FSHud 1.3. Beta Wow!!!!

[Rocky_53 1,579]

After a few posts about the pilot not using the radio comms, and whether it was realistic. I have no problem with the FO taking care of comms, it  really is quite normal in RL. I thought I'd ask ChatGPT:  

In a typical commercial aviation operation, the responsibility for handling radio communications in a Boeing 737 aircraft is shared between the pilot and the first officer. Both pilots are trained to operate the communication and navigation systems on board the aircraft, including the radios.

During different phases of flight, the captain and the first officer may alternate duties, including handling radio communications. For example, during takeoff and climb, the first officer may handle radio communications with air traffic control (ATC) while the captain focuses on flying the aircraft. Later, during the descent and landing phases of flight, the captain may take over radio communications while the first officer assists with aircraft handling.

However, the specific procedures and responsibilities for radio communication may vary depending on the airline and the specific aircraft configuration. Additionally, in some cases, one pilot may handle most of the radio communications while the other focuses on flying the aircraft, especially during busy or complex operations.

[tup61 1,572]

1 hour ago, Rockliffe said:

After a few posts about the pilot not using the radio comms, and whether it was realistic. I have no problem with the FO taking care of comms, it  really is quite normal in RL.

It also depends on the plane you fly, of course. I plan to fly the Vision Jet solely once v2 has been released and that's a single pilot plane. So I am obliged to do all comms myself. Which I don't mind at all. 😉

[Ohmsquare 101]

A few preview-like comments on FSHud (latest beta) for anyone interested:

• Performance: On ground, I have 56-60 FPS, 17-18 ms main thread, with FSLTL (50 IFR, 50 VFR, 1% parked) and default ATC. Same place, same conditions other than the traffic amount: 44-54 FPS, + 3ms main thread, with FSLTL + FSHUD (20 airborne, 15 parked, 10 mins updates). That is with PMDG 737 at or near an average sized payware airport (ground, takeoff, approach, landing). During cruise or anywhere with GA (complex ones included), the performance difference is less. Unlike previous versions of FSHud, I did not experience any noticeable stutters caused by FSHud alone.
  
  - My MSFS setup: DX11, everything ultra but clouds (high), avionics refresh rate (medium), terrain LOD: 200 (with GA) or 140 (with airliners), resolution: 6M pixels (ultrawide) with DLSS (quality).
  - PC specs: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, NVIDIA 3080, 64 GB RAM, Win 11, fast SSD.   
   
• Airborne Traffic: I've experimented with this a lot and even with FSHud(+FSLTL) set to 50 planes airborne I consistently see significantly less aircraft in the air than with just FSLTL. Where I see contrails of 10+ airliners with just FSLTL, I usually notice only 2-4 with FSHud. No VFR traffic for me with FSHud at all. With FSLTL there is not much of VFR either (at least in Europe, it seems there is more in the US). The traffic separation with FSHud seems certainly more realistic than with the default ATC if you are lucky enough to see more aircraft in relatively close proximity (to be actually able to observe any kind of separation at all).
   
• Parked Traffic: As for the traffic amount, I guess it's working as intended. I limit myself to 15 aircraft as recommended because higher than that and the performance hit becomes way more noticable. Parked traffic is very CPU-hungry. No jetway connections is a known issue, but it doesn't bother me too much. Ground operations and taxiing works OK, no complaints there, but I have limited amount of samples so far.
   
• ATC instructions: So far no issues but I yet to have try vectors when it comes to terrain clearance in mountainous area. I remember that Pilot2ATC vectoring was much more reliable than FSHud on its release, but I understand there have been some improvements made in the FSHud beta. Descent clearance and altitude restrictions work fine, I no longer get late descent clearance, which was a common problem with the previous version of FSHud. Definitely an improvement over default ATC.
   
• Voices: One of my main gripes with FSHud beta. There are new voices, which is plus, but unfortunately all the voices but one or two have become somewhat harder to understand and, more importantly, simply unbearable to listen to. Its intonation, blending, clarity (there is noticeable syllables omitting) and overall quality (sounds like 8-bit) is just worse than what have we got on FSHud release and definitely it is way worse then default ATC Azure/offline or Pilot2ATC with Microsoft text-to-speech voices. I've definitely gotten more noise complaints from family members with beta FSHud 🙂 I know it's now possible to adjust the voice speed and play with the radio effect filters, but regardless of any settings, it just sounds bad. 
   
• Ease of use: Probably best on the market.
   
• Closing comments: Before FSHud I used Pilot2ATC a lot. I liked its speech to text, IFR and VFR capability, but certainly the lack of interaction with AI traffic is its biggest shortcoming and the main reason I decided to try FSHud few months after its release. What I got was noticeably worse performance and worse ATC guidance, but on the other hand a hint of real air traffic control in terms of traffic separation. After a few months, I decided to stop using it altogether because I realised that its main draw, AI traffic control, would - for me and my enjoyment - mainly made sense at a really busy airport (and its TMA), but unfortunately with FSHud such situations never came up. And due to the other FSHud shortcomings it just wasn't worth it. Unfortunately, with the beta of FSHud, the situation hasn't improved much in this regard, and while one other major thing has improved - its performance - another has emerged, the voices. I'm optimistic about this, though, because I have no reason to believe the voices can't be improved, when they are fine in pre-beta versions. All in all, I am not regretting purchasing FSHud and will continue to use and test it as I believe it is the ATC product with the most potential, but we are definitely not there yet.  
   

[Fiorentoni 4,234]

2 hours ago, Ohmsquare said:

but unfortunately with FSHud such situations never came up

Which situations and why? You were talking about big airports, do you mean they are not "busy" enough with FSHud or the performance is not good enough or you simply never tried big airports?

[tup61 1,572]

Forgot to say this earlier on but one very little but quite important/convenient feature of FSHud is that whenever you have to press a key to talk to ATC you can do so whenever you want and you will be put in line right away. With default ATC you can only effectively press a key when no one is talking and specially when there is a lot of traffic this means you have to hit that key 10 times or more in order to be lucky enough to get your message across! Very annoying! I was VERY happy the first time I noticed this!

Other ATC addons may have the same feature btw, I don't know, but for me this is a great advantage over default ATC.

[threexgreen 3,139]

I've done a few flights with the FSHud beta latest version and it's a mixed bag for me. I'll say upfront it's a beta version and maybe I'm doing something wrong at times.

• Voices are good with the right settings and the radio effects sound realistic.
• Monitoring two frequencies simultaneously is a nice feature.
• Very easy to use, both setup and while in-flight.
• Hold short of runways instructions is a nice feature I never had in other ATC programs I used.
• Navigraph and Simbrief integration is a real relief coming from PF3.
• Timely descent instructions or report when ready for descent are a bug plus.
• Actual pronunciation of names like airports, waypoints, procedures thanks to TTS is immersive.

However

• I've limited the parked and active aircraft numbers to something like 20 and 30, but it's injecting waaay more than that (using FSLTL) with almost every gate occupied and even injects aircraft on top of other aircraft at the gates.
• At the departure airport, I get significant drops in performance in intervals (making it hardly usable in VR before performance goes back up). I suppose this is whenever traffic is injected and since it injects far too many, performance suffers a lot (my CPU is also older).
• AI aircraft sometimes taxi through other aircraft.
• AI aircraft sometimes hold for no apparent reason in almost isolated spots.
• AI aircraft approaching both runways for landings (separation?).
• On a flight out of KFLL, I requested takeoff clearance but was held for an approaching aircraft that was so far away I could have taken off at least 3 times in the meantime. When I was lined up, I never got takeoff clearance - only when I lost patience and starting moving on my own did it tell me to take off.
• On the same flight, there was a flock of 4 or 5 aircraft closely together approaching the runway like a flock of birds migrating South (separation?).
• I frequently see aircraft making low fly-overs much like with the default MSFS traffic engine or aircraft using all kinds of runway simultaneously. I landed in KBOS and another aircraft landed on me from the opposite runway. It also cleared me for landing with another aircraft lining up. Overall, I was unsure if FSHud was controlling the traffic badly or if it was somehow the default MSFS traffic engine rearing its ugly head.

I'll keep using it from now on because when it works, it's very good I'm sure it's going to get better, especially with a full 1.3 release. Still, I'm having a mixed experience compared to others apparently.

[snwboardn 87]

@FSHud Hey couple of things 

A. I can't make reports in the system 

B. I was trying to file an IFR plan from PAYA that doesn't have local ground control and wasn't able to file a plan; I assume that is a limitation at this time 

[tup61 1,572]

1 hour ago, Nixoq said:

and maybe I'm doing something wrong

Seems to me almost ALL your (similar) problems are caused by a wrong setup of your traffic... Do you perhaps have the FSLTL injector running? Or default traffic? 

Edited May 4, 2023 by tup61

[Ohmsquare 101]

5 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Which situations and why? You were talking about big airports, do you mean they are not "busy" enough with FSHud or the performance is not good enough or you simply never tried big airports?

I see where I wasn't clear. I meant the former. That is, that FSHud never injected enough AI traffic into close proximity for traffic separation to even be an issue. Which is what I would expect at large busy airports.

There seems to be some improvements with FSHud beta, but not enough IMO. I think it would be ideal if FSHud removed remote traffic when the user's aircraft is close to the departure or destination area, and replaced it with traffic around the airport (inside its TMA). It's pretty easy to verify that FSLTL alone, without FSHud, can inject much denser traffic around the user's airport.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Ohmsquare

[Bobsk8 12,735]

13 hours ago, tup61 said:

 

I don't see how FSHud is more scripted than any other ATC addon. I think it is even less scripted because you hardly have to do anything to start a flight... Start the program, load a (SimBrief) flight with one click and off you go. Try that in PF3 of P2ATC. 😉

I do that on every flight with PF3, select the Simbrief Flight plan, connect to the sim, and off I go.  Don't know about Pilot2 ATC, tried the demo years ago, didn't care for the limit of  2 voices, and it seemed to use too much CPU  processes. 

[Fiorentoni 4,234]

1 hour ago, Ohmsquare said:

I see where I wasn't clear. I meant the former. That is, that FSHud never injected enough AI traffic into close proximity for traffic separation to even be an issue. Which is what I would expect at large busy airports.

There seems to be some improvements with FSHud beta, but not enough IMO. I think it would be ideal if FSHud removed remote traffic when the user's aircraft is close to the departure or destination area, and replaced it with traffic around the airport (inside its TMA). It's pretty easy to verify that FSLTL alone, without FSHud, can inject much denser traffic around the user's airport.

Thanks for elaborating. Yes I found the very same and while I understand that they are performance-limited (every AI aircraft needs lots of internal calculations with FSHud, which go on the CPU), it's really killing immersion. I'm still contemplating a refund, luckily Flight1 makes refunds possible up to 30 days, so I still have some time. I have to decide between no ATC at all (because default ATC is unusable), which is immersion killing, or a solid ATC and solid AI behaviour with FSHud, but not much traffic on big hubs (there's enough going on, so it's not totally empty, but you won't see full airports), which is immersion killing, too. That said there's also not real-life-like traffic amount on Vatsim either on big airports, so FSHud is actually much closer to the "vatsim feeling". I'm still making up my mind.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Fiorentoni

[threexgreen 3,139]

1 hour ago, tup61 said:

Seems to me almost ALL your (similar) problems are caused by a wrong setup of your traffic... Do you perhaps have the FSLTL injector running? Or default traffic? 

I was thinking something is injecting traffic on top of FSHud traffic. I run FSHud, start a flight and then start FSLTL injector which connects to FSHud and injects traffic (FSHud to external only). Is that not how to do it?

[threexgreen 3,139]

...

Edited May 4, 2023 by Nixoq

[FSHud 212]

5 hours ago, snwboardn said:

@FSHud Hey couple of things 

A. I can't make reports in the system 

B. I was trying to file an IFR plan from PAYA that doesn't have local ground control and wasn't able to file a plan; I assume that is a limitation at this time 

Yes, there is a problem with it (we've found).
Please open this folder and delete all old files - leaving only last two:
c:\ProgramData\FSHud\logs\

Then it should work.
However, that would be completely fixed in next beta build.

[gabriel122 23]

13 hours ago, Ohmsquare said:

A few preview-like comments on FSHud (latest beta) for anyone interested:

• Performance: On ground, I have 56-60 FPS, 17-18 ms main thread, with FSLTL (50 IFR, 50 VFR, 1% parked) and default ATC. Same place, same conditions other than the traffic amount: 44-54 FPS, + 3ms main thread, with FSLTL + FSHUD (20 airborne, 15 parked, 10 mins updates). That is with PMDG 737 at or near an average sized payware airport (ground, takeoff, approach, landing). During cruise or anywhere with GA (complex ones included), the performance difference is less. Unlike previous versions of FSHud, I did not experience any noticeable stutters caused by FSHud alone.
  
  - My MSFS setup: DX11, everything ultra but clouds (high), avionics refresh rate (medium), terrain LOD: 200 (with GA) or 140 (with airliners), resolution: 6M pixels (ultrawide) with DLSS (quality).
  - PC specs: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, NVIDIA 3080, 64 GB RAM, Win 11, fast SSD.   
   
• Airborne Traffic: I've experimented with this a lot and even with FSHud(+FSLTL) set to 50 planes airborne I consistently see significantly less aircraft in the air than with just FSLTL. Where I see contrails of 10+ airliners with just FSLTL, I usually notice only 2-4 with FSHud. No VFR traffic for me with FSHud at all. With FSLTL there is not much of VFR either (at least in Europe, it seems there is more in the US). The traffic separation with FSHud seems certainly more realistic than with the default ATC if you are lucky enough to see more aircraft in relatively close proximity (to be actually able to observe any kind of separation at all).
   
• Parked Traffic: As for the traffic amount, I guess it's working as intended. I limit myself to 15 aircraft as recommended because higher than that and the performance hit becomes way more noticable. Parked traffic is very CPU-hungry. No jetway connections is a known issue, but it doesn't bother me too much. Ground operations and taxiing works OK, no complaints there, but I have limited amount of samples so far.
   
• ATC instructions: So far no issues but I yet to have try vectors when it comes to terrain clearance in mountainous area. I remember that Pilot2ATC vectoring was much more reliable than FSHud on its release, but I understand there have been some improvements made in the FSHud beta. Descent clearance and altitude restrictions work fine, I no longer get late descent clearance, which was a common problem with the previous version of FSHud. Definitely an improvement over default ATC.
   
• Voices: One of my main gripes with FSHud beta. There are new voices, which is plus, but unfortunately all the voices but one or two have become somewhat harder to understand and, more importantly, simply unbearable to listen to. Its intonation, blending, clarity (there is noticeable syllables omitting) and overall quality (sounds like 8-bit) is just worse than what have we got on FSHud release and definitely it is way worse then default ATC Azure/offline or Pilot2ATC with Microsoft text-to-speech voices. I've definitely gotten more noise complaints from family members with beta FSHud 🙂 I know it's now possible to adjust the voice speed and play with the radio effect filters, but regardless of any settings, it just sounds bad. 
   
• Ease of use: Probably best on the market.
   
• Closing comments: Before FSHud I used Pilot2ATC a lot. I liked its speech to text, IFR and VFR capability, but certainly the lack of interaction with AI traffic is its biggest shortcoming and the main reason I decided to try FSHud few months after its release. What I got was noticeably worse performance and worse ATC guidance, but on the other hand a hint of real air traffic control in terms of traffic separation. After a few months, I decided to stop using it altogether because I realised that its main draw, AI traffic control, would - for me and my enjoyment - mainly made sense at a really busy airport (and its TMA), but unfortunately with FSHud such situations never came up. And due to the other FSHud shortcomings it just wasn't worth it. Unfortunately, with the beta of FSHud, the situation hasn't improved much in this regard, and while one other major thing has improved - its performance - another has emerged, the voices. I'm optimistic about this, though, because I have no reason to believe the voices can't be improved, when they are fine in pre-beta versions. All in all, I am not regretting purchasing FSHud and will continue to use and test it as I believe it is the ATC product with the most potential, but we are definitely not there yet.  
   

this is the most fair enough review I 'v ever seen in there days regarding FSHUD. Thank you very much .