23 minutes ago, FSHud said:

But nothing did prevent you using COM2 for FSHud while sitting on COM1 on your VATSIM station.

Ok, I'll try again next time, but yes I'm using FSHUD on COM2 and VATSIM on COM1, but it worked neither on 1 nor on 2, it automatically put back 132.870, it didn't want to leave 875 suddenly, I couldn't get the controller on VATSIM, I'll file a ticket if it happens again.

7 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

The user base of MSFS is large enough for several ATC-addons to co-exist.

They all have their pros and cons and it's great to have a choice between several ATC-addons in active development.

 

There is really no need to belittle one or the other.

 

Exactly and in the end the future will tell what will be the most used Atc software. 😉

Edited April 15, 20233 yr by rob0203

6 hours ago, rob0203 said:

Try some other Atc software, these voices are the best compared to others. Also if you listen to Liveatc the sound effects come quite close now.

 

I don´t care about other ATC software, I just know that the text-to-speech systems sound naturally and not like a robot. And in my opinion the voices are way below standard.

Regarding the rest of the software: I did 4 flights today, 2 flights were almost killed by the high cpu-load of FSHUD until I found out that traffic injection to external only (I´m using FSTL) seems to lower the load. In one flight I was forgotten after takeoff (no sendover to center, flying runway heading for 20 minutes, then I stopped the flight) and in all other flights I was smoothly handled through all scenarios including an on-time information which approach to expect, enough time to set up the FMC and a smooth transition to final on the second flight with vectors. Nothing to complain so far.

Except the voices though. A real showstopper. 

There was some other forum topics about ATC programs comparison:

You may find - FSHud is not in the best place on this topic, but I agree with every character written here.

@Bobsk8 my apologizes if it was something that insulting you - that wasn't a meaning.
It was more about clarification "Why exactly is it better?" to understand user's experience.

Regarding PR - I'm here to clarify things and help others with clarifications.
By the end it's up to user's full rights to use what he wants to use - I also don't use many add-ons or software just because
I don't like it - and it's completely ok.
There is no fight "Who is better".

11 minutes ago, Axis3600 said:

Ok, I'll try again next time, but yes I'm using FSHUD on COM2 and VATSIM on COM1, but it worked neither on 1 nor on 2, it automatically put back 132.870, it didn't want to leave 875 suddenly, I couldn't get the controller on VATSIM, I'll file a ticket if it happens again.

We will check that - but the rule says, if you're already sitting on required channel (in terms of FSHud) - none of frequency changes be applied.

30 minutes ago, techman said:

I don´t care about other ATC software, I just know that the text-to-speech systems sound naturally and not like a robot. And in my opinion the voices are way below standard.

Regarding the rest of the software: I did 4 flights today, 2 flights were almost killed by the high cpu-load of FSHUD until I found out that traffic injection to external only (I´m using FSTL) seems to lower the load. In one flight I was forgotten after takeoff (no sendover to center, flying runway heading for 20 minutes, then I stopped the flight) and in all other flights I was smoothly handled through all scenarios including an on-time information which approach to expect, enough time to set up the FMC and a smooth transition to final on the second flight with vectors. Nothing to complain so far.

Except the voices though. A real showstopper. 

"Forgotten after takeoff":
1. Did you get Takeoff clearance?
2. Perhaps you remember what did you see in FSHud panel?

1. yes

2. I changed the departure beforehand and ATC gave me a "fly runway heading"-clearance. After TO they simply forgot to send me over. Or forgot to send me to the next WPT. But I was forgotten 🙂

No big problem though. May be reproducable. Someone may check (I have no time due to vacation next week)

 

29 minutes ago, techman said:

1. yes

2. I changed the departure beforehand and ATC gave me a "fly runway heading"-clearance. After TO they simply forgot to send me over. Or forgot to send me to the next WPT. But I was forgotten 🙂

No big problem though. May be reproducable. Someone may check (I have no time due to vacation next week)

 

Thank you,
Please report such issues via ticketing system.

@FSHud I'd like to thank you for coming into this thead and putting up with some of the rubbish you've had to endure from other users. Ignore them - they're grumpy about lots of things and will argue with anybody who doesn't agree with them.

 

Would it be possible to post a video or two feature some of the new features, including the new voices and demonstrating the new improvements?

 

21 minutes ago, KL Oo said:

@FSHud I'd like to thank you for coming into this thead and putting up with some of the rubbish you've had to endure from other users. Ignore them - they're grumpy about lots of things and will argue with anybody who doesn't agree with them.

 

Would it be possible to post a video or two feature some of the new features, including the new voices and demonstrating the new improvements?

 

Thank you,

Definitely yes, but a bit more later.
Because there are still several important parts under development and voices requires some more adjustments and tweaking.

14 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

No idea why this Youtuber keeps the PF3 window open during the first part of his flight. It is absolutely not necessary to have it open (other than for adjusting volumes etc.). In PF3 you communicate with ATC by pressing keys - or using a voice recognition software to trigger these keys.

Could you please clarify if you need to - temporarily - have the FSHud window open to communicate with ATC. Is there a way to just use keys / buttons (resp. a voice recognition software to trigger these keys) to commicuate to ATC in FSHud? Or is it necessary to open the window and click an item with the mouse?

I am really interested in FSHud for the AI interaction capabilities. Voices are just a matter of personal taste. But having to open a window to communicate with ATC would be a killer for me.

 

You can map keys/buttons to hide the window and you can map keys/buttons to directly select answers/options. Also - against my first post - the window can be moved on a second/third screen without having impact on performance. It also can be minimized. Once the flight has started you can easily leave it minimized. 

But again - the "old fashioned" TTS-Engine is a showstopper. The spoken orders by ATC are hard to understand and sometimes you have to read (in the window) what they said. I put all radio-effects to zero just to make sure that the problem is not caused by the effects. Its caused by the bad TTS-Engine.

 

23 minutes ago, techman said:

But again - the "old fashioned" TTS-Engine is a showstopper. The spoken orders by ATC are hard to understand and sometimes you have to read (in the window) what they said. I put all radio-effects to zero just to make sure that the problem is not caused by the effects. Its caused by the bad TTS-Engine.

 

Are you using the beta version? The voices in the beta are much better (in my opinion), than in the non-beta version.

1 minute ago, anden145 said:

Are you using the beta version? The voices in the beta are much better (in my opinion), than in the non-beta version.

Yes. Just bought it yesterday and switched to beta channel, never had the normal version installed. Maybe I would have returned it instantly if the beta voices are really the "better" ones 🙂

 

(I hate them. So 90´s).

Fair enough. 🙂

Well, I think the beta-voices are better than the non-beta version. Also faster. They're still not perfect but in my opinion, they're no better than for instance PF3 or Pilot2ATC etc. The great thing here is, that they're being improved along the way. Radar Contact was still the milestone for me, personally. But that wasn't text-to-speech, but pre-recorded sound-files put together, which also has it's own drawbacks. One thing I really hope they get implemented (fast) is the US/North American phraseology of callsigns (for instance: "Twelve-thirtyfour" instead of "One-two-three-four" etc). 

But in 2023 you can use cloud services for generating voice. Maybe the dev should look into the Azure-implementation of MSFS (same goes to Amazon if I am informed correctly). This could be an option.Something like this Text to Speech – Realistic AI Voice Generator | Microsoft Azure

Easy to implement, leave it as a choice for the customer to use it (for extra price). And boom.