anilcougar

I would really like to thank Vasco from msfsaddons.com This means a lot! If he sees this post, I would really like to thank him one more time https://msfsaddons.com/2026/10/24/simpassengers-v1-2-0-fills-your-msfs-2024-cabin-with-boarding-sounds-and-named-crew/

You're very welcome, Alti! 😊 Glad I could help! And thanks for bringing it up, actually. I'm sure others might have the same concern, so it's always good to clarify these things. Happy flying! ✈️ ps: one final note, we will be updating our registration process, so that users can register with their public profile disabled in registration step.

Which can be disabled in the profile page. If you don't want to share your real name or username or your flights, you are free to disable it using "Enable my public profile Turn this off if you do not want a public profile page later on."

Alright, this is actually getting funny now. :) You came into our release thread to argue that AI-generated promotional artwork damages a product's credibility. And now you've replied with a "LESS ROBOTS, MORE SOUL" graphic that appears to be AI-generated itself. That is exactly the double standard I was pointing out. You are absolutely free to dislike our banner. No problem there. But disliking a promotional image is not the same thing as evaluating the engineering behind a product. You have not tested SimPassengers. You have not pointed out a technical issue. You have not shown a bug. Yet you still felt comfortable making a credibility judgement. That is where I disagree. If you want to challenge our work, please do it the right way. Try the product. Break it. Find bugs. Show evidence. We will gladly listen, investigate, and fix what needs fixing. What we are not going to do is accept the idea that a personal opinion about a banner somehow says something meaningful about the quality of our software. So yes, we will keep focusing on what actually matters: processing flight telemetry, improving cabin simulation, fixing bugs, and making flights more enjoyable. And yes, our AVSIM Happiness Division has now appointed a duck as Interim Creative Director. At this point, he seems highly qualified. /Anil

Dear AVSIM community, Following the recent feedback on our SimPassengers v1.2.0 promotional artwork, we've identified a rather serious problem within ACE Solutions. Apparently, we desperately need a Graphics & Illustration Specialist. (: So we're considering a very important new position in our company. Graphics & Illustration Specialist (AVSIM Happiness Division) Your primary responsibility would be to create promotional images that keep our beloved AVSIM community happy, and hopefully prevent any further emotional damage caused by our AI-generated banners. Haha :D :D :D :D A good portfolio is essential. Experience surviving AVSIM discussions would be a huge plus. :) If you're a talented illustrator interested in collaborating with us, feel free to send your portfolio and CV to [email protected]. In the meantime, we'll continue doing what we do best. Processing flight telemetry, improving cabin simulation, fixing bugs, and hopefully making people's flights a little more enjoyable. Just a bit of Friday night humor, folks. This isn't a formal job opening. :) Blue skies! /Anil

Fair enough, I understand your point better now. (: And yes, first impressions matter. I don't disagree with you there. Where I see things differently is that I don't believe using AI to create a promotional image says much about the care or effort that went into the actual product. Let me explain something about how we work. We're processing a ridiculous amount of data behind SimPassengers. Flight telemetry, passenger behaviour, airline-specific operations, cabin events, announcements, scoring... there's a lot happening behind the scenes that people never actually see. And honestly? That's exactly where we want to spend our time and energy. We're software developers. Our priority is making sure that when someone starts a flight, the cabin feels alive, the systems behave properly, and the whole experience adds something meaningful to their simulator. That's what we care about. And that's where we're going to keep our focus. So yes, we'll probably continue using AI for some promotional artwork. It's a useful tool for us, especially when we'd rather spend those hours improving the software itself. If some people see an AI-generated illustration and immediately think "AI slop", well, I can live with that. :) Because at the end of the day, we're not trying to make people enjoy our promotional images. We're trying to make them enjoy their flights. And I genuinely believe that if you'd actually tried SimPassengers, you'd have a much better understanding of what I mean. I do appreciate you explaining your perspective, though. And I respect the work you're putting into your own product. Being an independent developer isn't easy, we both know that. We just have different priorities when it comes to marketing, and that's fine. Oh, and one more thing. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to give you a complimentary copy of SimPassengers, including the Advanced Pack. If interested please reach out to me our to us using [email protected] email. No strings attached. No expectations for a review or anything like that. Just take it for a flight and see what we've been spending all those hours working on. (: Thanks for the feedback. /Anil

Hi iFlySimX, You're absolutely entitled to dislike AI-generated promotional images. That's your personal preference, and I respect it. However, I find your conclusion about our product's credibility rather difficult to understand. We're a small software development team. We don't have a dedicated graphic designer, and frankly, hiring one to create an illustration for every release announcement isn't a priority for us. SimPassengers is a telemetry-driven cabin experience application. It's not a scenery package or a visual enhancement product. The work we've invested in is in the software itself, its functionality, and the experience it delivers. We used AI to create a promotional illustration. That's it. We're not hiding it, and I don't see why we should apologize for using a tool that's available to us. What makes your comment particularly interesting is something you wrote yourself on July 8: "AI can be very helpful, if used properly..." Your original AVSIM comment I actually agree with you. So here's my question: If creating a promotional illustration for a software announcement isn't an appropriate use of AI, what exactly would be? I also had a look at your project, iFly Schedules. It's an impressive-looking platform, and I genuinely respect the work that goes into developing and maintaining software independently. But as someone who develops and markets a commercial flight simulation product yourself, I would have expected you to understand the difference between the quality of software and the tools used to produce its marketing materials. You're perfectly welcome to criticize SimPassengers. Its functionality, performance, features, and overall experience are all fair subjects for discussion. But dismissing a software product you haven't even tried because its developer used AI to create one promotional image? I don't think that's a particularly fair or meaningful way to evaluate someone's work. We're software developers. We build software. And I'd much rather have our work judged by what it actually does than by how its announcement was illustrated. With love... /Anil

Hey everyone! Anil here from ACE Solutions. :) Well, we've been pretty busy lately and I'm happy to say that SimPassengers v1.2.0 is finally out! This is quite a big update for us. I was flying the PMDG 777 from Chicago to Munich last night, testing the new version, and something made me smile. I was sitting in the cockpit, doing the usual stuff, checking the FMC, talking to ATC, and behind me I could hear passengers boarding. People walking, bags being put away, seats moving. The purser welcoming passengers. British Airways' beautiful boarding music playing in the background too. And I thought... yeah. This is what we wanted when we started building SimPassengers. Not just another window telling you how many passengers you have. An actual cabin. With people in it. So what's new? First, the cabin is a lot more alive now. We've added Cabin Ambience to the Advanced Pack. During boarding you'll hear footsteps, overhead bins, passengers settling into their seats, tray tables and sometimes a baby who's clearly having a bad day. Haha :) Your purser can also greet passengers individually at the door, using the airline's language and English. Once you're in cruise, things calm down. Sounds become less frequent and announcements still have priority. You can adjust the ambience volume or turn it off completely if it's not your thing. Your crew has names now! This one was fun to build. Your captain introduces themselves during the welcome announcement, and your purser does the same. Names are selected from pools covering 29 languages. They match the voices and stay the same throughout your flight. Not every airline has named introductions yet, and we've tried to respect different naming conventions. We checked Turkish, English and German pronunciations ourselves. The rest have been checked automatically, but I'm not going to pretend we've heard every possible name in 29 languages. :) If you hear a weird one, please email us. Seriously, we'd appreciate it. Both named crew introductions and the new Cabin Ambience are Advanced Pack features. Now, something for everyone. High Quality voices are now the default for ALL SimPassengers users! Yes, Basic users too. We've also improved voice reliability so Standard Quality can step in if a High Quality announcement fails. And if you actually prefer Standard Quality, you're still free to use it. We haven't taken that option away. ### Fenix v3 pilots, we haven't forgotten you! The latest Fenix A320 update changed how some aircraft information is reported. One of those changes broke the way SimPassengers detected flight completion at the gate. We tracked it down and changed the detection logic, and we've verified the fix in actual simulator flights. So if you had problems finishing your flights with Fenix v3, v1.2.0 includes a fix for that specific issue. Please let us know if you notice anything else. We're listening. A few other things... We've improved Turkish voice announcements, fixed some login issues, cleaned up crew name handling and made airline database updates easier. Advanced Pack pilots now get a badge on their public profiles and a gold aircraft on the live map. Also fixed the Latest Flights list on mobile. Finally! :) There's more in the full release notes, but I won't turn this post into a changelog with 200 lines. ### Can I share something with you? A couple of days ago I was looking at our leaderboard and noticed one of our pilots had completed 148 flights with SimPassengers. 148 flights! The guy absolutely destroyed my own record. And I'm the one building it. Not fair! Haha :) So I emailed him. I wanted to know what he actually thought of SimPassengers, what he liked, what annoyed him, what we could do better. He sent back such a kind and thoughtful response. He also pointed out the Fenix v3 compatibility issues and suggested supporting smaller private and business jets in the future. That email really made my day. Because, look, we're a small team. We spend a ridiculous amount of time working on all these little details, trying things, breaking things, fixing them again... And sometimes you wonder if anyone actually notices. Then someone tells you they've been enjoying what you built for 148 flights. That's a pretty good feeling, I have to say. :) Anyway, I won't get all emotional here. We built SimPassengers because we're aviation nuts. We love flight simulation, and we wanted the cabin to be part of that experience, not just something invisible behind the cockpit door. If you're already flying with us, thank you. And if you're new, welcome aboard! As always, please tell us what you think. Good feedback, bad feedback, bug reports, ideas. All of it. You can reach us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]). See you in the skies! Anil ACE Solutions P.S. The crew names are still my favourite little detail. Hearing a purser introduce themselves and then welcome passengers at the door... I don't know, it just makes the aircraft feel different. :) Just keep in mind. This is only for Advanced users. And upgrading from Basic to Advanced is coming up shortly. P.P.S. A little something for the space enthusiasts among us! :) Okay, this has absolutely nothing to do with SimPassengers. Haha! We also happen to be a bunch of space nerds, and in our spare time we built a little Space Tracker to follow the International Space Station. It started as a fun side project, really. We just love this stuff. Anyway, we thought some of you might enjoy it too, so why not share it? https://space.ace-sim.com Completely free. No SimPassengers purchase or subscription needed. Just something we made for fun and wanted to share with fellow aviation and space enthusiasts. Hope you enjoy it! :) One final note, if you are a Virtual Airline owner, and you have your own radio call or you would like your Virtual Airline be supported by SimPassengers please drop us an email to [email protected] we're here to help.

Supertonic is needed for the high quality PA and multiple languages support. Soon we'll be removing the standard quality version. So to be honest it's not messy, it's super tidy

1.1.9 is mostly a data release. It started with a simple report from a pilot flying Aeroitalia: there was no Italian announcement. That turned into a much bigger cleanup than we expected. We went through roughly 250 airline records and found quite a few cases where the airline name, country or ICAO code was either outdated or simply wrong. A few examples: Korean Air, Asiana, Jeju Air and Air Busan had never announced in Korean. Their country was stored as "Republic of Korea", while the language table expected "South Korea", so the match never happened. The same issue affected Syrian, Dutch and Russian carriers. 21 airlines in total were missing their expected language because of this. Aeroitalia was being identified as "Aerial Transit Company", an old US company that no longer exists. That meant Aeroitalia flights were running announcements in English instead of Italian. Sky Alps was still tied to an old Swiss European Air Lines entry, so an Italian regional airline was announcing in German. ITA Airways, AJet, Akasa Air, Riyadh Air, Air Peace, easyJet Europe and quite a few others are now recognised properly for the first time. Mozambique's flag carrier will no longer introduce itself as "Linhas A". We found 12 ICAO codes that pointed to two airlines at once. One of the better examples was MAI, which could resolve to a defunct Kyrgyz airline and make a Mauritania Airlines flight announce in Russian. Belgium now uses French for its local-language announcements, and Brussels Airlines is properly recognised by name. We also changed how SimPassengers reads the flight logs you send us. The next report should give us considerably more useful information than the previous format did. And genuinely, keep sending those logs when something sounds wrong. This entire release exists because one pilot flew an Italian airline, noticed there was no Italian in the cabin, and took the time to report it. That one report uncovered all of this. A special thanks to Emiliano Gnudi, whose report about missing Italian announcements on an Aeroitalia flight started this whole investigation. One good bug report ended up uncovering issues across roughly 250 airline records. That is exactly why these reports matter. 1.1.9 is available now.

Development is continuing, and we’ll share the next update when we’re ready. From this point forward, I won’t be posting further development updates in this thread. I’m not interested in having the product or the work behind it dragged into repeated trolling, bad-faith questions, or unacceptable claims. We’ll keep building, testing, and improving ACE privately, and when there is something we’re ready to show, we’ll show it. Until then, there's only one thing you can do, "Wait" /Anil

Guys, SimPassengers 1.1.8 is out. This one got a little out of hand (: It started as a fairly normal update and somehow ended up with 30 supported languages, airline specific boarding music, a pile of announcement changes and a few bugs that had apparently been sitting there quietly waiting for us to notice them. The main change is the cabin language system. Passenger announcements now follow the airline you are flying for. Lufthansa speaks German and English, Turkish speaks Turkish and English, Iberia speaks Spanish and English, JAL speaks Japanese and English, and so on. English speaking airlines stay in English, so there is no silly English followed by the same English again. The other big change is boarding music. There is now a Real World Music library. If SimPassengers knows the airline, it picks the matching boarding music automatically. If it does not, it just falls back to your normal track. We also went through the announcements again after actually flying with them and changed quite a few things that sounded wrong once you heard them in the aircraft. Flight time is now gate to gate, aircraft names are pronounced properly, airport names are spoken as cities, the arrival update has much more useful information, and the captain no longer tells you pushback is about to start while you are already going backwards (: We also found that "cabin crew, be seated for landing" had never actually played. Ever. That is fixed now. And please don't forget to run the launcher and switch to High Quality audio engine The bridge reconnect issue after restarting MSFS is also fixed. The old bridge process was sometimes staying alive after the sim closed and blocking the next one. Anders Bermann also managed to find an airline mapping problem during beta by flying Heathrow to Brussels and getting welcomed "on behalf of BEL". So thanks Anders for breaking it before everyone else could (: There are a few other things in there too, including the new Hall of Fame, Advanced aircraft showing in gold on the live map and the pilot card inside the launcher. Anyway, 1.1.8 is available now. Install it over the existing version as usual. If you find something stupid, let me know. We seem to be getting pretty good at finding those lately (: /Anil

Guys OMG! What a thread. I was away for 2 days trying to handle the related documents required by law (which i will honestly tell what it is) I’ll read through all of it and respond back to you about what’s been going on lately. Thanks a ton... /Anil

Hey Mark, I totally get your point, and this is actually one of the most important distinctions with ACE. We are not using Gemini, OpenAI, Claude, or another third-party LLM as the intelligence behind ACE. We are using our own LLM engine and reasoning stack, which I have been developing for nearly four years and which is already being used in real-world aviation-related work within our company. I would love, love, love to share more about that side of it, but unfortunately we are bound by a number of NDAs with aviation companies we already work with. For now, all I can tell you is that her name is Jenny. :) But you gave me a very good idea. The ACE of ATCs website is coming online toward the end of this month, and I am going to start a development blog there. I want to show exactly how we deal with problems like the one you described at EHAM: airport-specific rules, pushback restrictions, permitted taxi flows, runway configurations, and the operational logic behind the route that ACE chooses. Because you are absolutely right: this cannot simply be an LLM guessing a taxi route. There is another interesting problem here too. AI cannot invent documentation that does not exist. The MSFS SDK documentation has significant gaps, and when simulator behavior or an interface is undocumented, an AI model has no magical way of knowing the correct implementation either. That part still requires engineering, testing, reverse engineering where appropriate, and a lot of validation. So ACE is not a "prompt an LLM and hope for the best" project. Its systems are purpose-built around aviation logic and simulator behavior. I happen to be both a licensed pilot and a software engineer, and I have been in love with the simulation world for years. ACE really came from wanting to put those three worlds together. We have the processing power in 2026 to do things that would have been extremely difficult in a consumer simulator only a few years ago. My goal is simply to use that capability to build the ATC system I always wanted to have in the simulator. That is also why I asked Kennedy Steve to become part of the project. I explained what we were building and where we wanted to take it, and he said yes. And yes, I really like your EHAM suggestion. That may very well become one of the first development blog posts. Best, /Anil

Eric, We have had this dance before, haven't we? (: Let's start with the "LLM marketing" comment. I literally said yesterday that I sometimes use AI to clean up and beautify my English before posting here. English is not my native language, and when I write something detailed on AVSIM I prefer the grammar and wording to be clean. I do that because I respect this community. So congratulations, I guess. You have discovered something I publicly disclosed myself less than 24 hours ago (: Now let's separate writing style from engineering. If you believe a technical claim I have made is wrong, quote it and challenge it. For example do you know what AMAN/DMAN is? or Director level? Seriously I'm asking this. If you think our sequencing logic is wrong, challenge it. If you think the runway logic is wrong, challenge it. If you think the architecture is wrong, challenge it. I will happily have that discussion all day. But repeatedly calling detailed technical posts "LLM marketing" is not a technical argument. And since you seem very convinced that this is mostly AI-generated marketing noise, let me ask you a very simple question. Why do you think Kennedy Steve is involved in this project? A retired JFK ground controller, known by probably half this forum, has put his name, voice and persona behind ACE. Now, to be very clear before somebody deliberately misunderstands that sentence, Kennedy Steve being involved is not proof that every line of code works perfectly. Of course it isn't. But it does make the "this is basically AI marketing" narrative look a little silly, doesn't it? Do you really think we generated some nice forum posts, attached an AI label to them, and somehow Kennedy Steve just wandered into the project by accident? (: On the demonstration video, you do have a fair point. We have not published a full end-to-end ACE demonstration yet. I have never claimed otherwise. That video will come. What I will not do is rush out a carefully staged 90 second "proof" video just because somebody demands one in a forum thread. When we demonstrate ACE properly, I want to show the actual system managing traffic, including the ugly situations where the original plan breaks and the system has to deal with it. Until then, saying "I haven't seen the full demo yet" is completely reasonable skepticism. Saying "I haven't seen the full demo yet, therefore these technical posts are AI marketing" is a conclusion you invented yourself. Those are not the same thing. Also, ACE is not in public beta. We announced beta recruitment and we are onboarding testers. Again, not the same thing. You are asking us for evidence, which is perfectly fair. But then apply the same standard to yourself. Wanna join our beta team? Tell us about your aviation expertise and send us an email at [email protected]. If your aviation background is strong enough, we’ll be happy to put ACE in front of you and let you test it yourself (:Don't ask me for proof while filling the gaps in your own knowledge with assumptions and presenting those assumptions as conclusions. You don't get to demand a higher standard of evidence from us than you apply to your own claims (: So please, remain skeptical. I genuinely mean that. But be skeptical about ACE. About the architecture. About the traffic logic. About the operational decisions. About the actual demonstrations when we publish them. That is useful criticism. Complaining that I sometimes use AI to improve my English, after I openly told everyone that I do, is not. And calling the entire project "LLM marketing" while Kennedy Steve is literally standing beside us is certainly an interesting hill to choose (: Regards, /Anil

Mark, Thank you. This is actually a very good post. And I mean that quite seriously, because after reading some of the other comments in this thread, the bar for having an actual technical discussion seems to have dropped through the floor (: You are asking what ACE does, how we are approaching specific operational problems, where the limits are, and what we are testing. That is completely different from inventing a version of ACE in your own head, deciding how we must have built it, and then spending three paragraphs explaining why your imaginary version cannot work. I have very little interest in that kind of discussion. If somebody wants to challenge an architectural decision, operational logic, a test result, or something we actually built, fantastic. Bring it on. But if the entire argument starts with assumptions about an architecture you have never seen, then congratulations, you are not debating us. You are debating yourself. Anyway, your questions are real ones, so let me answer them. On hardware, I don't want to publish minimum or recommended specifications yet. Could I put some numbers here today? Sure. Would they mean anything? Not really. We have a good understanding of the compute footprint already, but beta testing across different machines is what will give us numbers I am actually comfortable publishing. CPUs, GPUs, different simulator settings, traffic levels, all of that matters. I'd rather tell you "we don't have the final answer yet" than make up a neat little hardware table for marketing purposes. The goal is absolutely not to require some ridiculous monster PC just to run ATC in the background. Once we have enough beta telemetry, I will publish proper minimum and recommended specs. On sequencing, yes. Holds, go-arounds, missed approaches and re-sequencing are not optional extras for us. They are part of traffic management. ACE cannot simply play the correct phrase when a condition is triggered. It has to understand why the sequence is no longer viable, what changed in the traffic picture, which aircraft now has priority, which aircraft needs delaying, and how to rebuild the plan. Otherwise, let's call it what it is. It isn't ATC intelligence. It is a phrase generator wearing an ATC costume. The runway/taxiway crossing question is something I am testing quite heavily at the moment. Chicago Midway is actually one of the airports I use for it, because MDW is absolutely brutal in a good way for testing ground logic (: Intersecting runways, lots of runway crossings, tightly coupled movements. It exposes stupid logic very, very quickly. Generating a taxi route is easy. The hard part is understanding whether an aircraft is allowed to cross a runway at that moment, what is on the runway, what is approaching it, what has already been cleared, whether another clearance creates a conflict, and which controller owns that movement. If your "ground controller" can draw a line from the gate to the runway but cannot reason about those things, you don't have ground control. You have Google Maps with a radio voice. Runway selection is the same story. ACE is not being designed around "RWY 27 active, send everybody there." Aircraft limitations matter. Runway length matters. Approach availability matters. Traffic flow matters. Weather matters. The current configuration matters. And exceptions matter. An aircraft may not be able to use the preferred runway. A runway configuration that worked ten minutes ago may stop making sense. Traffic can force a change. That is exactly the kind of problem the system is supposed to solve. The happy path is not particularly interesting. Pretty much anybody can make a demo work when every aircraft behaves perfectly, every runway remains available and nobody does anything unexpected. The interesting part begins when reality ruins your beautiful plan. On user runway configuration, yes, users will have control. I don't want ACE to be one of those magical AI boxes where the answer to every question is basically "trust the model." No. There need to be constraints, operational context, visible state and user control. We are still deciding exactly how much of that should be exposed in the first release because there is another problem on the opposite side: give people every internal switch we have and suddenly the ATC interface looks like a nuclear submarine. So there is a balance there. And yes, I completely agree on the FAQ. Actually, at this point I think it is necessary. Not just because the thread is becoming long, but because useful technical questions are now getting mixed together with speculation, assumptions, and some frankly bizarre conclusions about a system the people making those conclusions have never used and whose architecture they have never seen. That makes it unnecessarily difficult for somebody genuinely interested in ACE to work out what is fact and what somebody simply made up five posts earlier. So yes, I will put one together. And Mark, genuinely, thank you for the questions. I have absolutely no problem with skepticism. I have no problem with difficult questions either. If somebody thinks something we built is wrong, show me where it is wrong and we'll talk about it all day. But inventing our implementation for us and then proudly discovering problems in the thing you invented is not criticism. It is fan fiction (: Regards, /Anil

I know (: System Wide Information Management System! We're ready for that too! ps: That's what I do for living tho!

To be 100% honest, yes sometimes i'm using AI to perfect my post. Because I don't want to type or send any bad written words to this community, because I respect AVSIM a lot. If we're talking about the LLM behind de ACE of ATCs, that I can not tell, because this fully custom AI modeled and trained by ACE Solutions. Since actually my company's real focus is on real world aviation and that information can not be shared because of signed NDAs and what not. For the audio part, we're partnering with couple of Amazing Audio Generation software companies but it will be based on how a user wants to pay? For example. if they want the real deal, it'll cost more, but if they are ok with standard quality it will cost less. And for the final part, actually VFR and chopper operations are already done, but I don't want to give all features in the release, because it's hard to control, hard to test and also very time consuming to fix bugs. But I can safely say, those feature will be free-of-charge. And finally, yeah it's gonna be monthly subscription based, I can fight for this choice for days or weeks or months but believe me the money behind this thing is super demanding, requiring those server payments and everything. Ohhh not to forget, yes if you don't wanna do STT (Speech to Text) you will still have text options too.

Fair criticism. The original post was intentionally high-level, so let’s leave the philosophy behind and talk about what ACE actually does. First, on the question of whether you will be properly vectored: If ACE could not issue tactically correct vectors, there would be very little point in us talking about AMAN, DMAN or Director logic in the first place. Vectoring is not the impressive part of the architecture. It is the baseline. ACE is not built around a simple “pilot asks, ATC replies” model. Above the tactical controller layer, ACE has separate traffic-management systems responsible for sequencing arrivals, managing departures, balancing flow and deciding how aircraft should be integrated into the wider traffic picture. AMAN looks at the arrival stream. DMAN looks at departures. Director logic sits above the tactical level and works with the traffic picture as a whole. So the heading, speed or altitude instruction you receive is not intended to be an isolated response generated because your aircraft happened to need something at that moment. It is the tactical result of a larger sequencing and traffic-management decision. That distinction matters. AI Traffic Integration FSLTL is fully supported today. ACE also has its own traffic injection capability, so the system is not tied to a single third-party traffic package. Additional sources such as AIG or JustFlight traffic can be integrated without changing the underlying ATC architecture. For live traffic, ACE currently uses OpenSky. When you are online, ACE retrieves the available real-world traffic picture and uses that data to construct its own virtual traffic environment. Once inside that environment, those aircraft are not decorative traffic. They are traffic. ACE sees them, sequences them, separates them and manages them through the same traffic-management architecture used for the player aircraft. And yes, the user aircraft receives traffic information as well. Traffic advisories are not reserved for AI pilots. If another aircraft becomes operationally relevant to you, ATC can call that traffic to you. So, plainly: FSLTL: supported. Own injector: yes. Live traffic source: currently OpenSky. Traffic advisories to the user aircraft: yes. Traffic sequencing and flow management: AMAN, DMAN and Director-level logic. Weather and METAR Sources ACE is weather-aware, and the user is not locked to one METAR provider. You can choose which source ACE should use, including the simulator’s own weather environment, VATSIM METAR data or IVAO METAR data. The selected source becomes part of ACE’s operational picture, so weather-related ATC decisions are based on the environment you have actually chosen to fly in rather than forcing everyone onto one provider. If you are using simulator weather, ACE can work from that environment. If you want your operation aligned with VATSIM or IVAO weather data instead, you can select the corresponding source. I will address the more specific weather scenarios you raised, such as deviations, convective weather, holding and rerouting, separately, because those deserve proper operational answers rather than another yes/no soundbite.

Thank you, much appreciated. I agree, the ATC space still has some very real gaps, and that is exactly what made us want to approach it differently. Over the next few posts I’ll be sharing more of the operational detail behind ACE, so you’ll get a much clearer picture of where we think those differences are.

Good question. The initial beta is focused on IFR operations, not specifically on airliners or large hubs. So the real boundary in the first release is flight rules, not aircraft size. GA aircraft operating IFR from smaller and regional fields are absolutely within the intended scope, provided the relevant procedures and airport data are available. VFR will not be part of the initial beta release. We are deliberately expanding the operational scope in stages, with VFR and broader GA operations coming later as the IFR core matures. So in short: small aircraft, yes. Small airports, yes. IFR, yes. VFR, not in version one.

You are def right! i had some family related problems that i had to handle, but everything is a-ok right now and a new version is coming up tomorrow.

You absolutely did, Dave (: You called it very early. Kennedy Steve is indeed part of ACE of ATCs, and I think you’ll enjoy what we have coming next. There is a lot more operational detail to share now, so I’ll be getting into that properly in this thread.

Hey vonduck! Thanks a lot for your kind words brother. Having Kennedy Steve on board is something we’re incredibly proud of, and we’re only just getting started. Can’t wait to finally get ACE of ATCs into your hands! ❤️

Thanks a lot! Really appreciate that — especially coming from someone building on the commercial side of the flight sim community. We’ve put a huge amount of work into ACE of ATCs, and we’re very excited to finally start showing what it can do. There’s a lot more to come very soon. Would genuinely love to hear your thoughts once you’ve had a chance to see it in action!