Ho do you manage ATC? (Or no ATC)?

[Sonosusto 691]

16 hours ago, tup61 said:

🤔 I keep finding it rather funny how a lot of flight simmers think it's of no importance if an AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL addon does NOT actually CONTROL THE TRAFFIC. How can you call an addon that does not actually do ATC "a solid functioning ATC"? I just don't get it. If the addon does NOT control traffic it is NOT a solid functioning addon by definition.

People have grown accustomed to ATC addons not controlling traffic and now they think that's okay... while that obviously has never been okay: it's always been a huge discrepancy in ATC software. Is FSHud perfect? Absolutely not. But it actually does what an ATC addon should and it's being worked and getting better and better. But as usual: to each his own. 😉

We get it. You do you.

[gabriel122 23]

On 5/2/2023 at 10:25 PM, RobJC said:

Thanks. That makes FSHud a firm no for me. There is nothing more immersive than talking to ATC like i do with P2ATC. 

yeah, current version of FSHUD doesn't support voice recognition but the dev team said it would be included in future. So if it matters to you you can still use P2A or PROATCSR and wait for FSHUD further update . no big deal 

[Violins77 32]

Well, after watching a ton of videos and reading all your responses, I ultimately decided to not go with any ATC at all for the time being. I also opted to turn off all AI traffic, as the situation becomes unmanageable in big airports, and seeing a ton of go around and not being able to land or takeoff is kind of ridiculous.

I still use FSLTL to populate airports with more model and liveries though.

I know this might sound like a strange choice, but I never had more fun than I do now. I think I just realized that piloting airplanes with complex systems is hard enough without having to also having to workaround a barely working fake ATC that cannot properly manage traffic anyway, and would often completely break my flight plan with instructions that make no sense (talking about in game ATC).

For live traffic, yes it means the world is little more empty now, but I rarely see any planes while flying anyway, and when landing or taking off, they are everywhere to the point where any kind of realistic distancing is not working (thanks to ATC again). 

Now, I can complete my flight exactly as I wand to, I am completely free, and if something goes wrong, that's on me. I feel like I'm really in control of my experience and I really enjoy it.

I might reconsider FS Hud eventually, as it controls AI planes as well, but I'm one of those superficial who also think the robotic voice and lack of VFR support is not totally worth the price for now.

 

Thank you all!

 

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Violins77

[rob0203 697]

It is not a strange choice, everybody can do their hobby like they want to, that is so great about it!

[tup61 1,613]

3 hours ago, Violins77 said:

I know this might sound like a strange choice, but I never had more fun than I do now.

Not at all: I have flown without AI for years and years! I tried to fly with AI every now and then but always ended up flying just as you do now and I also had a LOT of fun with it and really preferred it! In the end it's YOU who decide how to have fun with MSFS. 😉 Only quite recently, with the FSHud beta, I decided to make the switch and use AI on every flight: I would never have done that without FSHud 1.3.

There are no strange choices when it comes to flightsimming. 😉

[Paul K 1,359]

3 hours ago, Violins77 said:

Well, after watching a ton of videos and reading all your responses, I ultimately decided to not go with any ATC at all for the time being. I also opted to turn off all AI traffic, as the situation becomes unmanageable in big airports, and seeing a ton of go around and not being able to land or takeoff is kind of ridiculous.

Exactly the same here. I just run FS-ATC-Chatter, and let my imagination fill in the details. Life is a lot more straight forward.

 

6 minutes ago, tup61 said:

There are no strange choices when it comes to flightsimming. 😉

Oh, I dunno - some people have bought the Captain Sim C-130.

[Violins77 32]

4 hours ago, Paul K said:

 

Oh, I dunno - some people have bought the Captain Sim C-130.

Thank you, I just woke up and this post already made my day 🤣🤣.

[Dutch727 543]

This is an interesting discussion, because I'm looking for the best ATC/AI combination for MSFS that fits my style of flying, which often involves GA or small airliners flying from or to uncontrolled fields.  This is kind of a mini-review of what I've tried so far.

Live online services like VATSIM don't work for my style.  It can be hard enough to find ATC staffed at major airports much less smaller ones and uncontrolled fields.  The places I like to fly are usually far away from airports with a VATSIM staff online.

What I want is an offline ATC solution that's a helpful, reliable, and practical tool to assist me in IMC conditions and an AI that's at least plausible (with airliner and GA traffic) without much management from me.

In past years Radar Contact 4.3 with default AI worked well, but it's outdated and won't work with MSFS.  I tried Pro-ATC with FSX and P3D and was often frustrated by it and gave up on it.  I haven't tried the MSFS version for that reason.

Right now I'm bouncing between FSHud and Pilot2ATC for ATC, and FSLTL and FSTraffic for AI.  All of these are frustrating and limited in their own unique ways.

FSHud with FSLTL seems to have a lot of potential (the voices are quite good) but right now it feels limited and buggy.  It works best flying an FMS-equipped airliner between major airports so long as you fly the flight plan without any deviations. In-flight special requests are very basic - mostly change in altitude. It doesn't support uncontrolled fields and can be difficult to use - I always have to edit the route before it will accept it and that can be quite difficult.  It's also quite hard to get a matching flight plan into the GPS unless you can directly import it from SimBrief and even then FSHud likes to switch SIDs and STARs from the original SimBrief plan (which is realistic) but adapting the GNS530 or 750 to these changes successfully is a major PITA involving lots of manual changes.  Get one waypoint wrong and fly off course with FSHud and it seems to often just stop talking to you.   Taxiing is also difficult and sometimes involves going in circles to hit the exact spot in order to move to the next waypoint - I spend most of my time heads down in the cockpit staring at the little arrow on the ground.  It's difficult to complete a flight without a struggle.  I've given up on most of them.

I want ATC to help me, not make my flights more difficult.

Pilot2ATC has many more in-flight options and is somewhat less frustrating in my experience so far, but it too fails to handle uncontrolled fields gracefully either on departure or arrival.  Unlike FSHud it "supports" VFR but in reality it's just traffic advisories.  Sometimes it will vector me in on a VFR flight plan, but sometimes not.  The vectoring on both FSHud and Pilot2ATC leaves a lot to be desired.  Both often give intercept instructions so late you cross the centerline before you can intercept the ILS and have to zigzag back to capture it.  The vectoring in P2A is also ridiculously buggy in my experience - I have been given nonsense vectors repeated endlessly until I was miles away from the airport, requiring me to shut down P2A to shut it up.  I have also been given correct vectors but the voice repeated the same instruction multiple times in rapid succession in a loop, followed eventually (after maybe 20-30 repetitions) by my copilot acknowledging an instruction I never heard to contact tower.  But there was no option I could find to actually contact the tower and he wouldn't do it.  I was on my own.  These kinds of things happen with alarming frequency.

Eventually if I work at it long enough I might work out a decent flow that avoids some of these frustrations.  But right now I'm spending most of my flying time heads down fighting with ATC and nav equipment.  

It looks like we still have a ways to go to get practical usable ATC and AI in MSFS for anything other than MCDU-equipped airliner flights between major airports.  If RC 4.3 would work for MSFS it would still be preferable for me.  I hope that changes with time.

Dutch


 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,032]

11 minutes ago, Dutch727 said:

In past years Radar Contact 4.3 with default AI worked well, but it's outdated and won't work with MSFS.

Curious comment. I agree it won’t work with MSFS but what makes you say it’s “outdated”?

It requires MakeRwys to generate the files necessary for correct functionality. And an interface where you can see the menu options. Not insurmountable if Asobo and Microsoft make it possible.

12 minutes ago, Dutch727 said:

If RC 4.3 would work for MSFS it would still be preferable for me.  I hope that changes with time.

[tup61 1,613]

21 minutes ago, Dutch727 said:

FSHud with FSLTL seems to have a lot of potential (the voices are quite good) but right now it feels limited and buggy.  It works best flying an FMS-equipped airliner between major airports so long as you fly the flight plan without any deviations. In-flight special requests are very basic - mostly change in altitude. It doesn't support uncontrolled fields and can be difficult to use - I always have to edit the route before it will accept it and that can be quite difficult.  It's also quite hard to get a matching flight plan into the GPS unless you can directly import it from SimBrief and even then FSHud likes to switch SIDs and STARs from the original SimBrief plan (which is realistic) but adapting the GNS530 or 750 to these changes successfully is a major PITA involving lots of manual changes.  Get one waypoint wrong and fly off course with FSHud and it seems to often just stop talking to you.   Taxiing is also difficult and sometimes involves going in circles to hit the exact spot in order to move to the next waypoint - I spend most of my time heads down in the cockpit staring at the little arrow on the ground.  It's difficult to complete a flight without a struggle.  I've given up on most of them.

Fair review. I agree about the taxiing (going in circles!) and even though I don't have to edit imported SB plans too often it IS quite hard to do once you are forced to do it. I am getting used to how it works (and it does get easier once you know a few tricks) but it's not exactly user friendly and it certainly can scare off new users. 

And there is a reason why I mainly (of not only) fly the Longitude with the awesome G5000... LOL I really don't like those old and awful GNS's anymore...!!! And btw of course it's not FSHud's fault you are still using those old devices... 😎

[rob0203 697]

The vectoring indeed needs work with most of the ATC sofware like FSHud and Pilot2Atc. A downwind, base and intercept heading should normally be enough. But they overcorrect often a lot because the sofware wants the pilot exactly flying to one point. It should give more responsibility to the pilot and think more in radials.

[Dutch727 543]

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Curious comment. I agree it won’t work with MSFS but what makes you say it’s “outdated”?

It requires MakeRwys to generate the files necessary for correct functionality. And an interface where you can see the menu options. Not insurmountable if Asobo and Microsoft make it possible.

What I mean is that while RC 4.3 does what it does very well, it has minimal support for SID/STAR and would likely never make 2023's Airbus drivers happy.  I myself would prefer an ATC system that would assign departures and arrivals which is what happens in the real world.  RC allows you to pre-program one and fly it, but it offers no guidance and no re-assignment.  In that sense it's outdated.

But it's stable, reliable, and helpful and doesn't get in the way.  It has options no current ATC program has (short final request, emergencies where ATC actually helps you out).  I would take it over anything we have now for MSFS, but I realize for the mainstream of simmers it's not really adequate.   I look forward to improved ATC options in the future.

Dutch

[Dutch727 543]

2 hours ago, tup61 said:

Fair review. I agree about the taxiing (going in circles!) and even though I don't have to edit imported SB plans too often it IS quite hard to do once you are forced to do it. I am getting used to how it works (and it does get easier once you know a few tricks) but it's not exactly user friendly and it certainly can scare off new users. 

And there is a reason why I mainly (of not only) fly the Longitude with the awesome G5000... LOL I really don't like those old and awful GNS's anymore...!!! And btw of course it's not FSHud's fault you are still using those old devices... 😎

It's the story of my life, friend.  I just go on my own path rather than adopt the easier path the mainstream often follows.  I realize it's not the smoothest way, but I'm not interested in the Longitude or the G5000.  I love flying and testing the 310R (working on testing an improved flight model during these flights with the ATC programs).  I love the DC-3.  The DC-6.  I rarely fly a jet or even a turboprop, although I kind of like the new ATR a bit.  It's just my taste in airplanes.

Dutch

 

[Dutch727 543]

2 hours ago, rob0203 said:

The vectoring indeed needs work with most of the ATC sofware like FSHud and Pilot2Atc. A downwind, base and intercept heading should normally be enough. But they overcorrect often a lot because the sofware wants the pilot exactly flying to one point. It should give more responsibility to the pilot and think more in radials.

So, so true.  Radar Contact does this so well.  I always feel comfortable following its vectors.

Dutch

[Ray Proudfoot 9,032]

@Dutch727, SID and STARs we’re planned for v6 but John stopped development and it never saw the light of day.

I include a SID and STAR in the plan I load into RC4 and as my flights are generally under two hours they generally work okay. At 40 miles out I always opt for vectors anyway as that’s generally how r/w ATC works.