ConstVoid

The FSHud ATC traffic setting AIG selects whether or not you want the in-built injector to add traffic from the set of traffic installed by AIG - either the base pack, or additional airlines. Using AIGTC with FSHud ATC is independent of the above setting. To use it you run the AIG Traffic Controller with the FSHud option specified, and you ensure that the FSHud ATC traffic setting 'External' is checked. Typically you do not also have the AIG option checked, although it doesn't cause any problems if you do, other than perhaps using more CPU than required. In AIGTC I set the amount of traffic to 100%, and use the FSHud ATC traffic settings to limit the amount of traffic to numbers my system can cope with. Usually people find that this method gives more traffic than the AIG setting above.

What method do you use to inject traffic in FSHud ATC? It's generally recognised that AIGTC with the FSHud integration turned on and External selected in the FSHud ATC traffic settings will give you more traffic than the internal AIG option. Of course, you may find that you could get more traffic by installing extra airlines using AIM, as you suggest.

Does anyone know if BATC injected aircraft have these variables set? I know that FSHud ATC aircraft don't. They are actually documented in the SDK, but in the Miscellaneous Variables section, which says: The following SimVars are still supported by Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020, but are considered legacy and will not be getting any further support or updates. As such, we don't recommend their use in new aircraft. And specifically for AI TRAFFIC FROMAIRPORT: The ICAO code of the departure airport in the current schedule. This variable is only valid for aircraft generated by the traffic database that have schedules. If an aircraft does not have a schedule, the value returned will an empty string"". It's also marked as not settable, so that's probably why the ATC app developers are unable to set it.

Presumably you are using an old version of the injector which hasn't had the FR24 data fetch removed from it. As I understand it FR24 'asked' FSLTL to create a new injector which doesn't attempt to access FR24 data without payment, and not to make old versions of the injector available. This can't operate retrospectively, so if users have not updated their injector they will still work.

You might do better asking in the Little Navmap forum here on Avsim, but I seem to remember that it's something to do with the way the scenery database is built from MSFS 2024. Because it can't do this by scanning the BGL files as it used to in older versions it can't tell the difference between base airports and add-ons.

FSHud has an airport configuration editor, which would allow things like this to be managed. One very simple option in this case would be to 'close' 09 as far as FSHud is concerned, but the editor provides many more more subtle options.

Well FSLTL did also say that it was their agreement with FR24 which was forcing them to make the change to remove the FSHud API connection from their injector. If FR24 say there was no agreement it sort of casts doubt on that statement. Also, if it wasn't FR24 that was causing this change then, conspiracy theory or not, it makes the BATC vs FSHud argument more likely, especially given that the developer (whakamolenz) was/is still active in both BATC and FSLTL support roles.

How on earth would that work? PSXT traffic replicates the movement of the real world aircraft by interpreting their ADSB data. FSHud needs to be able to position the aircraft as it sees fit, so that it can control them in the same way as the user aircraft. They're just (and in my opinion always will be) incompatible products.

It will.

No - because @jwhak was asking explicitly about live traffic with FSHud, which means that PSXT is a non-starter. I don't think I need to re-iterate why.

Well, not exactly, but at the moment if you want live traffic your options are fairly limited, such as MSFS's own live traffic.

Correct -PSXT does not interact with any ATC (except notionally real world ATC) - so MSFS default ATC, BATC, FSHud or whatever, are not able to control PSXT aircraft. I'm told some of them may 'see' the PSXT aircraft, and advise the user to avoid them, but that's as far as it goes. If you insist on seeing traffic as it is in the real world then by all means use it, but if you want your chosen ATC product to interact with the traffic then use something else, like AIG.

FSHud itself doesn't provide any traffic schedules - it can use FSLTL models, but something would need to inject the traffic. The FSLTL injector used to, but doesn't any more. MSFS live traffic can use FSLTL models with (or without) FSHud. IMO the best option, however, is AIG, which provides both models and schedules. You can use that in FSHud either using FSHud's own AIG option or with AIG TC/FSHud integration.

PSXT is controlled by real world ATC. Neither default ATC, BATC nor FSHud have any influence on it, which is one of the reasons I would never touch it.

AIG really isn't that difficult - you may have tried it long ago, but the AIM is now very good and virtually does everything for you. The initial install may take a while, but once that's done keeping things up to date is simple. AVSIM is being used less and less with AIG because the library seems to cause too many problems. FSHud doesn't need to use an external injector if you use AIG or MSFS live traffic.

Of course

We'll just have to await whatever the FSHud developer is referring to in the above paragraph. Meanwhile I'm happy with the AIG support in FSHud, although it has one or two issues.

I didn't have to set up custom views. I just tried the default Fenix views one by one (shift 1, etc.) until I found one with the panel I required, and configured POM to place it where I wanted it. When I run POM it deals with all the panels I've configured, one after the other, regardless which view it needs to select to find the panel.

It can only pop-out "panels" that you can pop-out manually using something like alt-gr mouse click - that's a restriction of MSFS I believe. Nevertheless it works well and I always run with it.

Another vote here for 320simpilot who was an A320 captain. If you go to his channel on youtube you'll see a few playlists, one of them specifically for the Fenix. These include some videos designed as generic A320 tutorials. They're a bit old (320simpilot has since gone to the 'dark side' and is now a real world Boeing 787 captain 😀), so a few details specific to the Fenix might be a little out of date, but the general principles of flying the airbus won't have changed and I found his style very informative.

Just for clarity, the 2024 upgrade charge was only for those of us who purchased (and presumably enjoyed using) FSHud well before 2024 was released. Nowadays purchasers of FSHud pay one price and are able to use it on 2020, 2024, and P3D.

Absolutely incorrect as far as FSHud is concerned. Sure it has to know where you are, but that's part of the sim. There's no interaction with FSHud required - if it's running it will generate traffic around you, and control and communicate with them. Many people, myself included on occasion, simply do that for traffic spotting.

Did you have AI traffic in the area. FSHud will try to separate you from traffic, firstly by requesting you and the traffic to fly at specific speeds. If that doesn't achieve the required separation it will vector you as required. If you believe the vectoring was erroneous you should capture a screen shot of your FSHud window (both comms and map) and submit a ticket. That will allow the developer to examine the logs to identify the problem.

As you may know I was a long-time user of RC, but my attempts to use it in MSFS were fruitless, and I think that even people more adept with FSUIPC etc. would find it impossible without the source code. Sadly, even if it were possible somehow, I think the devotees of BATC, SI and FSHud would find it rather dated, with its lack or real support for SIDs, STARs and approaches, no real idea of MVAs etc. Too much is left to "pilot's discression" which wouldn't satisfy today's user expectations. The vectoring, emergency procedure support, etc was good for the time, but I'm sure the current crop of alternatives are improving all the time.

That goes without saying, as FSHud already gets the current airport layout from MSFS (default or add-on) to determine the taxiways etc. Editing will surely just be added as an option on top of that.