13 minutes ago, CFIJose said:

I was never able to solve my CTD issues. So I moved on to BATC as soon as Traffic support was released.

It's so weird that the ap worked so well at first and then after an update I started getting CTDs.

Best regards.

me too, it is a shame, I have tried everything but unfortunately it is still there, and also around London Area when Navigraph database installed 

Such a pity with the CTD issues. I guess I've been lucky as I haven't experienced these. Could be worthwhile sending a support ticket (via the app) and/or checking out their Discord. 

12 hours ago, ttbq1 said:

Are you still having a CTD at KBOS? I am also having those and haven't been able ti find a solution 

It's a FSHud + Flytampa KBOS combination. FSHud + default or Feelthere KBOS - no CTD for me. Reported on FSHud Discord some days ago. 

Another question on FSHUD with AIG or any traffic in general.  I know there is separation although I still get an abnormal amount of go-arounds and I see that traffic on the ground seems to have avoidance but what about in flight traffic advisories?  I had a couple of instances during my ongoing flight where the 777 TCAS has gone off for traffic advisories however I don't seem to get any traffic notifications or advisories at all about any traffic around me from FSHUD.  

Is that something that isn't present in FSHUD yet?  Is it being worked on?  

Thank you! 

I'm almost certain that there are no traffic advisories in FSHud - I don't recall ever getting one, even before traffic separation was added in version 1.3 beta, when there were certainly occasions where conflicts did occur.

I'm a bit surprised that you say you're getting an abnormal amount of go-arounds. Even at busy airports such as Heathrow I rarely see them. I think I've seen a few at airports with limited taxiways onto runways so that line-up or exit from the runway requires a significant back-taxi, but other than that the separation works quite well. Similarly I don't see TCAS/RA advisories either.

Are you sure you haven't got traffic in your sim which it not under FSHud control? Do you hear FSHud issue the go-around?

2 hours ago, ConstVoid said:

I'm almost certain that there are no traffic advisories in FSHud - I don't recall ever getting one, even before traffic separation was added in version 1.3 beta, when there were certainly occasions where conflicts did occur.

I'm a bit surprised that you say you're getting an abnormal amount of go-arounds. Even at busy airports such as Heathrow I rarely see them. I think I've seen a few at airports with limited taxiways onto runways so that line-up or exit from the runway requires a significant back-taxi, but other than that the separation works quite well. Similarly I don't see TCAS/RA advisories either.

Are you sure you haven't got traffic in your sim which it not under FSHud control? Do you hear FSHud issue the go-around?

It could be self induced.  I have my traffic numbers pretty high, 50 parked and 50 active I believe.  Yes, FS HUD gives the go-around so it is clearly controlling the traffic and I am following vectors and approach speeds.  I would say at least 1/2 of my flights have a go-around.

That is a shame about traffic advisories.  It's a critical aspect of ATC and something even PF3 did years ago.  

I got my first go-around recently. Never in MSFS2020 - but that's because I couldn't use as high traffic settings as in 2024 (currently using 50/50). I think that in general, traffic separation is very good. 

In terms of traffic advisories, I've never heard it. Even when I get a TCAS warning. I don't think it's implemented. 

Edited January 2, 20251 yr by Cpt_Piett

Does FSHUD 2.0 include regional phraseology and airport specific procedures?
Beginning with the difference between european phraseology and us phraseology up to specific callsigns of controller stations?

It includes all procedures from the current AIRAC. European accents are present. Not sure about difference between in USA, as I'm flying in EU only.

By the way, I just saw a new video 

 

These new features are looking good and show promise. I've got both FSHud and BATC and both a heading in the right direction! Competition is good

7 hours ago, KL Oo said:

These new features are looking good and show promise.

My problem with all those new features is that it's only talk for now. As the video shows in text: there are Future Plans. Seems nothing more than a wishlist from the developer. He didn't actually show anything: nothing is actually working already. He promises a lot of cool new features and options but I just kept on thinking 'How is he going to get this done...' Considering development in the past (not only of FSHud but of all ATC addons) I certainly don't see this all happening in 2025 already. If ever. But well, let's see. For now I can't say I am too excited. When he can get everything he is promising actually working in FSHud I might get a bit more excited. 😉 

4 hours ago, mistolip said:

nothing is actually working already

Actually, it works very well right now, these are future enhancements however everything it does today works fine.  There is PLENTY already working.  

27 minutes ago, psolk said:

Actually, it works very well right now, these are future enhancements however everything it does today works fine.  There is PLENTY already working.  

I know, I was (obviously) only talking about all the promised enhancements. None of what is announced is actually shown. It's a public wishlist. What DOES work, works fine indeed.

21 hours ago, mistolip said:

I know, I was (obviously) only talking about all the promised enhancements. None of what is announced is actually shown. It's a public wishlist. What DOES work, works fine indeed.

Well, to be fair, the developer published his roadmap as a result of a number of requests for one on Discord.

As to whether he has any of these features working to any degree, who knows, but he has commented in the past about Proofs of Concept being done for other new features and those features have turned up later, sometimes remarkably quickly..

Agree!!!  Love it except for the use of "decimal" instead of "point" and "identified" instead of "radar contact."