The braking action is very poor. I tried a forum search and found nothing similar.
No problems on my PC. But I'm using rudder pedals and the brakes work very realistically.
How did you use the brakes? Do you use rudder pedals or a button on a joystick?
The pressure is always at 1013 / 29.92
Hello Jan and ty for your support.
Possibly it is the cause. I used to fly with 100 CI. Which value do you recommend?
This is the issue. Don’t know why, but as soon as you enter a big cost index, the speed is way to high. A cost index of 20 to 30 works very well with the Airbuses.
1) Flex Temperature
I have noticed a problem with the flex temperature on some Airbuses.
| Airbus | Engines | Flex Temp. working | Notice |
| A319 | CFM | 🟢 | Up to 189° |
| A319 | IAE | 🔴 | Always TOGA power |
| A320 | CFM | 🟢 | Up to 189° |
| A321 | CFM | 🟢 | Up to 189° |
| A321 | IAE | 🔴 | Always TOGA power |
| A380 | RR | 🟢 | Up to 80° |
It doesn't matter what flex temperature is set for the IAE engines, it won't affect thrust and the engines will run at full power. That's why the climb rate is sometimes ridiculously high.
For the A380 is the max. flex temperature 80°. Is this the realworld limitation? On the other Airbuses it is possible to set the flex temperature up to 189° ... Whoever needs these limitations 
2) Derated function for A380
For the A380 it is possible to select a derated thrust from a dropdown list. But as soon as I make a choice, the TOGA option is automatically activated.
Is this feature not implemented or maybe a bug?
Thanks for your quick answear.
Is there a way to "change" the maximum climb thrust ?
As Jet-Packs says ... on Boeings you can reduce the thrust limit. On Airbus you can set a higher flex temperature. I usually set the flex temperature between 80° and 90°, depending on the terrain. On Boeings you can set a To-1 or To-2 limit to reduce thrust.
@IPACS Team
Thank you very much for the last Update v4.6.0.4 ! 
I noticed some blurry textures in the new A319 and it looks like I'm not the only one: Link to Steam
The textures are not as sharp as on the A320/A321 and this is independent of the livery.
Here are some examples I have spotted so far.
I see we have new detailed airports in China. Just to put the idea out there, the area around Emperor Qinshihuang's Mausoleum Site (Terracotta Army) has some ancient terrace farms and jade mines that may be available for a new terrain project. I don't see anything for China in the Flight-sim.org database.
Maybe orangedog433 is working on this project:
"Also, FlyOverAsia , jin and me organized a team for creating scenery and do some other mods for aerofly. Now we are trying to create China scenery images. Maybe we will release them soon."
No, not really. Here is an example of ZGGG. Global scenery is enabled.
Is there a way to create your own setallite imagery with better resolution around the airports? A tool like Ortho4XP?
The estimated or predicted time for the descent is in not correct. It shows allways the actual time in the FMS/MCDU on the VNAV or PROG pages.
Boeing (B787)
On the B787 you can also see that the T/D on the HSI is right in front of me. But on the ND the T/D is a little further away. Perhaps this has also something to do with the estimated prediction of the Top of Decent? Interestingly, the estimated arrival time is correct.
Airbus (A321)
Is it possible to fix this problem with one of the next updates?
With airways we could simulate real flights with the same exact route. The simulator would be compatible with simbrief, navigraph, …etc
Nope, it wouldn't. If you want compatibility with Simbrief and Navigraph, then you need a subscription for the navdata (plus Navigraph). Without this subscription for new navdata, Simbrief's database would get newer and newer every month. But the AIRAC version in the simulator will still be the old one.
Live weather would change the experience a lot! Routes will be faster or slower depending on the direction of the wind and how high you cruise. And it would also make flights in sync with navigraph.
I absolutely agree with you. But this has nothing to do with the AIRAC version or the synchronisation between Navigraph.
Now I know that all of the this would complicate the simulator for some people and it maybe wouldn’t be user friendly, but it would change a lot for a lot of simmers! And it can also be optional in the settings for people who like the simplicity of the game.
If you want all these "complicated" things, use Xplane or MSFS. If Aerofly would do the same things as Xplane and MSFS, why we would need another simulator like Aerofly? The main goal of Aerofly is to make things user friendly without additional subscriptions or buying additional payware add-ons. Just start the sim and enjoy flying.
I don't understand the discussions (here and on steam) about the AIRAC version.
For other simulators like Xplane or MSFS you need a navdata subscription because of the different AIRAC versions in:
To make sure that all your data is synchronised, you need to use the same version of AIRAC (usually the latest) and pay a subscription fee to Navigraph. 
With Aerofly you have a big advantage
You don't need any subscriptions. You only need one version of AIRAC and in most cases it doesn't matter how old it is because the simulator and all the aircraft use the same database. Planning a flight in Aerofly is so easy that you don't need a flight planning tool like Simbrief, because there is no fuel consumption and you can enter the SID, STARS, VOR's, NDB's and Waypoints directly in Aerofly. It's certainly not like in real life ... but this makes life much easier and saves you time and money!
If new runways are being added to airports, you can still keep it simple: Just use the old runway.
I think the A380 is quite light as of right now as It can land in almost every airport while in real life it needs quite some runway like 3/4 of WSSS while rn it only needs like 1/2 with M/FSX and at this rate i jst use 50% throttle for it to be realistic
Maybe as a workaround: Reduce the thrust by entering a higher flex temperature or by setting a thrust limit.
In the Airbus:
On the Airbus you can reduce the thrust by setting a higher number for the flex temperature.
In the Beoing:
In Boeings there is an option called "Thrust Limit". This allows you to reduce power by up to 20%!
The derated function on the A380 did not work. I think this is the equivalent of the "Thrust Limit" function on the Boeings.
And when will we get the option change the weight and fuel?
I think the core and advantage of Aerofly is its simplicity.
So you can load a flight, push the thrust forward and enjoy flying. Without all the calculations of fuel consumption (especially in windy or bad weather conditions).
In Simbrief, MSFS or in Xplane there is an option to set the fuel and payload. But I think most users keep the calculation very simple and by far not as in real life. So you don't waste any unnecessary time with Aerofly and can concentrate on flying.
I checked the maximum landing weights and gross weights in Aerofly and here is the result:
| Aircraft | MLW * | GW in AF | in % |
| A319 | 62,5 | 58,5 | 94% |
| A320 | 66,0 | 60,0 | 91% |
| A321 | 77,8 | 69,5 | 89% |
| A380 | 394,0 | 480,0 | 122% |
| B737-900ER | 71,4 | 68,5 | 96% |
| B747-400 | 295,7 | 285,4 | 97% |
| B777-300ER | 251,0 | 252,4 | 101% |
| B787-10 | 202,0 | 221,5 | 110% |
*) wikipedia
So some of the aircraft are already heavier than allowed. Especially the long-haul aircraft. And I think it was made to reduce the climb rate.
Perhaps it is a good idea to set the GW to 100% of the MLW in all the Airliners, so that the climb rate is not like a rocket (e.g. in the CRJ-900). And for the long-haul aircraft, you can add another 20-30%, like the A380, or reduce the thrustpower by a certain percentage? So it is not realistic, but a compromise between power, GW and climb rate.
There are a lot of great airports in China since the last update! 
I tried them yesterday and they look great. The only thing that disappoints me a little is the blurry satellite imagery around the airport scenery.
