New Atc software announced

[Grzegorz 11]

2 hours ago, pgde said:

Where does one obtain ATCAIP? I googled it and couldn't find anything.

Thanks!

 

[FSHud 218]

19 minutes ago, Grzegorz said:

FSHud controls the AI, which the competition does not. Unfortunately at this stage I have the impression that the control is done by reducing the number of AI aircraft at the airports there are less of them than without FSHud.  Some types of traffic do not show up at all I for example do not have ga and military at all. 
I read that the developers are working on it

There is no reducing of number of AI Aircraft - the maximum amount of injected aircraft can be exactly as set in settings (30 for parking, 30 airborne) to maximum (60 for parking, 60 airborne).

The reasons you may see less AI Traffic are following:
For the application it is necessary to migrate and then validate traffic aircraft schedules for Airports capability - especially if you pick up aircraft registration that holds about 50 different airports - it is necessary to validate aircraft capability for each airport by checking if there is capable runway and capable connected parings. This process can take several time
(up to 10-15 seconds).

This process happens only one time - the next times you will start application, already migrated aircraft schedules will appear almost instantly.
For now we are working on feature UI that will allow to give more light on all this migration and injection process - basically it would be some section that will present to user what was migrated and something wasn't migrated - all reasons for that.

It is necessary to understand, in default simulator engine - AI Aircraft is injected instantly without even take care if this aircraft can perform all of it's schedules at all.
Also - it was mentioned in another forum about how the application works and what it is:
https://www.simforums.com/forums/understanding-fshudair-traffic-control-traffic_topic64710.html

[FSHud 218]

2 hours ago, Grzegorz said:

It will be greate. ATCAPI is fantastic in manage runway operation. You can assign it as in use i real world. 

Eg it allow me to set correctly rwy use on EPWA airports. A greate thing in ATCAPI is that You can assign AC type to rwy use. Eg as on EPWA rwy 29 is for takeoff and rwy 33 for landingis but rwy 29 is to short for havy so in ATCAPI You can assign havys to use rwy 33 for takeoff. 

If FSHud will have the same abilitty it will be greate.

This sounds like a reasonable requirement.

But when you say "You can assign it as in use in real world" - well if the runway has SID procedure assigned or STAR procedure assigned, the only reasons it would not be used at all are administrative/season or ATC decisions.

My question is do you know what is used in the real world? If only you have access to this administrative information which many times is not published in NavData databases... And I totally agree that the user has full right to change those settings "just because it looks more fun for him to restrict one runway for takeoff, the other for landing for example".

What I'm trying to say - ATCAPI intention - is a workaround tool for default engine which is completely agnostic to NavData and procedures and don't have ability to prioritize runways for takeoff that has SID procedures over runways that don't have by specifying things in more low level (those runways should be used for takeoff and others for landings).

When FSHud selects a runway for takeoffs/landings those runways are mostly prioritized by following:

1. Weather conditions - wind direction and speed.
2. Type of aircraft to type of procedure - for jet and turboprop ac, runways with SID procedures would be selected for takeoff. Precision approach runways for landings while localizer precision approach has more priority - simply ILS approach on top of priority.
3. Taxi distance.
4. Runway traffic loading factor.

Those are most of the common rules in real aviation to choose active runways.

Besides - there are administrative and seasonal restrictions that FSHud doesn't recognize it for now

Edited April 29, 2022 by FSHud

[vadriver 252]

5 hours ago, Grzegorz said:

FSHud controls the AI, which the competition does not

not so .......... 

[Grzegorz 11]

4 hours ago, FSHud said:

This sounds like a reasonable requirement.

But when you say "You can assign it as in use in real world" - well if the runway has SID procedure assigned or STAR procedure assigned, the only reasons it would not be used at all are administrative/season or ATC decisions.

My question is do you know what is used in the real world? If only you have access to this administrative information which many times is not published in NavData databases... And I totally agree that the user has full right to change those settings "just because it looks more fun for him to restrict one runway for takeoff, the other for landing for example".

What I'm trying to say - ATCAPI intention - is a workaround tool for default engine which is completely agnostic to NavData and procedures and don't have ability to prioritize runways for takeoff that has SID procedures over runways that don't have by specifying things in more low level (those runways should be used for takeoff and others for landings).

When FSHud selects a runway for takeoffs/landings those runways are mostly prioritized by following:

1. Weather conditions - wind direction and speed.
2. Type of aircraft to type of procedure - for jet and turboprop ac, runways with SID procedures would be selected for takeoff. Precision approach runways for landings while localizer precision approach has more priority - simply ILS approach on top of priority.
3. Taxi distance.
4. Runway traffic loading factor.

Those are most of the common rules in real aviation to choose active runways.

Besides - there are administrative and seasonal restrictions that FSHud doesn't recognize it for now

Obviously what I have written is not from my real experience as I am not a pilot, nor do I have access to unpublished information, but it is from available information.
Such information as preferred runways are found in the charts of at least jeppsen/lido - I think most of us use at least the charts from navigraph. 
The vast majority of airports have their own runway preferences. 
As I wrote for example for EPWA: rwy 29 is basically only for takeoffs and rwy 33 for landings - but for heavy ones it is better for takeoffs, as it is longer, but you will hardly ever see category A,B,C planes taking off from it.
Similarly, in the other direction, rwy 11 is used basically only for landings and rwy 15 for takeoffs. Of course, you are right that even at EPWA, runways with ILS (11/33) are preferred for landings. 
What is used/preferred can also be seen by observing Flightradar24. For example, for EGLL, sometimes only 27L is used for landings, and 27R for take-offs - and then all traffic is used that way - and sometimes it is the other way round.
In my opinion, such a possibility of assigning in FSHud such "preferred" rules of using rwy at a given airport would be very useful. I don't know how others do it, but for my part, when planning a flight I use flightradar24 . I generally recreate PLL LOT flights of the B738 fleet that LOT has. From flightradar I take information about standard time of departure (STD), actual time of departure (ATD), but also information about gate - airport of takeoff and landing. I also know from which runway a given scheduled flight took off and landed. I also try to set the masses so that the flight level corresponds to the "real" one. All this I transfer to simbrief and load into the currently used ATC application.
These are the flights of the day, but on historical data.
I mainly have time for flights in the sim late in the evening or at night. I recreate a flight that took place at, for example, 5.00Z STD and I make it at 21Z and therefore use historical weather (AS) and flightradar data.
Currently using ATCAPI I can recreate what I wrote above - I set it up under the data of the particular flight I am doing in the sim.

So from my point of view such an option would be very useful, but it seems to me that also being able to set the preference of using rwy corresponds to how it looks in reality and will also be useful for those who can do real time flights with real weather from AS.
What interests me personally about FSHud is the AI control issues and how they behave like the user's aircraft - primarily following procedures and "actively listening" to ATC. It seems to me that this will also be preserved if FSHud allows you to set preferences for rwy use, among other things. Since recreating a given flight I will set for example for EGLL, that during my arrival d

Of course, this is my subjective evaluation

[FSHud 218]

5 minutes ago, Grzegorz said:

Obviously what I have written is not from my real experience as I am not a pilot, nor do I have access to unpublished information, but it is from available information.
Such information as preferred runways are found in the charts of at least jeppsen/lido - I think most of us use at least the charts from navigraph. 
The vast majority of airports have their own runway preferences. 
As I wrote for example for EPWA: rwy 29 is basically only for takeoffs and rwy 33 for landings - but for heavy ones it is better for takeoffs, as it is longer, but you will hardly ever see category A,B,C planes taking off from it.
Similarly, in the other direction, rwy 11 is used basically only for landings and rwy 15 for takeoffs. Of course, you are right that even at EPWA, runways with ILS (11/33) are preferred for landings. 
What is used/preferred can also be seen by observing Flightradar24. For example, for EGLL, sometimes only 27L is used for landings, and 27R for take-offs - and then all traffic is used that way - and sometimes it is the other way round.
In my opinion, such a possibility of assigning in FSHud such "preferred" rules of using rwy at a given airport would be very useful. I don't know how others do it, but for my part, when planning a flight I use flightradar24 . I generally recreate PLL LOT flights of the B738 fleet that LOT has. From flightradar I take information about standard time of departure (STD), actual time of departure (ATD), but also information about gate - airport of takeoff and landing. I also know from which runway a given scheduled flight took off and landed. I also try to set the masses so that the flight level corresponds to the "real" one. All this I transfer to simbrief and load into the currently used ATC application.
These are the flights of the day, but on historical data.
I mainly have time for flights in the sim late in the evening or at night. I recreate a flight that took place at, for example, 5.00Z STD and I make it at 21Z and therefore use historical weather (AS) and flightradar data.
Currently using ATCAPI I can recreate what I wrote above - I set it up under the data of the particular flight I am doing in the sim.

So from my point of view such an option would be very useful, but it seems to me that also being able to set the preference of using rwy corresponds to how it looks in reality and will also be useful for those who can do real time flights with real weather from AS.
What interests me personally about FSHud is the AI control issues and how they behave like the user's aircraft - primarily following procedures and "actively listening" to ATC. It seems to me that this will also be preserved if FSHud allows you to set preferences for rwy use, among other things. Since recreating a given flight I will set for example for EGLL, that during my arrival d

Of course, this is my subjective evaluation

First of all, thanks for revealing about your configuration and style of flights you are doing.
I totally agree with you that there should be such possibility to configure active runways.
By the way, for user flight, user can select any runway regardless to what is current runway now - because we as developers can't know what are user's intentions, so this options left up completely flexible.
As you've noticed - FSHud behavior over traffic aircraft is almost same as user aircraft and that is absolutely correct - ATC engine relates to user aircraft on the same level as to AI aircraft, the only exception is that user aircraft is a little more prioritized (just for user comfort) - but beside of that flight flow from gate to gate is identical.
Speaking of ATCAPI - I've tried to clarify more about intentions of using this tool, and it seems that you gave clear picture.
But looking on level of realism you are interested in - perhaps you would like also to specify prioritized procedures for AI traffic? Is it something that ATCAPI allows you to do?

[Grzegorz 11]

48 minutes ago, FSHud said:

First of all, thanks for revealing about your configuration and style of flights you are doing.
I totally agree with you that there should be such possibility to configure active runways.
By the way, for user flight, user can select any runway regardless to what is current runway now - because we as developers can't know what are user's intentions, so this options left up completely flexible.
As you've noticed - FSHud behavior over traffic aircraft is almost same as user aircraft and that is absolutely correct - ATC engine relates to user aircraft on the same level as to AI aircraft, the only exception is that user aircraft is a little more prioritized (just for user comfort) - but beside of that flight flow from gate to gate is identical.
Speaking of ATCAPI - I've tried to clarify more about intentions of using this tool, and it seems that you gave clear picture.
But looking on level of realism you are interested in - perhaps you would like also to specify prioritized procedures for AI traffic? Is it something that ATCAPI allows you to do?

From what the creator of the program wrote, ATCAPI was supposed to be extended to include SID, STAR, APP and some other procedures, but at present it does not exist. ATCAPI also improves operations and, for example, allows you to line up and take off when another plane is approaching to land, but it is still a long way off. Currently, I am not using fshud as an operating program, but I look forward to its development. I already wrote here on the forum, but from such highly anticipated options is the possibility of asking ATC to avoid bad weather and asking for a holding to wait, for example, for a storm over the airport - recently I listened to the A320 pilot's correspondence from ATC where the pilot asked 10 degrees left to avoid and then for holding  near the airport to find out about the situation and wait.

Thank You for hard work

[Grzegorz 11]

57 minutes ago, FSHud said:

First of all, thanks for revealing about your configuration and style of flights you are doing.
I totally agree with you that there should be such possibility to configure active runways.
By the way, for user flight, user can select any runway regardless to what is current runway now - because we as developers can't know what are user's intentions, so this options left up completely flexible.
As you've noticed - FSHud behavior over traffic aircraft is almost same as user aircraft and that is absolutely correct - ATC engine relates to user aircraft on the same level as to AI aircraft, the only exception is that user aircraft is a little more prioritized (just for user comfort) - but beside of that flight flow from gate to gate is identical.
Speaking of ATCAPI - I've tried to clarify more about intentions of using this tool, and it seems that you gave clear picture.
But looking on level of realism you are interested in - perhaps you would like also to specify prioritized procedures for AI traffic? Is it something that ATCAPI allows you to do?

By the way, I would like to know if it is possible for the entire planning process to take place before launching the sim. Currently, I start everything with simbrief (as you wrote, fshud integration is planned), then before starting the sim, I import the generated flight plan to the currently used ATC program, set the flight number (here it would also be nice to be able to enter it in fshud) etc. I start the sim, load NGX and only start the configured ATC, which is immediately ready for operational use. I don't know if it is technically possible, but it was more functional.

[FSHud 218]

6 minutes ago, Grzegorz said:

From what the creator of the program wrote, ATCAPI was supposed to be extended to include SID, STAR, APP and some other procedures, but at present it does not exist. ATCAPI also improves operations and, for example, allows you to line up and take off when another plane is approaching to land, but it is still a long way off. Currently, I am not using fshud as an operating program, but I look forward to its development. I already wrote here on the forum, but from such highly anticipated options is the possibility of asking ATC to avoid bad weather and asking for a holding to wait, for example, for a storm over the airport - recently I listened to the A320 pilot's correspondence from ATC where the pilot asked 10 degrees left to avoid and then for holding  near the airport to find out about the situation and wait.

Thank You for hard work

I've asked about procedures because once this option would be added - it's like almost zero development work time to add procedures selection as well - because engine supports it natively.
Regarding line up and takeoff when other aircraft approaches - FSHud continuously calculates conflicts/collisions forecasts, if according those forecasting calculations you are able to line up and takeoff while approaching aircraft has enough separation from you - FSHud will permit you to lineup and takeoff.
Regarding deviations (for weather condition) and holdings - something would be added in future.
 

[FSHud 218]

6 minutes ago, Grzegorz said:

By the way, I would like to know if it is possible for the entire planning process to take place before launching the sim. Currently, I start everything with simbrief (as you wrote, fshud integration is planned), then before starting the sim, I import the generated flight plan to the currently used ATC program, set the flight number (here it would also be nice to be able to enter it in fshud) etc. I start the sim, load NGX and only start the configured ATC, which is immediately ready for operational use. I don't know if it is technically possible, but it was more functional.

We are currently brainstorming about how to make integration with SimBrief - so I don't have the clear answer for now.
But I can say the goal is to achieve something similar you've wrote - because I don't see any reason to force user to "mess up" with FSHud Flight Planning.
FSHud Flight Planning system intended to be ATC Flight Apply system and not Flight Planner.

[Grzegorz 11]

7 hours ago, FSHud said:

We are currently brainstorming about how to make integration with SimBrief - so I don't have the clear answer for now.
But I can say the goal is to achieve something similar you've wrote - because I don't see any reason to force user to "mess up" with FSHud Flight Planning.
FSHud Flight Planning system intended to be ATC Flight Apply system and not Flight Planner.

Thanks for all the information and listening to the comments and suggestions. 
The flight planning process in FSHud is one of the reasons why I don't use it every day, but the future looks very promising.
If I may, another suggestion is to be able to abandon the window in favor of selection by keys - the program I currently use relies on keys to assign examples of 0 to clarance contact, etc. Basically ATC only I can hear, but I don't see any windows which is the way it is. In FSHud I have to have a window open to click the contact option. This option would be very functional. 

Thanks again for your great work and wonderful support
 

[Grzegorz 11]

15 hours ago, FSHud said:

There is no reducing of number of AI Aircraft - the maximum amount of injected aircraft can be exactly as set in settings (30 for parking, 30 airborne) to maximum (60 for parking, 60 airborne).

The reasons you may see less AI Traffic are following:
For the application it is necessary to migrate and then validate traffic aircraft schedules for Airports capability - especially if you pick up aircraft registration that holds about 50 different airports - it is necessary to validate aircraft capability for each airport by checking if there is capable runway and capable connected parings. This process can take several time
(up to 10-15 seconds).

This process happens only one time - the next times you will start application, already migrated aircraft schedules will appear almost instantly.
For now we are working on feature UI that will allow to give more light on all this migration and injection process - basically it would be some section that will present to user what was migrated and something wasn't migrated - all reasons for that.

It is necessary to understand, in default simulator engine - AI Aircraft is injected instantly without even take care if this aircraft can perform all of it's schedules at all.
Also - it was mentioned in another forum about how the application works and what it is:
https://www.simforums.com/forums/understanding-fshudair-traffic-control-traffic_topic64710.html

Thanks for the link. This is where I don't quite understand the information about data requirements in traffic bgl and airports. I have actually been using traffic from AIG for years (bgl only.) The people at AIG do a professional job and create quality traffic. Likewise the military traffic from MAIW. 
As I understand it FSHud needs from such bgl information about takeoff and landing airport, departure and arrival time the rest is generated by itself and manages each specific flight. In my understanding in the sim will be what FSHud is able to generate based on selected data from bgl.
Similarly with airports. Here I also use AFCAD, which are modified by people from AIG just to be available gates / parking lots and properly assigned. In fact, at all airports that I use I have AIG modified AFCAD. I fly to large major airports and here there should be no problem as you write with the availability of runways, gates, etc.
In fact, at EGLL for example, if I have 10 planes coming in for landing, ATC will hold some of them to handle it all. Somewhere on YouTube I saw a video of three planes waiting in the hold for the approach to LHR at different altitudes, and the next ones were already on the approach. The question is whether FSHud also simulates it in this way.
However, I totally do not understand the lack of military traffic. I have this one from MAIW and everything is based on bgl. By the way, I wonder if the problem is not using TNG and fictional points based on AFCAD in flight plans to simulate e.g. refueling operations in the air, or bomb disposal. Many of the plans from MAIW include TNG.

I am glad that you are working on this topic so that FSHud supports a little more AI.
Thanks again for your work

[FSHud 218]

2 hours ago, Grzegorz said:

Thanks for all the information and listening to the comments and suggestions. 
The flight planning process in FSHud is one of the reasons why I don't use it every day, but the future looks very promising.
If I may, another suggestion is to be able to abandon the window in favor of selection by keys - the program I currently use relies on keys to assign examples of 0 to clarance contact, etc. Basically ATC only I can hear, but I don't see any windows which is the way it is. In FSHud I have to have a window open to click the contact option. This option would be very functional. 

Thanks again for your great work and wonderful support
 

This option already exist - you can select shortcut key or joystick button for menu options and window show/hide

[vadriver 252]

2 hours ago, Grzegorz said:

Similarly with airports. Here I also use AFCAD, which are modified by people from AIG just to be available gates / parking lots and properly assigned. In fact, at all airports that I use I have AIG modified AFCAD. I fly to large major airports and here there should be no problem as you write with the availability of runways, gates, etc.
In fact, at EGLL for example, if I have 10 planes coming in for landing, ATC will hold some of them to handle it all

sounds like a good ATC addon ... ??

[Shomron 251]

Any comments from users on the actual ATC operation? SID/STAR handling, vectoring to approach etc..?

Assuming the program also includes these