Currently, I'm flying a lot in SOCAL in busy airspaces and GA airports and I have set - weeks ago - the GA Traffic slider at 11 on a scale of 10 ;) Same for airliners. Even with this setting, when I start a flight, I don't have always 3 or 4 traffic moving, departing or starting circuits. Same issue when arriving somewhere. SI needs time to populate my world and even with 11 it's not over populated. I didn't have tested yet a lower value, as my personnal objectif is to fill my environment with a lot of trafics. And my system seems to cope with that. Using AIG and IVAO MTL as 3D models and liveries.

15 minutes ago, vbazillio said:

Using AIG and IVAO MTL as 3D models and liveries.

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit? I'm just using default MSFS models to start and it's worked fine, but I have noticed a few anomalies. The other day I had a Cessna taxi past me with the prop not turning, for example. Not having previously used any 3rd party traffic injection I'm a bit behind the curve on what and where to find GA models.

Scott

Guys, dont forget that the amount of traffic generated only in part is determined on the slider setting. That slider value is a % of how many GA parking spots you have in the T.T file (Say Intentions version of the old AFCAD). For every airport there is a default version until a community member have updated an airport and the best one SI use as a global default for everone but you can pick whichever version you like.

You can create your own airport as well and add a completely realistic environment with all real world spots if you want. Time consuming, yes but well wort it. With T.T you can also assign airlines to specific gates, correct taxiways, holding points etc. You can even have taxiways with just one direction of taxi allowed just like some taxiways in real life.

Edited September 7Sep 7 by mikced

1 hour ago, tttocs said:

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit? I'm just using default MSFS models to start and it's worked fine, but I have noticed a few anomalies. The other day I had a Cessna taxi past me with the prop not turning, for example.

I also do have this traffic with non-spinning prop ;) In term of artefact, I see also some tailwheel aircraft in straight line attitude on ground. By installing extra library (AIG, FSLTL, MTL...) I want to create more and more diversity of traffic. I have just installed (all) AIG models and liveries and the MTL from IVAO. All sit active on my Community folder and SI is using what he found active. Of course, I don't launch AIG Injector. Is that what you expect for your "elaborating"?

Edited September 7Sep 7 by vbazillio

6 minutes ago, vbazillio said:

Is that what you expect for your "elaborating"?

That works, thanks! I'm thinking the AIG stuff is all big iron which I'm less concerned with while MTL from IVAO has at least some GA. I only see 2020 stuff listed there, but I assume this is still 2024 compatible, yes?

Thanks for your help!

1 hour ago, mikced said:

Guys, dont forget that the amount of traffic generated only in part is determined on the slider setting. That slider value is a % of how many GA parking spots you have in the T.T file (Say Intentions version of the old AFCAD)

Understood. I've not yet tried making any mods in TaxiTuner, but I have changed my default TT files on some airports based on customization for a particular 3rd party. Yet more stuff to play with!

Scott

52 minutes ago, tttocs said:

I only see 2020 stuff listed there, but I assume this is still 2024 compatible, yes?

Yes. MTL are compatible with MSFS2024. The MTL Updater asked for your MSFS2020 or MSFS2024 installation/community folder.

9 hours ago, tttocs said:

Much of the point of SI is in being able to interact live with ATC using voice in open ended conversations. As you've noted, you can assign a copilot to handle comms, but that may not suit you for GA use - though while not generally the norm in smaller planes, it's also not unrealistic. Even in light GA aircraft, two pilots flying together will often handle comms this way. You can interact with ATC by typing your comms rather than using voice in the SI app, but because this is not a scripted application, drop downs with canned responses wouldn't really work.

Scott

Ah, thanks for that Scott….

One more quick report since I mentioned I was going to do a flight with SIDs and STARs in the TBM 850. Couldn't fly for a few days, but finally got that flight in. Once again, impressive results.

One minor surprise - not even sure I would call it a glitch - I was coming into KBJC on the PINNR 4 arrival (really a jet arrival, rather than a turbo prop, but I wanted to, so... shoot me. I might have been a bit slow on some of the speed restrictions 😉). I was informed early that KBJC was landing east, and as I got closer, I was told to expect the Red Rocks Visual RWY 12L/R. Uhh... That's intended for traffic from the south. I was coming from the north on the STAR. I have no idea how I would have been vectored to set this up - heck it might even have been fun - but I knew I didn't want to wander way south before coming back, so I requested the RNAV 12L which has an IF corresponding to the last fix on the STAR for BJC. Request was granted, and all went smoothly from there, but definitely seemed a bit odd. Not having flown in the area is some years, for all I know this is normal. Maybe.

I'm still really enjoying this package. No, not perfect, but it continues to mostly exceed my expectations with just the occasional issue popping up.

Scott

I've been off-and-on using SI for a year. About 2 weeks ago I decided to try it again and was, also, impressed with the improvements. Vectors have come a long way. Not perfect. I fly almost exclusively IFR, almost exclusively biz jets (lately). Traffic is, in general, very well done (apart from that one airplane that sits on the taxiway in front of you for 20 minutes for no apparent reason, blocking your way...thank god for the Zap airplanes in front of you button!) I flew into Istanbul the other night and could see 32 airplanes active (about 4 or 5 on the ground, the rest in the air). In terms of vectors, it's far better but has some rough edges. Sometimes it takes you miles and miles away from the airport to vector you back in (even if there's no traffic). Sometimes it points you right at the intermediate fix in the opposite direction and clears you for the approach like that, so you're left to self-vector your way out of it. Using the copilot for Comms is pretty cool but has rough edges. He/she likes to call for taxi. It's almost a hobby, I think. Halfway to the runway and ask for a departure brief? They call for taxi. Ask for them to switch to tower...they might or might not switch to tower and they might, instead, call for taxi...or do nothing. Climbing out through 15,000...say anything to them...they might just ,you guessed it, call for taxi! You kinda get on edge about it. This is with their premium voice thing and, despite the fact that it "has memory" it doesn't seem to have a lot of awareness yet. Checklists have mixed reviews with me. You don't want to answer with voice...takes way too long...assign a button and respond with that. I'm, also, trying to get it to do "copilot stuff" like raise the gear on command, handle flaps, set FLC or YD...no luck yet, though, supposedly, it can. Still, I do like the fact that it handles the radios, particularly on climbout and approach. Overall, despite the weird glitches and long vectors, I really like it. Fairly realistic traffic that ATC interacts with, reasonable departure procedures, reasonable (usually) arrival procedures. And, for me, it helps to have the copilot (even with its quirks). Works pretty well in VR too which is most of my flying these days. Just my two cents on it.

8 minutes ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

Using the copilot for Comms is pretty cool but has rough edges. He/she likes to call for taxi. It's almost a hobby, I think. Halfway to the runway and ask for a departure brief? They call for taxi. Ask for them to switch to tower...they might or might not switch to tower and they might, instead, call for taxi...or do nothing

I have never had that happen.

Have you reported the issue?

Edited September 8Sep 8 by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

Overall, despite the weird glitches and long vectors, I really like it. Fairly realistic traffic that ATC interacts with, reasonable departure procedures, reasonable (usually) arrival procedures. And, for me, it helps to have the copilot (even with its quirks). Works pretty well in VR too which is most of my flying these days. Just my two cents on it.

Oh, there are definitely glitches and quirks. However, though it's early days for me, so far vectors and descents have been solid on arrival. Haven't had anything blocking me on taxi either - at least so far. But we may not be using the same kinds of fields. See below.

Can't personally speak to the copilot stuff. I only fly planes that are single pilot certified and definitely prefer to handle my own comms. To me, that's one of the biggest attractions to the program. On my initial flight in the Commander 114, my "copilot" (who I didn't realize I had) started doing callouts and such annoying the &)(*% out of me. I immediately went in and disabled any and all remaining interactions with she/he. Just not my thing, I'm afraid, though I completely understand the value for folks flying bigger iron requiring two pilots.

As noted earlier, my focus for this topic is very much for those flying smaller GA, mostly IFR and occasionally VFR and in my case, primarily in North America. Also focusing on smaller uncontrolled GA fields, up to larger GA reliever airports like today's flight to KBJC. I (very!) rarely fly into larger international airports, preferring places that private GA flyers frequent. There are lots of folks using this with big iron, flying into major airports - as is reflected in their monitoring program.

I mostly wanted to let the smaller guys know that there's value here for us as well.

Scott

Edited September 9Sep 9 by tttocs

9 hours ago, tttocs said:

Oh, there are definitely glitches and quirks. However, though it's early days for me, so far vectors and descents have been solid on arrival. Haven't had anything blocking me on taxi either - at least so far. But we may not be using the same kinds of fields. See below.

Can't personally speak to the copilot stuff. I only fly planes that are single pilot certified and definitely prefer to handle my own comms. To me, that's one of the biggest attractions to the program. On my initial flight in the Commander 114, my "copilot" (who I didn't realize I had) started doing callouts and such annoying the &)(*% out of me. I immediately went in and disabled any and all remaining interactions with she/he. Just not my thing, I'm afraid, though I completely understand the value for folks flying bigger iron requiring two pilots.

As noted earlier, my focus for this topic is very much for those flying smaller GA, mostly IFR and occasionally VFR and in my case, primarily in North America. Also focusing on smaller uncontrolled GA fields, up to larger GA reliever airports like today's flight to KBJC. I (very!) rarely fly into larger international airports, preferring places that private GA flyers frequent. There are lots of folks using this with big iron, flying into major airports - as is reflected in their monitoring program.

I mostly wanted to let the smaller guys know that there's value here for us as well.

Scott

I get that and agree. There is certainly value for GA (particularly IFR) and, I think, a lot of it. I had done most of my flying in the US, only occassionally flying overseas but I find that, with SI, flying there is pretty fun and I've been on a tour, travelling through France, England, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Greece and all over. If I were flying VFR, I'd probably stick to the US, mostly until they make more improvements there. Yes, the more "features" you add, the more quirks you're going to run into, but it is getting better. (I'd like to see active Restricted Areas and MOAs too.) Good to hear about their Class Bravo handling. The one cool side effect for me is that I fly into stock MSFS airports and don't mind so much doing it since you don't feel so "alone" there and you get some reasonable ATC there. So, it saves me that money and it opens up a whole lot of airports that will never ever be improved because there's no money in it. Yeah, I'll get back to single-pilot flying again at some point.

Thought I'd provide on update on this after working with Say Intentions for a couple of weeks now.

First and foremost, when my first month ends, I will be continuing and that tells you something. I do like it, and feel its worth staying with. That said, I'm a bit less glowing about things than I was after the first few flights. In particular, vectoring can be absolutely brilliant, as it was a couple of days ago, coming into KFLG. The vectors given seemed to take into account the adjacent high terrain, while doing an efficient job taking me from on course into the approach. Well done.

But today's flight was the opposite. I was descending via a STAR (the EMMLN 3) as instructed and told to fly it to SLI and then expect the ILS 20R approach for KSNA. All was well until descending to 6000' approaching PDZ, I was suddenly told to descend to 2800' and was cleared for the ILS 20R approach. No vector to an approach segment, no instruction to proceed to one of the IF's, and a descent which would have put me into terrain just about however I decided to get to the approach.

And so it seems to go, from usually good, to occasionally brilliant to... sometimes a bit frustrating.

I'm keeping my subscription for now, because:

1) It does a good job of giving me good and generally realistic GA traffic at the fields I usually fly to/from and I'm realizing that's no small thing. (KSNA where I flew today is not a normal airport type for me.)
2) It generally does a good job with VFR flight following
3) It typically does a solid job at control at towered fields whether IFR or VFR. A caveat here: it generally pays to take a quick look at the Taxi Tuner app to see what it understands about parking locations. It may, or may not have the information to understand "parking at Atlantic Aviation" or " I'm on the ramp at Signature", but a quick look at the available plans in Taxi Tuner will tell you, and if it doesn't recognize what you think it should, you can make changes yourself so that it will. Ditto with taxi routing. The tuner app is actually pretty cool and you can fairly easily create your own custom setup or modify those of others.
4) IFR to and from most fields I fly to generally does work as expected. You just need to be ready for complications in some areas with adjacent terrain.
5) I almost never have to play the game I've seen others describe with some ATC programs of "just ignoring the controller for descents and vectors". I'm almost always able to get on the same page as the AI controller and stay "in the system".
6) I enjoy having their background ATC chatter. I've used FS ATC Chatter for quite a while now to add ambiance, but this is more than that. And it also integrates with FS ATC Chatter if you want additional background stuff.
7) There is an integrated bug reporting system which makes it easy to report issues from a specific flight. All flight data gets automatically attached. I've been using this any time there is an anomaly in the hopes that doing so makes their jobs easier. Hopefully others are as well.

TLDR - a lot more good than bad for me, but it is still very much a work in progress. It HAS gotten to the point where it enhances the flight experience enough for me that things seemed kinda wrong and a bit dull when I tried a flight without it.

Scott

Pretty much the same for me. Except i haven't had any problems with vectoring or terrain. Maybe it's because i mostly fly IFR in Europe. If i would do a flight without SI, it's a big part for me that is missing. For me it does a petty good job to be immersive. I also like the new rules regarding skynet (multiplayer) which where introduced a few days ago.

I still haven’t done a VFR flight with SI yet (and that was actually one of the reasons I decided to give it a try...), but for IFR, the whole AI traffic management, ATC communications, being able to talk to the co-pilot, and interact with the cabin crew — for me, it’s been a real game-changer. It’s expensive, but I’m more than happy to pay for it!

And I’m using it without a microphone... which is even more surreal. I can only imagine how much better it must be with a microphone!