So...mandatory limitation of the amount of AI Traffic in P3D is a fundamental (non-optional) feature of the software? Correct?

1 hour ago, G-YMML1 said:

So...mandatory limitation of the amount of AI Traffic in P3D is a fundamental

The application cannot accept all, or maybe better said as arbitrary, traffic... This is well explained in https://www.simforums.com/forums/understanding-fshudair-traffic-control-traffic_topic64710.html

They are working however to increase the visible traffic... The post explains it well.

Will there be a fix for AI honoring the ATC parking codes used in the AFCADs? For example, aircraft with ATC PARKING CODE = QFA should depart/arrive at those gates with the same code as defined in the airport's AFCAD file. 

7 hours ago, DModjo said:

Will there be a fix for AI honoring the ATC parking codes used in the AFCADs? For example, aircraft with ATC PARKING CODE = QFA should depart/arrive at those gates with the same code as defined in the airport's AFCAD file. 

Yes - we are planning to use parking codes and parking types by aircraft type.

13 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

So...mandatory limitation of the amount of AI Traffic in P3D is a fundamental (non-optional) feature of the software? Correct?

Several things regarding amount of AI Traffic:
There is a settings in FSHud settings tab of Maximum Parking and Maximum Active traffic aircraft - default values are 30/30 - it can be increased to 60/60.
Why is it limited - every second application calculates potential conflicts forecasts for each active aircraft and injects necessary instructions if needed.
also application takes care to deactivate more far aircrafts while more close aircraft schedules can be.
As you can understand - all of that is not something trivial and also require much CPU resource. We continuously update and optimize it - but this operation is required for realistic ATC operations
(if you familiar with things like time window).
Now most of the classic ATC engines (at least P3D and MSFS default ones) doesn't perform none of those operations which cause to conflict existence on a very late stage.
For example 5 aircrafts are going to land on the same runway - one after other - FSHud will do take care to make necessary separation between them in real time according their situation instead of
sending them go around at very late stage (middle of final or end of final) which mostly in real world doesn't happen.
So all those calculation is matter of CPU resources - that's because there is a limit for traffic aircraft amount. 

On 4/24/2022 at 9:23 PM, vincentrouleau said:

Trying KSFO-KBOS now. Here is my simbrief route:

SNTNA2 ORRCA Q120 GALLI DCT BAM J94 DBQ DCT BAE DCT HOCKE Q816 KELTI DCT NABOR DCT PONCT JFUND2

This what I type in via fshud validation. I get validate all the way to KBOS.04R, then I get this red PONCT. The red "Fix found issues" does not fix the issues and I cannot get the fix the route what ever I try.

 

Following issue was fixed in 1.0.69 version - please update and this flight plan should be valid

FYI, I got the same behavior. Please note the 'double' ORRCA and PONCT are added but the space bar waypoint search. It also forces to enter the last waypoint of the SID and first point of the STAR, but the should be implied by SNTNA2 and JFUND2. I get to the point of entering KBOS.15L:

Then select that last item, the rotating arrows validates the route, then:

 

N.B. providing feedback here on top of the ticket as I cannot add screenshot in the ticket system.

 

Thank you for the replies

9 minutes ago, vincentrouleau said:

FYI, I got the same behavior. Please note the 'double' ORRCA and PONCT are added but the space bar waypoint search. It also forces to enter the last waypoint of the SID and first point of the STAR, but the should be implied by SNTNA2 and JFUND2. I get to the point of entering KBOS.15L:

Then select that last item, the rotating arrows validates the route, then:

 

N.B. providing feedback here on top of the ticket as I cannot add screenshot in the ticket system.

 

Thank you for the replies

Regarding ORRCA ORRCA and PONCT PONCT - it is normal behavior. If you read flight planning manual, you will see that FSHud format is APT LEG NODE LEG NODE LEG APT.
More darker ORRCA is ORRCA SID TRANSITION and brighter ORRCA is end point of following transition.
I will continue to investigate why you still got error on that.

10 minutes ago, FSHud said:

Regarding ORRCA ORRCA and PONCT PONCT - it is normal behavior. If you read flight planning manual, you will see that FSHud format is APT LEG NODE LEG NODE LEG APT.
More darker ORRCA is ORRCA SID TRANSITION and brighter ORRCA is end point of following transition.
I will continue to investigate why you still got error on that.

See a sample from flightaware (https://flightaware.com/analysis/route.rvt?origin=ksfo&destination=kbos):

1

KSFO

KBOS

FL310

NIITE3 ORRCA Q120 BETBE Q120 GALLI BAM J94 LCU KU72Q KD75U KD75A KP75G OBK KC75Q BUF GEE PONCT JFUND2

4464 km

1 minute ago, vincentrouleau said:

See a sample from flightaware (https://flightaware.com/analysis/route.rvt?origin=ksfo&destination=kbos😞

1

KSFO

KBOS

FL310

NIITE3 ORRCA Q120 BETBE Q120 GALLI BAM J94 LCU KU72Q KD75U KD75A KP75G OBK KC75Q BUF GEE PONCT JFUND2

4464 km

You mean why in flightaware it is written in different format and it is valid? What are you trying to say?

10 minutes ago, FSHud said:

You mean why in flightaware it is written in different format and it is valid? What are you trying to say?

Yes that is what I am saying. Also, none of the simbrief suggested route have the double waypoints:

Just now, vincentrouleau said:

Yes that is what I am saying. Also, none of the simbrief suggested route have the double waypoints:

As it was said previously FSHud have different format of flight route than any other "classic" format we know.
Classic format is simplified because it is read in the end by human eyes - not the application.
Also it is necessary to bind on format of APT LEG NODE LEG NODE LEG NODE LEG APT because in you can specify altitude on each node that you want to be on.
This is application requirement - because not always SID TRANSITION name and END POINT name are the same and sometime SID TRANSITION can end at different point

I strongly suggest to overview Flight Planning manual section that describes this part in details

FSHud looks great, would love to try it. Some comments regarding two things from the FAQ though :

 

1. "Can I network FSHud from another POC - not at this time"

what does not at this time mean - not anytime soon ?

Reason for asking. From a homecockpit using beamers you can't or don't want to have any user interface or menu on screen

 

2. "In the first release please only use weather that is set at the beginning of the flight."

Ouch, I hope this is on the very top of the priority list. Being forced to use the departure airport weather at the arrival airport, that's a NO-GO for any Airliner flight. It removes a significant part of any flight planning.

Mike

Edited April 26, 20224 yr by mikealpha

1 hour ago, mikealpha said:

Being forced to use the departure airport weather at the arrival airport

Edit... I received clarification... The arrival airport weather is indeed used... but it is not based on future forecasts.

If you have information from a live product, such as Active Sky, then you can change the arrival runway before TOD based on the information you have.

Network capabilities is not there yet... this or some other solution is planned.

Edited April 26, 20224 yr by Steve Halpern