I very rarely post but thought I would on this occasion to highlight my experiences since I made the purchase last night Australian time. Overall I am very, very impressed with what this product can do out of the box and as it is further developed it could well become the leading product in its field.

I set up the program to do some AI spotting at Melbourne Tullamarine YMML. Last night the official ATIS had winds out of the NW but was using runway 27 for most departures and 34 for arrivals. For those unfamiliar with YMML, runway 34 doesn't sport an ILS, and a number of the STARS for 34 call for a turn onto base quite close into the field. Normally in a sim if 34 is the active then the AI gets queued up in line with the centreline up to 30 miles out. Last night I saw the AI, without fail, fly the published approaches into runway 34 at the appropriate speeds right through until touchdown. This is the first time I've ever seen that happen in 32 years of simming. Subject to further testing, this would indicate that FSHUD can fly the AI on correct approaches and departures to places like Queenstown NZ and Innsbruck to name but two. That in itself would be a game changer.

Unfortunately, because the wind was out of the NW and in reality runway 27 was being used with a tailwind of a few knots, the program couldn't pick that up and instead used runway 09 because it was into the wind. But again, note that the program used the crossing runway right out of the box without any intervention. I suspect - and will test further tonight - that if I use ADE to close 09 it would only use 34, and avoid using 27 because of the tailwind.

Worth noting it also created traffic at neighbouring Essendon YMEN and Avalon YMAV as appropriate.

The bits that still need some work, which I think have already been acknowledged by the developers, are:

- correct use of parking & gates according to airline codes etc

- there were far more departures than arrivals during a simulation of the AM peak

- FSHUD exclusively generated jets at YMML, and didn't load in any Rex Saab 340s or Qantaslink Q300/400s. There were turboprops at Essendon though.

Lots to like about this product in the very early stages of its development.

Regards,

Heyado

10 hours ago, heyado said:

Lots to like about this product

what's the highlight compared with others ......

34 minutes ago, vadriver said:

what's the highlight compared with others ......

Like I said, from what I've seen thus far the ability for the AI to fly published approaches perfectly, at the appropriate speeds and altitudes. I haven't actually had the chance to fly using the program yet, having been more fascinated by the ability of the program to control the AI. But at the moment a lot of people's views will depend on what sort of realism they want from their AI traffic. For some people, the fact that the AI just randomly picks a gate and ignores the applicable codes will be cause to hold off until that is fixed - something I believe is currently being worked on.

Tonight I also saw some weird behaviour at Hobart YMHB. Hobart is a bit of an odd airport in that it has turning nodes at either end, with the taxiways about 1/3 from each end. That means that, depending on size, some aircraft need to taxi to the end of 12/30 for takeoff. Tonight with a stiff northerly and runway 30 active, the AI taxied to the turning node then proceeded to do a series of ground loops before lining up off the eastern side of the runway and taking off on the grass. I'm about to load up Singapore with the new runway open and 02/20C closed and see what happens.

13 minutes ago, heyado said:

Like I said, from what I've seen thus far the ability for the AI to fly published approaches perfectly, at the appropriate speeds and altitudes. I haven't actually had the chance to fly using the program yet, having been more fascinated by the ability of the program to control the AI. But at the moment a lot of people's views will depend on what sort of realism they want from their AI traffic. For some people, the fact that the AI just randomly picks a gate and ignores the applicable codes will be cause to hold off until that is fixed - something I believe is currently being worked on.

Tonight I also saw some weird behaviour at Hobart YMHB. Hobart is a bit of an odd airport in that it has turning nodes at either end, with the taxiways about 1/3 from each end. That means that, depending on size, some aircraft need to taxi to the end of 12/30 for takeoff. Tonight with a stiff northerly and runway 30 active, the AI taxied to the turning node then proceeded to do a series of ground loops before lining up off the eastern side of the runway and taking off on the grass. I'm about to load up Singapore with the new runway open and 02/20C closed and see what happens.

There are several issues we are aware of:

AI traffic Takeoff:
Every airport that require taxi on runway then perform U turn for takeoff will have this problem.
Also the problem could be in some cases when SID initial waypoint or instruction is not in front of runway - it can be that aircraft will perform takeoff not by runway.
Sometimes after takeoff - AI Aircraft can perform circle flight, then continue on it's route.

AI traffic parking spots:
For now the application completely agnostic for type of parking (cargo aircrafts could be placed at gate and vise-versa).

AI traffic taxi:
In some cases (especially when simulator speed increased by 4X) aircraft can turn in circles while stopping during taxi.

We are currently working to fix all of those issues (described above).
Besides, it was mentioned in product page that currently the application have overall inconsistent AI traffic behavior
which would be improved by in next releases.

Our apologizes for such inconvenience 

Has anyone tried FSHud in conjunction with ATCAIP Utility? The latter does not control approaches, but enforces take-off and landing runways via end-user input. 

 

Thanks

7 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

Has anyone tried FSHud in conjunction with ATCAIP Utility? The latter does not control approaches, but enforces take-off and landing runways via end-user input. 

 

Thanks

Doesn't work unfortunately (yet?).

30 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

Has anyone tried FSHud in conjunction with ATCAIP Utility? The latter does not control approaches, but enforces take-off and landing runways via end-user input. 

 

Thanks

ATCAIP Utility designed to work with default Simulator AI Traffic controlling engine.
For the application - there is internal completely separated engine that prioritizes runways and procedures accordingly.
On the next stages - those prioritizations could be overridden from application UI - on the same level ATCAIP does for default engine.

Hope it answers the question

 

9 minutes ago, FSHud said:

On the next stages - those prioritizations could be overridden from application UI - on the same level ATCAIP does for default engine.

 

 

This alone would be very much welcomed feature.

Thanks a lot.

12 minutes ago, FSHud said:

ATCAIP Utility designed to work with default Simulator AI Traffic controlling engine.
For the application - there is internal completely separated engine that prioritizes runways and procedures accordingly.
On the next stages - those prioritizations could be overridden from application UI - on the same level ATCAIP does for default engine.

Hope it answers the question

 

Not really. Can ATCAIP be used together with FSHud or are there any conflicts?

Edited April 29, 20224 yr by Nemo

1 minute ago, Nemo said:

Not really. Can ATCAIP be used together with FSHud or are there conflicts?

There are conflicts as another user mentioned 2 posts above.

Just now, Nemo said:

Not really. Can ATCAIP be used together with FSHud or are there conflicts?

Well - if it is more comfortable to edit XML files instead of setting it in UI or
if you already have bunch of pre-defined XML.
We can add kind of migration of those settings from their format - but it is necessary to keep in mind that absolutely different program will handle it.
Because ATCAIP utility says to simulator engine how to handle staff.
FSHud gives much low-level instructions to simulator for traffic handling - basically it is bunch of coordinates that AI Aircraft have to follow.
Those low-level instructions are necessary to override all takeoff/landing/taxi default behavior that simulator gives - mostly identical takeoff, landing route which is completely
agnostic to NavData and approach procedures.

Hope it answers
 

Glad to hear the AI issues are being worked on. The roadmap for this application is looking very promising and I'm looking forward to seeing it evolve. 

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

Thanks!

2 hours ago, FSHud said:

ATCAIP Utility designed to work with default Simulator AI Traffic controlling engine.
For the application - there is internal completely separated engine that prioritizes runways and procedures accordingly.
On the next stages - those prioritizations could be overridden from application UI - on the same level ATCAIP does for default engine.

Hope it answers the question

 

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.

5 hours ago, vadriver said:

what's the highlight compared with others ......

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