Interesting that you saw this. I observed it on a short test flight I did. I “diverted” to Duluth Int’l Airport in Minnesota. Programmed the FMC for an ILS RW 27 approach. It captured LOC and G/S, but took me down far off course. I should have saved a screenshot from Little Nav Map.
I thought maybe it was a nav data thing, so I loaded up in the C172 G1000, and it flew the ILS perfectly.
Just did an 11 hour flight x1 sim rate with nil issues. Well done inibuilds on v1 of the aircraft looking forward to the update!
Make sure the APU is on and APU bleed is switched on. You can’t start the ngines without some APU bleed air!
Check all that but basically to start engine all you do is switch to A or B then start whichever engine and introduce fuel at 20%. Then do the other engine when the start button lights up. Once enginse on put the engine switch back to off then turn off the APU and APU bleed air.
Happy flying!
Hi all… just wanted to chime in if data is being collected on such things…quick test at the gate at KBUF with IRS alignment to realistic… IRS still not aligned after 20 minutes. Just a finding, not a complaint. Love this aircraft and looking forward to flying it maybe this evening, family permitting 
I flew my first RNAV approach last night with success, but it did something unexpected. Coming up on the FAF, I had full flaps and speed on approach speed in alt hold. I pressed profile to arm P Des. At the FAF it captured P Des and descened on the RNAV approach, as expected. But it also throttled the engines up quite a bit to around 160 knots or more when I had started the approach around 145. My weight was fairly low and this was a lot higher than stall speed or normal approach speed. Any idea why this might have happened? Is there a final approach speed I can set in the MCDU?
My wife says I´m crazy because I do the 12.5 hour flight from Madrid to Santiago de Chile in real time.
I´m glad to see I´m not the only one 
I´ll try to take the A310 to its range limit with this flight during this weekend. Sure will be fun!
This was actually on my side due to an app running and interfering. When just loading the A310 is works fine now!
Yeah, The APU I figured out the hard way. I was under the assumption that once I got one engine going, the second could be started off the first…not the case. I even verified in the manual to keep the APU going until the second engine is fully online.
Can’t under why I had to use the crank to get the engines going. What’s the purpose of “crank”
Just want to say a huge thank you to iniBuilds for bringing this amazing aircraft to msfs. Since su11 its the only aircraft I have been flying.
Frequently however I find myself confronted with the aircraft failing to descent when the glideslope is captured and the FD bars not showing a descent
In this case i just engage CWS and push the nose down to chase the glideslope from above, then the FD appears to show behaviour that its following the glideslope however it cause the energy of the aircraft to be mismanged sometimes
Is this bug? or am I not utilising the A310’s systems correctly? Thanks!
So when the Patch goes online in the Normal Version we will be able to load the Aircraft? Would be wonderful.
I have seen that cabin pressure issue as well. In my case, the cabin altitude was stuck at 1,000 ft (actual altitude was FL340), OFVs were full closed, dP was 12psi. I switched to manual mode, forced both OFV full open, no change to cabin pressure occured. I turned off the PACKs, again no change in cabin altitude.
Do you have mixture levers mapped to your controls? In case mixture is zero/off, this might have an impact. Worth a try…
I’m not an expert, but I’d be willing to bet that the g1000 is as advanced or probably more advanced and capable than the FMC in this airliner. It’s pretty old and I think they kind of modeled that really well…but on the other hand…I have experienced that drift. I wonder if it’s present if you do an autolanding? Both APs on?
I don’t, actually. I think I need to review the tutorial video. Regardless, I’m able to get them started!
I think you forgot to disable APU-bleed. It will leak cabin pressure through the APU (and without warning) when the switch is left in the on position.
Small ‘issue’ for the update patches @EllsGaming
When hitting STORM lights, the panel lights go up as expected but the dome lights don’t. Is that A310 specific? I would expect to all hit maximum lighting.
On my 8 hour flight today I took off with 56 tons of fuel and arrived with 28.2 tons fuel left.
That’s 27.8 tons used for 8 hours in the air at M0.80 and step climbs FL320/340/360.
So on arrival I had roughly enough fuel for the 8hr return without refueling (reserves aside - but I could have taken even 4 tons of fuel more with me).
That’s 15,5 to 16 hours air time with a full fuel tank and about 13 tons payload.
That feels too long for the A310, I guess it should require more fuel per hour, without having real life data.
In Simbrief the calculated fuel burn was way higher and the full fuel range limit shown in Simbrief seems closer to real world operations.
Any insights or comments here?
BUT the calculated EFOB in the FMC was absolutely spot on during the whole flight!
Msfs crashes when trying to download or input flight plan in the FMC
Any suggestions?
Love this plane, but can’t say I have noticed any performance improvement since the patch. Still getting 22 fps (limited by main thread) at the gate at CYYZ with identical settings prior to the patch, whereas I achieve 40+ FPS with the PMDG 737 at the same location with the same settings.
First load of the plane after the patch was still < 1 minute.
GTX 3080 ti
i9-11900K @3.50 GHz
32 GB RAM
Might be a daft question but what does WASM stand for? I’m an ignorant newbie 