Developers often refuse criticism but trust their "qualified" peers, and it shows.  As @Bobsk8 mentioned, the truth is that "they bit more than they can chew". It's disheartening that people continue to purchase these products and then waste time in fruitless debates, insisting that everything is just fine. When we consider the evolution of ATC from the past until now, it's clear that we still have a long way to go before we reach an acceptable level of performance, even with AI.

understand the utter frustration , but lets give the dev the chance to respond to this before we crucify !

27 minutes ago, sonny147 said:

understand the utter frustration , but lets give the dev the chance to respond to this before we crucify !

Yeah, they banned one guy for speaking out the truth. Surely, I would entertain your statement if they wouldn't ban somebody for pointing out bugs. This is why I say that some of us find all kinds of excuses but them. 

1 minute ago, LRBS said:

Yeah, they banned one guy for speaking out the truth. Surely, I would entertain your statement if they wouldn't ban somebody for pointing out bugs. This is why I say that some of us find all kinds of excuses but them. 

understand , just trying to calm things down a bit , if the guy has a genuine grip well yes , but been here before with devs being shot down down before the whole story as emerged, aim not trying to defend anybody here hope it gets fixed soon !

Following this topic - I can say that there are rules of BETA forum channel and forum at all which was asked from users to maintain:

Please follow the rules below in order to make the beta channel more productive and effective.

1. Avoid abstract sayings:
Due to simulator, user environment and flight area differences
(airport, flight plan, airspace, AI Aircraft types).

Please avoid from sayings like:
"AI aircraft uses opposite runway for takeoff or landing"
OR

"I continuously receive vectors from ATC"
OR
"AI Aircrafts are landing almost on runway threshold.

Because this information is completely useless and we don't have any ability to do anything with this information - as long as it depends on many factors.

Instead, please open a ticket from support (application main window) with detailed information: 
Where it happens, what was your flight plan or which airport, what is expected to be.

 

However, things that are easy to notice and happen during every application use
(Mostly user interface parts) can be reported in a forum with screenshots.
For example:
"Filter only user related ATC messages".


2. Version and scope alignments:
In scope of BETA, please align to list of features that are expected in BETA version accordingly and avoid reports outside of scope of BETA version.

 

3. Manuals overview:
Before using BETA version, it is required to overview all application manuals and follow
MSFS/P3D Settings guide.
This is a crucial requirement to avoid application workflow misunderstanding.

A good example:
"ATC didn't clear me for takeoff" - mostly happens because you didn't follow the application steps manual and weren't aware of the current application state.


Where manuals can be found:
You can open all manuals from application main window or following by this link:
https://beta.fshud.com/#/site/profile

 

Our team is continuously working on the product in order to improve it (almost every week new version is released).

As for @guenseli post, it was completely non-respective and rude tone to development team.
To clarify he isn't part of Beta Testers team and his tone was more like "I'm in the bad mood today, therefore I will yell on someone" - which is completely non-acceptable.

On top of that - you're more than welcome to send application tickets with different application issues and problems. 
This way is much more useful and effective - because it allows us to see application logs and more clearly understand the problem.

Thanks,
FSHud Team

9 minutes ago, FSHud said:

As for @guenseli post, it was completely non-respective and rude tone to development team

Sorry, that is not true!

 

10 minutes ago, FSHud said:

To clarify he isn't part of Beta Testers team and his tone was more like "I'm in the bad mood today, therefore I will yell on someone" - which is completely non-acceptable.

Not sure if I understand that correctly, but of course I was part of the public available FSHud beta and that corresponding forum. 

About the mood, you are correct. Happened after that what you can see in the video after months of development. And a kind of frustration that you refused to answer any question about at what stage FSHud currently is, whats the roadmap of the product is I paid for (in the believe there will be essential features implemented at a point - still lacking) 

 

About any rude tone... Not from my side, but yes, there is a rude tone in your forum. 

 

Sorry to discuss this publically in a childish manner, there could have been a chance for you in your own forum or any other professionell way instead of an instant ban without any chance to speak to each other. Your choice! 

about as thin skinned as the xp.org mods

fs-hud has the worst support team i ever seen in years lucky beyond ATC coming soon  cause cause  i don't see this atc get much better, many updates but key features still missing and ai control still far from what you will expect from a basic atc

8 hours ago, Kaiii3 said:

What FSHud amd BATC arw doing (AFAIK) is moving the airplane each frame...

Now imagin doing this for 200+ airplanes.....

Well, it is possible, PSXTraffic is doing that too (succesfully 😀)

Todays multi core cpu's are so powerful, PSXT can produce up to 100 fps, and still take less then half percentage of the total available cpu time.

Note: to avoid confusion, PSXT is not an ATC program.

 

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by kiek

2 hours ago, kiek said:

Well, it is possible, PSXTraffic is doing that too (succesfully 😀)

Todays multi core cpu's are so powerful, PSXT can produce up to 100 fps, and still take less then half percentage of the total available cpu time.

Note: to avoid confusion, PSXT is not an ATC program.

 

yeah I know and it is doing a great job. But as you said you are AI only, i guess the Mix of ATC and AI with fully offline contolled airplanes will be to much at the moment. (There are ways but the SDK is currently limited - I reported this to ASOBO a long time ago but no fix for the faulty functions yet...).

We hat AIG have a fully developed DEMO more or less ready for fully external controlled AI Traffic, it is just that we can not controll any AI that is on the ground because of the SDK 😞

11 hours ago, FSHud said:

Please avoid from sayings like:
"AI aircraft uses opposite runway for takeoff or landing"
OR

"I continuously receive vectors from ATC"

Hahaha you are actually serious about that. You could just cut that short to "Please don't post anything negative in the public or we will ban you".

You make the Aerosoft forums seem like a liberal service-wonderland in comparison.

31 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

You could just cut that short to "Please don't post anything negative in the public

I noticed that for a long time, it was one of the reasons I never had any interest in this addon.

It strikes me reading through this topic some bridge-building is needed. It helps neither the developer or paying customers to criticise each other.

May I respectfully suggest those who have been banned are reinstated and a more considered tone is adopted by all.

You all want this program to succeed. Work together and keep reports purely objective. State the steps required to reproduce a bug. That's all that is needed for beta testing.

13 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

good ATC is hard enough to achieve without having to also properly control AI.

But…. Why did previous generations of FS had better AI/ATC? My FSX may not have had ‘live traffic’ but it did have …

• ATC that kept me on a heading
• ATC that steered me away from mountains
• General Aviation AI and life at almost every airport 
• Ground traffic that usually moved around fine at correct speeds
• AI that flared on landing
• Helicopter traffic (3rd party payware, no ATC on that)
• A wider variety of default AI models.
• Nine different voices
• Freeware tools that made creating new AI traffic easy

I’m sure AI is massive programming effort but if 20 year-old software had it, why not now? If MSFS 2024 doesn’t vastly improve AI/ATC, there is no way it will be a purchase for me. 

15 minutes ago, Danno said:

But…. Why did previous generations of FS had better AI/ATC? My FSX may not have had ‘live traffic’ but it did have …

• ATC that kept me on a heading
• ATC that steered me away from mountains
• General Aviation AI and life at almost every airport 
• Ground traffic that usually moved around fine at correct speeds
• AI that flared on landing
• Helicopter traffic (3rd party payware, no ATC on that)
• A wider variety of default AI models.
• Nine different voices
• Freeware tools that made creating new AI traffic easy

I’m sure AI is massive programming effort but if 20 year-old software had it, why not now? If MSFS 2024 doesn’t vastly improve AI/ATC, there is no way it will be a purchase for me. 

In order to get both decent AI and ATC in FSX and P3D I purchased AI programs and ATC programs. No sim had either one.