ConstVoid

The article has the following before the screenshot:

"And lastly - we cannot wait to start showing more previews on what we've also been working on  For anyone waiting for that version - we are going to be offering a discount to all our loyal P3Dv5 Concorde customers once that product is available in the future!"

From that I think it's safe to assume they're talking about MSFS.

3 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Again, the program doesn't control the AI. They can't stop that from happening.

Yes they can. Even if they don't control AI traffic they can detect it. If they detect traffic on the runway, or on short final, they can instruct you to hold short, rather than clearing you to line up and wait. Sure, there would be edge cases - you could have got there first and be cleared to line up and wait, or even to take off, before MSFS stupidly allows an AI to use the other end of the runway, but in most other cases this should be preventable.

11 hours ago, Bad_T said:

with standard BGL traffic, it should work perfectly (it was developped for BGL traffic in mind) ... oh wait NO 😱.. it's MSFS 🤑 .... in MSFS the BGL traffic is completely broken since SU10 😥, the aircraft are not spawned based the date/time that is specified in the BGL files 👿, it's just a big bug that was reported but obvously no one cares @ms/asobo and i can understand that (probably not many people are using BGL in MSFS and they have millions other things to do and unless you use a specific tool like AIC most users won't even care/notice that it doesn't work properly 👀). So the timetables in AIC will show correct data base on the BGL, but it will not match with what the sim spawns because the sim is broken and there's nothing i can do to fix, it's just a game bug. I haven't tested this in the last 1-2 months but i'm 99.99% sure that it's still broken.

Thanks for this. I was trying to 'spot' some BGL traffic using FSHud's schedule display panel (in order to report some issues to them about weird callsigns for GA traffic) but could never find the traffic at the expected time. Now I realise it might well be due to the same bug - so I can confirm it still exists as of a couple of weeks ago.

I *really* recommend the earlier suggestion to watch the videos by 320 Sim Pilot - he's a real world A320 series pilot and has created a whole series of videos explaining how to fly the Airbus, from setting things up on the ground, right through to taxiing to the gate at the end of the flight.

5 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Add-on companies used to supply users with "tutorial flights" - PMDG and Aerosoft come to mind. 

Those have mostly been replaced by "youtube tutorials", many of those range from mediocre to worthless. Also, the way the youtube algorithm works, garbage floats to the top of your search. 

Absolutely! While I find some YouTube videos/series very informative (320 Sim Pilot for example) I do miss the printed or PDF tutorials. The latter were probably better as the could be adapted to produce printed quick reference documents.

^ This. And if you're not currently on an intercept course to the managed plan then you might need to do a 'direct to' as well.

Opinions differ re AF447, but insufficient training and panic may have been a major factor. There would certainly have been 'dual input' warnings on the displays to alert the pilots to this. Even in the B777 it is possible, with some effort, for the captain and first officer to provide opposing control inputs, such that the torque tube linking the yokes disconnects (by design). If that happens in a panic situation each pilot might not be aware of the other pilots actions either.

11 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Look at Concorde. Does it look like a 50 year-old design? Does it heck!

Not from the outside, maybe.

Regarding your other point, I'm not aware of any autopilot which allows contradictory input from different pilots, although most aircraft, even those with yokes, will allow differing input to the flight controls.

Don't forget the downside though. MSFS scenery may be out of date compared with the latest AIRAC, so for example your STAR and Approach may try to take you to a runway which doesn't exist in the scenery. I frequently had this problem when I was in China as part of a round-the-world tour.

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

I am really tempted to go FSHUD or Pro ATC SR, but haven't yet made my mind.

As a VFR (glider only) pilot IRL, which seldom uses the radio 😕 I have always dreamed abut being able to use a good ATC robot capable of doing both IFR and VFR, for the whole range of airspace types and associated ATC services, with the correct phraselogy and units used depending on where in the Virtual World you're flying.

Apparently both FSHUD and Pro ATC SR do only IFR, but does anyone know if either has plans to add VFR?

Also, Pro ATC SR includes a co-pilot and deals with emergencies? Does FSHUD do both too?

OTOH, FSHUD offers AI traffic control. Does Pro ATC SR do it too?

I'm not at all bothered with the voices I get... I would happily play a good flight simulator with 2D only panels (would actually prefer it, like I do Aerowinx PSX), and wouldn't minh having a single voice for pilot and controller (could even e the very same and it wouldn't cause any problem to me...)

Be aware that the developer of Pro-ATC/SR has been absent for a while, probably due to health issues. It's unlikely we'll see any development of the product in the near future. It's a pity as it has some nice features, as well as some long standing bugs, but I've now bought FSHud and will be looking forward to future developments there.

5 minutes ago, regis9 said:

Does FSHud work with AIG as well?

Yes - even FSHud 1.2 injects and controls the AIG traffic, so you don't run the AIG TC at all. I haven't tried 1.3.

59 minutes ago, SierraHotel said:

I already own an ATC product that interacts with and talks to my FSLTL traffic, it also offers me HOLDS, DIVERTS and a change of runways according to the changing wind direction. It also provides a host of different ATC accents according to the country you currently overflying.

Yes - Pro-ATC/SR is a good program, and with reasonable developer support it could be a great program. Unfortunately, as of SU12 I've had some occasions where I just can't get clearance to give me a response, so I can't even begin to fly. With the developer off sick/AWOL it's unlikely we'll get any fixes or improvements in the near future, or if ever.

Over the weekend I purchased FSHud. I've only tried the release version. It's has it's faults but the indications are that the new version will fix at least some of those. I won't upgrade until at least the public beta is available or even until release, as I can't spend as much time as I'd like simming so can't commit to provide feedback.

I'll still try to get Pro-ATC/SR fired up occasionally for now, but if FSHud lives up to the reports I may be moving over to it permanently.

4 hours ago, PebbleBeach said:

Constvoid,

Thanks for the reply. I’ve been a pilot since early 90’s so I’m all to familiar with FAA procedures etc. 

Sorry, I wasn't implying you didn't know any of the real world stuff, just commenting on my recollections of how RC4 handles (or doesn't handle) SIDs and STARs. As I implied, I haven't used RC4 for quite some time (firstly due to a break from flight simulation, then due to moving on to MSFS), but I always thought the way it dealt with these procedures was a bit of a fudge.

However, here's a quote from the manual, which may or may not help you.

Now is a good time to discuss one of the enhancements incorporated in RCv4. The earlier version had an options box titled “Flexible Dep Proc”. In RCv4, this has been replaced by a “Dep Procedures” menu providing three alternatives - No Altitude Rest, Alt Restrictions, and No Dep Proc. There is also a box for No Speed Restrictions. These are discussed in detail later in the document. However, for users of previous versions, “Alt Restrictions” is equivalent to the old “Flexible Dep Proc” option. What is a “Flexible Dep Proc”? A ‘Flexible Departure Procedure’ means that you will not have to integrate the DP within your flight plan, but you are free to go where you want as long as you are within a 30 nm radius from the airport. That is perfect for those occasions when you do not know beforehand whether you need to fly a DP or not, or wish to join an outbound radial. File your plan, wait to see which runway you are assigned, and use a DP as necessary.

Ray's obviously the expert on this and he still uses RC4, but I had to consult the manual to refresh my memory The 'no dep proc' option is greyed out if the first waypoint of your plan is within 30nm as RC assumes that you have filed a DP. The 'no dep proc' option is the default if the first waypoint is further away than 30nm, but the 'no alt restr' and 'alt restrictions' options are there to allow you to tell RC that you have a DP even though your flight plan's first waypoint is greater than 30 nm away (rare I'd say if you really are using a DP).

46 minutes ago, thomasl123 said:

Dear All

....this is a quote from discord of Pro/Atc from "constvoid":

 

With Thomas Drexler (The ProATC/SR Forum administrator moskito-x) indicating that the developer is suffering from burnout, I think it will be a very very long time, if ever, before we see any news/updates for the product. Someone on the forum suggested that the product could be turned into some sort of community driven open source development (like the FBW A320) but personally I can't see that happening. It would require the developer to hand over the source code to the community, and that would be a very big move for him - effectively cutting himself out of any future development/revenue - and in his current state I think he would see that as a very negative option. No - I'm afraid that for the foreseeable future what you see is what you get for ProATC/SR.

 

Here the link:

https://discord.com/channels/1013395312213250068/1019921028316659783

 

 

That would be me that posted it  😀 . Now I'm not so sure that it's just Mourad (the developer) who's having issues. Maybe Thomas is also suffering the strain of supporting a product without backup.

Yes they were, and RC4 even makes a nod to them, by allowing you freedom to do your own thing (ie fly your own SID or STAR) if you select the appropriate option and the first/last waypoint is close to the airport, but that's still not fully supporting named STARS and SIDs.

It was written in VB but as far as I'm aware jd never released the source, more's the pity. To be honest, although it was very good at the time, and in some areas surpasses most of the current alternatives, it's lack of true SID, STAR and approach assignment would put me off even if it were compatible with MSFS.

2 hours ago, guenseli said:

From one of the official forum mods about the current issues with activation when you buy that software:
"The activations are now only weekly.

This unusual behavior has been the norm for the developer for several months.

As long as users buy the software every day, nothing will change.
So have patience! Nothing we can change."

 

and about further, needed updates of PRO ATC

"The team hasn't had any contact with the dev for 3 months.
When asked, there are insults and always the same answer.

"It's about to come with the next update."

That was fixed in November at a maximum of 2 weeks."

I must say I often find Thomas's posts very cryptic. It's clear he's getting no support from Mourad (the developer) but given that he says he's had no contact from the developer are his comments about insults directed at the developer or at comments here and elsewhere about the lack of support, and the attitude of the moderators on the forums?

I have some sympathy for Thomas - he seems to be single-handedly trying to provide as best support he can but with his hands tied behind his back. Only the developer can approve new purchases, only the developer can fix bugs, and only the developer can give any clue as to when/if there will be fixes or updates. Until he does I think I agree with your warning about potential purchasers thinking twice before clicking the purchase button.

It's a great pity, as the basic product is very good - I still use it on every flight and really do hope that support will be more forthcoming at some point.

Hi Alex - the .FLT file is for saving the status of a complete flight, as you correctly stated in an old post: 

I don't see that LNM should save .FLT files as it has no way to reproduce the entire state of MSFS at a point in time.

A .pln is a different format and contains different data to a .flt. I haven't tried recently but at one time you could load a .pln mid-flight by giving the filename as *.* in the load dialogue. This then presents you with a list of all files (.pln and .flt) in the folder and you can select the correct one. However, whether the in-built ATC or the aircraft FMS recognises the new plan is a completely different matter.

I'm pretty sure that Aamir has stated that any input device which uses standard MSFS bindings, simvars, or whatever, is ok. What isn't allowed or supported is any device which requires a hacked interface to display data from the sim.

It's vital to take this step by step to determine the cause of the problem.

1) Check using the Thrustmaster control panel that each and every button is working, and that the thrust levers (and flaps and speed brake levers if you have them) show smooth and continuous movement across the entire range. If there is any problem at this stage go back and use the Thrustmaster calibration instructions from their website. If you have the flaps/speed brake add-on note there is a more extensive calibration procedure required.

2) Load up MSFS and check in options that the thrust levers are set to throttle 1 axis and throttle 2 axis - not the 0 to 100% variants. Again check that the display shows smooth and continuous movement across the whole range (don't forget to include the reverse position in your test). Sensitivity doesn't particularly matter at this stage as long as the levers show movement across the whole range. Make sure that you have NO OTHER controls bound to a throttle.

3) load up the Fenix and go through the calibration in the MCDU. Note that until you have completed the calibration I don't think you'll see any movement of the levers in the cockpit, but once they are calibrated you should see the movement you expect.

The above process should show you which part is not working properly. If 1 & 2 work but 3 doesn't then I'm afraid it's back to Fenix to diagnose.

1 hour ago, jonesrob said:

Just a small point, the Airbus 'Retard' message is a reminder, not an instruction. You can Retard at any suiitable point.

Yes, except during autoland, when it is an instruction.

13 hours ago, Matt Webb said:

It seems too only happen when to move the switch to IGN and then look around using the right mouse button. 

It's been reported that you can use the middle mouse button without causing this problem, but I've never tried it and don't know what the assignment is, as I'm not near my FS PC at the moment.

Now all it needs is a 🌲🙂