5 minutes ago, techman said:

In FSHUD I hear almost robotic numbers. The 8000hz could be the problem, no idea. Is there anything I can do on my side?

I'm not sure, but isn't 8 kHz roughly the bandwidth and audio quality in real world ATC communication?

2 minutes ago, JacquesBrel said:

I'm not sure, but isn't 8 kHz roughly the bandwidth and audio quality in real world ATC communication?

No relation at all - it is just lowest quality that AWS Polly can provide.
It was done in order to reduce download size (I don't want to enter too much into application under the hood).
But 8kHz doesn't mean anything and can be changed if needed - I'm just trying to clarify if that's the problem

I am sorry, Nvidia recorded just the MSFS, not the FSHUD-Sounds. 

While my (pilot) voice was ok the replies from Clearance were like being cut between the numbers and sounded slightly "electronic", like a robot. I cant describe it better in english, sorry. Hopefully some other helpful pilot can make some recordings. No idea what is causing this. When I use the link I posted above everything is close to perfect. But in FSHUD its a problem. Could it have something to do with a non-english windows or a language-setting somewhere hidden in an ini-file 🙂 ?

Edit: Not sure if its a compression issue maybe - I hear like "cuts" between the words? Just as an idea.
 

 

Edited April 16, 20233 yr by techman

7 minutes ago, techman said:

I am sorry, Nvidia recorded just the MSFS, not the FSHUD-Sounds. 

While my (pilot) voice was ok the replies from Clearance were like being cut between the numbers and sounded slightly "electronic", like a robot. I cant describe it better in english, sorry. Hopefully some other helpful pilot can make some recordings. No idea what is causing this. When I use the link I posted above everything is close to perfect. But in FSHUD its a problem. Could it have something to do with a non-english windows or a language-setting somewhere hidden in an ini-file 🙂 ?
 

 

FSHud works as separate process and separate application which should be recorded.
Try to open FSHud main window (not panel) and record it - this should do the work.
I don't think there is any relation to non-English window.
But from all of that - what I'm trying to clarify - perhaps it "plays" badly only on your side and should be played better - we can't know without recording

Following this topic with great interest. Problem for me is ATC software sounds so scripted.  If only it could  be a little more dynamic. 

So I will just put this out there from my previous experiences with ATC software that annoy the heck out of me. Solve these and ATC software would become alot more human dynamic in reacting to situations rather than being mechanically scripted.  I will preface to say that I dont currently use ATC software anymore, so perhaps these issues have been worked out. 

1)  This obsession with SIDs and STARs. Sure we use it often, but in the case of little traffic, or when traffic permits, I would certainly expect a DTO in order to cut out a good part of the STAR or SID. Got this often when Vatsim was actually online at the destination airport.   Of course its terrain dependent too or airspace that has particularly stringent regulations in the surrounding area.  But in general, ATC wants you out of their section ASAP to facilitate other traffic, so if a Direct To gets 'rid of you' faster, all the better. 

2)  Somewhat related....   ATC software are just following charts. This is good, but again comes back to the very scripted idea.    This gets a little ridiculous when you are on a downwind leg, and ATC sends you 25 miles out to the IAF and then return to intercept.  Again traffic and terrain dependent, but for the most part, there should be no issue to cut that at least in half and make your base leg a whole lot earlier to intercept 10-12 miles out.   Again this is where dynamic intelligence comes in to play and why Vatsim has a big advantage over ATC software. But then again I got tired of Vatsim going offline at my destination. Understandable it cannot be manned 24/7 but a nuisance to the pilot regardless. 

Maybe this software can be different. Love the fact that AI actually have structure now.   

 

 

2 hours ago, techman said:

"Lufthansa 6PL, turn right Heading 270, climb Flightlevel 330". Sounds perfectly normal to me.

Close, but not perfect. You'd need to format it like this for (almost) proper ATC phraseology: "Lufthansa 6 Papa Lima, turn right Heading 2 7 0, climb Flightlevel 3 3 0"

42 minutes ago, HighTowers said:

Following this topic with great interest. Problem for me is ATC software sounds so scripted.  If only it could  be a little more dynamic. 

So I will just put this out there from my previous experiences with ATC software that annoy the heck out of me. Solve these and ATC software would become alot more human dynamic in reacting to situations rather than being mechanically scripted.  I will preface to say that I dont currently use ATC software anymore, so perhaps these issues have been worked out. 

1)  This obsession with SIDs and STARs. Sure we use it often, but in the case of little traffic, or when traffic permits, I would certainly expect a DTO in order to cut out a good part of the STAR or SID. Got this often when Vatsim was actually online at the destination airport.   Of course its terrain dependent too or airspace that has particularly stringent regulations in the surrounding area.  But in general, ATC wants you out of their section ASAP to facilitate other traffic, so if a Direct To gets 'rid of you' faster, all the better. 

2)  Somewhat related....   ATC software are just following charts. This is good, but again comes back to the very scripted idea.    This gets a little ridiculous when you are on a downwind leg, and ATC sends you 25 miles out to the IAF and then return to intercept.  Again traffic and terrain dependent, but for the most part, there should be no issue to cut that at least in half and make your base leg a whole lot earlier to intercept 10-12 miles out.   Again this is where dynamic intelligence comes in to play and why Vatsim has a big advantage over ATC software. But then again I got tired of Vatsim going offline at my destination. Understandable it cannot be manned 24/7 but a nuisance to the pilot regardless. 

Maybe this software can be different. Love the fact that AI actually have structure now.   

 

 

I absolutely agree.

It adds so much to the immersion if some random factors are coming into play. Shortcuts, directs, visuals and vectors should be given by ATC on a random basis and/or by request.

 

In this context here is another question regarding FSHud:

What happens if you don't hit a planned waypoint - for example because you were flying a shortcut (without FSHud instructing so). How does FSHud react? Will it  automatically proceed to the next waypoint? Will it vector you back? Will it get stuck until you reach the waypoint?

This includes taxiing: Depending on the scenery addon taxiways or holding positions may be off compared to the ground markings. How does FSHud handle this? For example how to get takeoff clearance when the holding position is misplaced in a scenery addon?

 

Edited April 16, 20233 yr by RALF9636

While taxiing you "just" need to be at the right holding point. You can drive around like crazy and ATC will keep the order on the airport. At least what I have seen in my last 4 flights (where I didnt have the charts open and missed a lot 😄 )

1 hour ago, RALF9636 said:

I absolutely agree.

It adds so much to the immersion if some random factors are coming into play. Shortcuts, directs, visuals and vectors should be given by ATC on a random basis and/or by request.

 

In this context here is another question regarding FSHud:

What happens if you don't hit a planned waypoint - for example because you were flying a shortcut (without FSHud instructing so). How does FSHud react? Will it  automatically proceed to the next waypoint? Will it vector you back? Will it get stuck until you reach the waypoint?

This includes taxiing: Depending on the scenery addon taxiways or holding positions may be off compared to the ground markings. How does FSHud handle this? For example how to get takeoff clearance when the holding position is misplaced in a scenery addon?

 

During taxi and airborne - if you've skipped some of the waypoints but, you're at or nearby next expected waypoint or leg - it will progress your situation to this waypoint/leg.
In shorter words - if you fly directly to final - it will play forward all expected steps until your final position. 

37 minutes ago, FSHud said:

During taxi and airborne - if you've skipped some of the waypoints but, you're at or nearby next expected waypoint or leg - it will progress your situation to this waypoint/leg.
In shorter words - if you fly directly to final - it will play forward all expected steps until your final position. 

Great.

What about the holding point for takeoff? How flexible is FSHud with that? Does it allow to request takeoff even if you are not at the assigned holding point - be it because the holding point is somehow misplaced in the scenery or you want to do an intersection takeoff (or are requested intersection takeoffs even supported by FSHud?)?

 

Edited April 16, 20233 yr by RALF9636

8 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...)

The only external atc that provides traffic control is fshud. During my long flight simulator time i bouth Pilot2atc, FSHud, PF3 and Pro-Atc SR.

FSHud is one of the best for me. Only supports IFR as far as i know. Unless it changed in last version.

Pro Atc SR, didn't like it because of some bugs. Never did a complete flight without problems.

PF3 Is very advanced but old interface.

Pilot2atc has the advange that runs in x-plane, p3d, fsx and msfs. It is FAA ATC phraseology. Not EASA.

My choice goes to FSHud if i was running MSFS (On hangar at moment). At the moment i'm using pilot2atc in x-plane. Doesn't control traffic... 

 

Regards.

I am confused, I have FSfud, is 1.3 out if so how do I get it?

The voice demo/sample that @techman just sent, was quite amazing. That's from Amazon Polly? Will FSHud at some point make use of this TTS engine? That would absolutely be amazing! 🙂
(Right now, my voices in FSHud doesn't sound like that).

2 minutes ago, cchiozza said:

I am confused, I have FSfud, is 1.3 out if so how do I get it?

You need to request beta access on their forum here

Thanks, they responded...