still doesn’t have a working seat belt chime. Can these small errors be fixed in a coming update?


    Best regards,


    VolerSuisse333

    Kindly let me know your thoughts and opinions!

    Kind regards, good day, and bon vol!

    -VolerSuisse333

    This was useful up until the request for a -900 when the -1000 literally just dropped haha. But yeah if the winglets could be adjusted to look like those of an A35K, and personally i would ask the registration font on the BAW livery to be shrunk so that it resembles the same font on the company 77W. I’m not sure how the massive font made it through development but i would appreciate that to be fixed. Other than that, i can agree with the points made, hopefully updates and adjustments can be made to the 35K over time so that it does match quality of other models in the sim. I’m happy to finally have it though.

    Quote from VolerSuisse333

    As time passes, it would be greatly appreciated if the lineup could be expanded to include the Airbus A350-900. The aircraft can occupy the same size niche as the A330-300 with a seating capacity of 280-320 passengers. Unfortunately, the A350 directly overlaps with the B78X with seating for 366 and 370 passengers respectively. Excluding fuselage length, flap size, and landing gear set up, the aircraft is practically identical due to the inclusion of the long wingtips on our A35K.

    All good suggestions, and I also wish to see the A350-900 soon. No offense but the seating capacity argument is strange. You would then have to argue that the A220-300 shouldn't be added because we have the A319 or that the E175 shouldn't be added because we have the CRJ-900. The A350-1000 is a brand new aircraft family, which should be welcome either way.

    Quote from VolerSuisse333

    I'd actually agree with both of these as the aircraft are fundamentally similar and select airlines rotate them on the same routes.

    I think the argument you're trying to make shouldn't be based on seating capacity. Otherwise you would have to argue the A220-100 (100-seats) should be added before the A220-300 because there's no 100-seat planes in Aerofly. That would be a poor choice because the A220-100 has barely any airlines compared to the -300.

    Just base your argument off of popularity since the A350-900 has many more operators compared to the -1000.

    The A350 has many advantages. As far as the passenger cabin is concerned, I thought it would at least be an empty shell without seats,but...no thickness

    Quote from VolerSuisse333

    Not complaining, recommending improvements

    I had another read over your original post, and i find it hard to agree now. Yes the 35K has some minor flaws ie which winglet was used, livery font etc but i’m hoping those can be fixed. The arguments raised for other developments are absurd though. The -1000 was in itself a new aircraft entirely (ignoring similarities to the A388) but means that a -900 can be built in time. Not right now. We all understand that you specifically want IPACS to custom build minneapolis amsterdam and paris, and make an A359 for tomorrow, the repeated bold text to highlight your personal desires was really not needed 😂 further, the highlight of one specific registration for the delta suggestion was totally futile. I do hope you realise, although maybe not yet, that your repeat requests for one specific airframe constantly either stay unnoticed or do get noticed, and then ignored. There is no point.
    In a final respect, i’d just like to mention how you asked for a 359, which would be a shortened version (not just by the fuselage, but by wings, landing gear, and winglets etc, so that point about the similarities between both A350s was kind of useless as well given how the 35K differs so much from the -900. I struggle to understand how you thought that -900 winglets on the K meant the 9 was somehow confirmed? but besides the point, you didnt help the case because the K and the 9 have so many differences it won’t be that easy for the devs to just shorten the K and call it a 900, but back to the original point. The 9 is by definition a shorter version of the K, however you rejected the idea of any other variants being created in future? 789 from 78-10, 738 from 739 etc? I’m just confused how that logix applies to shortening the A350 and not shortening the 739 or 78X.
    Lastly, the 35K and 78X do not share the same routes with any airline apart from LHR-IAD with BAW, and just to mention that the A35K does in fact do LHR-HND, HND-JFK, and HKG-JFK, as well as DOH-AKL with Qatar. That should satisfy your long haul desires for a while.

    I found out other bugs during a flight. When taking off on a runway, an error displays on the MFB with the error NAV on taxiway or when I set a flight EGLL-KSFO, my FPL adds randomly LPMA (I did not went there before).

    other bugs in attachments.