zachlog

I understand that there is no positional data coming from FR24 and frankly AI aircraft positional accuracy does not interest me. What I am interested in is BATC coordinating the positions of my A/C and AI aircraft so that there are no "collisions"/positional conflicts. This is where native MSFS 2024 AI traffic fails miserably and FSLTL mitigates the risk of such occurrences with its in-cockpit RESET TRAFFIC capability. Is my expectation of BATC unrealistic ? Will the product not manage positional coordination ?

This "more often than not you get cleared to taxi into AI traffic (or them through you)." is a big problem, perhaps the biggest. It is the single most important reason I will not use native MSFS 2024 AI. FSLTL has the same problem but this risk is mitigated with the in-cockpit menu to reset traffic during critical times on the ground. I highlighted BATC's AI traffic management shortcomings in the survey they are running currently (subscribers only). With the upcoming integration of FR24 traffic into BATC, it sounds like this is a focus area for them. I hope I am right.

Not strange but I bet you're seeing only static aircraft. I too noticed this because I forgot to change my desktop's shortcut and I was executing Injector v1.9.x (thus my problem above). After fixing the shortcut, I was able to authenticate with Injector v2.0. However, I see lots of parked aircraft but nothing moving. Not sure how long it takes for active traffic to appear.

I followed the instructions for installing the Injector 2.0, all went well, was prompted for the "y", saw the various FSLTL messages in the command/terminal window.....but the web page to authenticate with NAVIGRAPH did not open. How do I fix this ? Is there a URL I can open manually ? Thanks

Thanks for clarifying.

For products that inject traffic, for me the single most important factor is AI traffic being aware of my aircraft's presence and AI aircraft adjusting their behavior accordingly. AI aircraft going through my aircraft like a hot knife going through butter, especially at intersections and runway holding points, is a show stopper regardless of the level of sophistication of other features. How will the new FSHud release manage AI aircraft behavior with respect to my aircraft ?

I gave the default Real-Time traffic a try and it seems to work fine just like FSLTL with one major exception. With either FSLTL or default Real-Time traffic, the biggest problem for me with these uncontrolled A/C roaming around in airports is that they are.... uncontrolled- they cut you off at taxiways, go through you, etc. so what we gain in realism visually, we lose functionally. FSLTL had mitigated this problem via the in-flight menu by giving us the option to remove nearby A/C or reset air traffic. For me being able to avoid such occurrences at critical times, e.g., while taking off or landing was key. There is no such option with the default Real-Time traffic and for me this is a show stopper. Taxiing becomes a video game especially in busy airports. In the near-term I will continue to use FSLTL since the eye candy aspect of flight simulation is low on my priority list and make a longer-term decision later (I have seen the various posts with other options).

What are some of these alternatives to which to which you are alluding ?

I think you are misinterpreting "commercially dead". It means no new development, no new products for MSFS 2020. It does not mean they do not support products developed previously for this platform. If you own a PMDG product, you can go to the OC3 Support page and take a look at the workflow to open a ticket. In the dropdown to select the simulator where the problem is occurring, MSFS 2020 is very much one of the options among quite a few others. In the future, they might very well drop support for MSFS 2020 but it will be announced in no uncertain terms and they will not rely on some ambiguous term.

I am assuming this path is what you specified in the PMDG OC3 settings as the Community Path (regardless if it's MSFS 2020 or 2024). If this is the case, does this path match the path of what you believe to be the simulator's Community folder, i.e., where all the rest of the "community items" reside ? If the answer is "No", this is your problem.

This URL is coming-up as "Invalid Page....".

I tried using the automated pushback and it seems to work but I think I will continue doing manual pushbacks for a couple of reasons. First, the speed of the pushback is too high for 75+ ton aircraft. It is not realistic and I don't think the the speed can be adjusted. Let me know if otherwise. Second the user interface is not very user friendly so I don't want to spend time getting that just right. For me it is not worth the effort. Manual pushback does a great job with customizing the path of the pushback and being able to manage the speed, especially when turning. Thanks

Good question. When I had first attempted to do an automated pushback in MSFS 2024, it did not work. What I cannot remember is if I had re-tried doing automated pushbacks after I had updated the MSFS 2024 Global settings and got the manual pushback to work (my 2nd post further up). I will give it another try.

I do approximately 7-10 flights weekly evenly split between PMDG and Fenix aircraft. I migrated to MSFS 2024 gradually starting mid-2025 and got frustrated immediately with pushback because Pushback Toolbar (PT) was no longer working for PMDG and Fenix aircraft. What was frustrating me was that the simplest but absolutely necessary phase of a flight was not working and there was no way to fix it without installing a complex product. What ticked me off even more was that when PMDG released the B77W, it did not include the pushback functionality that was already in the B738 MSFS 2020 version since the beginning of time. This delayed my migration to MSFS 2024. About 2-3 months ago, 787flyer from this forum (God bless him !) finally pointed me in the right direction. When using PT, Assistance | Realism | ATC Enforce Flight Plan must be OFF. Leaving it ON creates a conflict with PT and the A/C begins to move all over the place. In my case both PMDG and Fenix aircraft were impacted in the same way. It is also possible that several other settings related to native ATC functionality must be OFF as well. I had set these to OFF day #1 so I cannot say with certainty how they impact the PT since they were already OFF even when I was having PT problems. As I indicated in my previous post, prior to starting tug movement, you must remove the chocks and you must release the A/C's parking brake. If you don't, the A/C will start rising as if it it being levitated 😀 and it will come down slowly to the tarmac when pushback is terminated. The PT's automated pushback and voices do not work in MSFS 2024. For me this is a non-issue.

If you're looking for a no frills pushback tool that does not add risk to the stability and reliability of your simulator environment, I recommend the Toolbar Pushback from flightsim.to. It works in MSFS 2024 just like MSFS 2020 but with a couple of limitations. No automated pushback/manual only and no voice support. Both of these limitations are non-issues for me.

I think going with VATSIM is probably the best way to come as close as possible to simulating ATC IRL while concurrently keeping in mind that it is not possible to simulate the ATC complexities of a KJFK or EDDF with a free service or a $50 consumer product. ATC is the weakest part of a product like MSFS 2024 and this is not going to change. In VATSIM, controller availability, controller disappearance (plan a route with controlled air space but by the time you get "there" the controller has signed-off) and partial air space coverage (e.g., TWR controller present, no Departure or Center controller) are the challenges. When there is end-to-end coverage, it's great. Despite this, if you are willing to fly in the geographic areas I have listed below during evenings and/or weekends (times local to the airspace), you will get a good understanding what ATC is like. Per my experience, this is where I see air space controlled most frequently. Sometimes it gets quite intense. Northeast U.S. (Boston FIR) Southeast U.S. (Jacksonville FIR) West Coast U.S. (Los Angeles FIR) Northwest Europe (especially Germany) U.K. (London)

I think the touch down sound of the Fenix is well done from a sound quality perspective but I think the location-specific experience needs tweaking. I don't think this is what one hears when in the cockpit. Seeing the various posts for other aircraft as well, sound tends to be perceived very differently so there will always be suggestions for improvement. I had also seen a post or two that Fenix aircraft have no sound or something to that effect and that claim is incorrect.

With all the advice and information you provided now I am able to land Airbus aircraft consistently with ROD 100 - 300 FPM. Key causes of my difficulties: I was not prepared for the pitch down at 30' RA and when the A/C pitched, I would over compensate so the flare was starting improperly (thanks Tom W.). Stick movement was exaggerated. "Apply back pressure on the stick" means exactly that but I was moving the stick way too much and that led to all sorts corrections and messy landings. During the last 1000' RA, I was making too many unnecessary lateral and vertical corrections. There are two things in the Fenix Airbus implementation, which seem a little off. First, the slightest movement of the throttle produces a lot of power and very quickly. This is very noticeable in landings with manual thrust and when taxiing. I was under the impression that jet engines need a bit of time to spool up. I wonder if increasing the throttle Dead Zone would help in making the increase in power more gradual when the throttles are at the IDLE position, I will give it a try (currently set at 0.06). The second item is the usefulness of the "RETARD, RETARD....." enunciation. In multiple flights I heard it after retarding the throttles and in a flight yesterday landing with manual thrust, I heard it after the throttles were retarded and the A/C was on the runway and decelerating. I don't think I can rely on it for timing the throttle reduction during the flare. Thank you all vey much !

Here are two question regarding the auto trim logic in your comments: How does Airbus logic determine when the A/C is in "flare mode" ? Is it the combination of stick pullback and AGL ? Is it just AGL ? During the flare, is this auto trim logic you reference in effect regardless of thrust mode (auto thrust or manual thrust) ? I am slowly getting there 😅

I do not but after I do some work with the suggestions and information provided above, if I am still having the same problem, I will post a video with one of my problem landings. What do you use to create a video clip for a flight ? I have never done one.

TCA Captain Pack Airbus Edition.

Thanks a lot, very helpful in identifying the key points in landing on which I need to focus including stick movement.

A few questions regarding retarding throttles in the Airbus (Fenix): When auto thrust is engaged, do the throttles have to be fully in the IDLE position for the engines to go idle or does the movement of the throttles from the CLB to the IDLE position start the throttle retard process ? Should I always wait for the "RETARD, RETARD....." enunciation before bringing the throttles to the IDLE position or can I start retarding the throttles at 30' AGL even before the enunciation is heard ? I have confirmed that throttles are calibrated correctly but sometimes I hear the enunciation even after retarding the throttles so this is a sequence of events question. How do I make the throttles IDLE position "wider" to make sure the throttles are retarded with certainty without having to be exactly at the IDLE detente ? Increase the Dead Zone ? Per my OP, my Airbus landings are improving but I am not there yet. I think the timely retarding of the throttles is part of my problem. I am assuming that in the current Fenix implementation of the "RETARD, RETARD......" enunciation, there is no problem with its timing in relation to the flare. Please let me know if otherwise.

This "drop" at 50' AGL is something I have been seeing lately but much more so with the Fenix variants. I used to be able to land these aircraft consistently with a landing rate of 250 FPM or less after the release of the BFU and before the release of SU4 but now I am struggling to have decent landings. In my case the PMDG B738 is a lesser problem when it comes to A/C behavior with respect to the ground (touchdown, taxi, takeoff roll, etc.). My approach is to try to improve my landing skills and not wait for any "enhancements". This moving target in the simulation world does take some of the fun out of this hobby.

"cannot get the overhead to work" is insufficient to provide any guidance. Provide specific observations for the problem and someone will be able to help you.